The Maltese Falcon (1931)

Absolutely the worst movie.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I was quite impressed with this. Ricardo Cortez plays Sam Spade and does it in a flip, confident style that counters Bogart's more sullen, dispirited presentation. The story is the same. The police have no time for Spade but they do respect him. When Archer, Sam's partner, is murdered, Sam doesn't bat an eye. The two seemed to hate each other and Sam has had dalliance with Mrs. Archer. Bebe Daniels (Ruth Wonderly) is willing to do anything and kill anyone to achieve riches. She double crosses anyone that comes along, including Sam. Casper Gutman and Joel Cairo are very well done, with some of the same idiosyncrasies as those in the future film. I was ready to be disappointed, but really found myself entranced with this film.

Despite the silent-to-talkie transition style, I liked this one better than the Bogart one. In fact, I think it exposes Bogart's counterfeit toughness (among other things, he was too short). Ricardo Cortez was a great choice. Perhaps George Raft might have been a better Sam Spade in the 1941 version. The similarity in dialogue between the two movies begs the issue of insufficient originality in the later version.Comparing 1931 v 1941 characters, I think only Sydney Greenstreet provides a more interesting product. As the same (or similar) character, Alison Skipworth, as Madame Barabbas in Satan Met a Lady 1936, finishes second. From that same movie, Marie Wilson finishes second to Una Merkel as Effie, with 1941's Lee Patrick a distant third.I like them all. I like the structure of the mystery. It reminds me (it's just me) a little of John Le Carre mysteries where, as in Tinker Tailor, the investigator knows the answer from the beginning.

It is amazing to me how the 1931 version with Cortez and the third version with Bogart are so similar. Actors using the same inflection of voice etc. The middle version (second) is not worthy of mention even though it almost cost Bette Davis her career. She complained she was being forced to film "junk" after completing a prestige project like The Petrified Forest. She failed to report to the set. "I was so distressed by the whole tone of the script and the vapidity of my part that I marched up to Mr. Warner's office and demanded that I be given work that was commensurate with my proved ability," she later recalled in her autobiography. She was suspended on December 3 and, angry and resentful but in need of her salary to cover living expenses and other family expenses she reported on December 6. .

It's somewhat surprising how different two versions of the same story can be. While the later version starring Humphrey Bogart had moments so clever and stylish that you find yourself laughing at the greatness of the writing and the actors' delivery, it is this version which really takes a lighter, more humorous approach.Not that it's a comedy -- that would be "Satan Met a Lady" -- but it wisecracks it's way through the labyrinthine plot with a wry smirk the whole way. That's how Cortez plays Sam Spade; more flagrantly immoral, and more satisfied about it, than Bogart, and always with a kind of toothy grin plastered across his face. The character of Spade is always putting on an act, and sometimes he may even fool himself. It's not as great a performance as Bogart's, but it escapes comparison by being such a different take on the character.The story, as I remember, is not as clear here as it is in the later version, nor is it as stylish, or the supporting cast quite as memorable. Still, it's a competent, very entertaining noir. Plus, being made in 1931, it still has the aesthetic of the Roaring Twenties and art nouveau, which again sets it apart with the 1941 version. The dames here have bobbed hair and flapper styles.