Castle on the Hudson (1940)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Absolutely the worst movie.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

John Garfield was at his best here in this 1940 prison drama. He is a cocky individual, too sure of himself due to political ties, who soon finds himself in prison for robbery.He thinks he can play the system but soon finds out otherwise by Warden Pat O'Brien. Garfield is tough, but also quite realistic.Burgess Meredith plays a college graduate also in prison who leads an ill-fated escape attempt which the Garfield character refuses to participate in due to his fear that bad things always befall him on Saturday.Ann Sheridan plays the faithful girlfriend, and pulls out all the stops in the death scene with Garfield.This film subtly is anti-death penalty. It brings out how a dimwitted person was executed for a police killing during the attempted breakout. It also showed how Garfield paid the ultimate price for a murder he didn't do. He just wouldn't be believed as circumstances warranted that.

A young John Garfield leaves his girl friend, Ann Sheridan, and is sent to Sing Sing, assured by his lawyer, Jerome Cowan, that he'll be gotten out shortly. Unfortunately, Jerome Cowan, whatever else he may be, is a lawyer and has his own agenda. The cocky Garfield makes light of his tribulations in the slams while Cowan pursues Sheridan.Garfield begins to get smart under the tutelage of the tough but fair warden, Pat O'Brien. (John Litel is the priest in this one.) He behaves himself. And when the warden receives a telegram informing Garfield that his girl may not live through the night, O'Brien gives him a brief parole to visit her.Things go wrong. While visiting Sheridan at the hospital, Garfield runs into Cowan, whose treachery is now revealed. Sheridan shoots and kills Cowan to save Garfield from being beaten to death. Garfield escapes and is blamed for the death. (I forget where that gun came from.) But he mans up and turns himself in anyway. He shouldn't have.It's an odd, play-like movie, with good performances, inexpensive sets, one location shot of the exterior of Grand Central Station in New York, Guinn "Big Boy" Williams doing his best to act, Sheridan looking good, and eliciting myriad unspoken questions about capital punishment. It's so terribly irreversible.But the climax is unusual. Here is Garfield, a protagonist, not a bad guy, loving and in his own way honorable, yet he marches off with a smile, a wisecrack, and a cigarette to the electric chair. I kept waiting for the last-minute phone call from the governor. But no. All that fades in after his retreating figure is "The End."

Castle on the Hudson (1941)** 1/2 (out of 4) Pretty much a scene-by-scene remake of the 1932 drama 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING has gangster Tommy Gordon (John Garfield) being sentenced to prison but he's not worried because he thinks his "connections" will get him out. Soon Tommy realizes that those on the outside want him to remain in prison so he thinks about escaping but the Warden (Pat O'Brien) tries to talk some sense into him. Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis were the stars of the original film, which is slightly better than this one thanks in large part to see the two legends working together. If you've seen that version then nothing here is going to come as a shock to you because I wouldn't be surprised if Warner just dusted off the previous screenplay and used it again, just changing names this time. That original film wasn't a classic so if you haven't seen it then you'll probably be caught up in the story plus we get Garfield turning in another winning performance. His character was too large of an ego and comes off as a major jerk but Garfield could always play these characters and in the end make you care about them. That's what pretty much happens here because after Tommy takes his beatings he finally comes to except prison life and how it actually is. Garfield is so believable in the part that you can't help but want to see him succeed in what he's doing no matter what he was convicted of. O'Brien plays his character countless times before in a number of Warner pictures. That heart of gold who takes in the bad and makes them see how good they could be. O'Brien and Garfield work extremely well together and they're certainly the main reason to check this film out. Ann Sheridan plays the girlfriend and isn't too bad in the part but the character is so poorly written that she becomes quite annoying due to how stupid she is. Burgess Meredith plays a fast-talking convict who tries to talk Garfield into escaping and Guinn Williams is the lovable lug head. Warner made a ton of gangster and prison pics and while this here isn't nearly the best, there are at least enough good moments to make it worth viewing but I'd still catch the original first.

This film is a remake of 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING and while it is not bad at all (in fact, perhaps better than the original), the movie really has a couple lame-brained moments that you must be able to ignore in order to enjoy the movie. Without these dopey moments, the film merits a 7 or even 8 on IMDb, but come on,...these problems are pretty severe! For the first 80% of the film, the movie is pretty good fare. John Garfield is an ego-centric hood that thinks he's just too smart and important to ever go to prison. But, to his utter surprise, he gets sent to the "big house" and he has MAJOR problems adapting--after, he thinks he merits special favors and treatment. Well, all this is pretty exciting and fun to watch. BUT, the big plot twist is total cornball! When Garfield's girlfriend is almost killed, the warden feels sorry for him and lets him go for an unescorted pass--even though he was convicted of armed robbery, assault and attempted murder of a cop!!!! Talk about a hair-brained idea! Plus, at times, the girlfriend (Ann Sheridan) is pretty annoying since she seems to have absolutely no self-esteem or common sense.However, despite these serious problems, the film is indeed entertaining. Since I am a major fan of 1930s Warner Brothers films, I can overlook this. Many probably cannot and so there are certainly much better prison or gangster movies out there that are more likely to please.