Blood Money (1933)
2/10
Money - It's a crime - Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie.
17 April 2023
All the critics and all the old movie books rate this highly, personally I found it awful. Awful and very boring. It's not so much a black and white film, more of a dull, grey nebulous lump of fog. The premise of Rowland Brown's story actually sounds really exciting and Rowland Brown, who also directed this, was a pretty decent filmmaker so this should have been a thrilling, exhilarating picture - but wasn't.

What made this so interminably dull was the acting. It's not bad acting, it's just dull, flat and lifeless. George Bancroft's character is one of the dullest, most characterless leads I've ever seen. You simply couldn't care less about him. Will he get shot? Will he find happiness? Nobody cares!

Besides Mrs Danvers badly impersonating Mae West, the other female lead is Frances Dee. Her character, the obligatory millionaire's daughter, is so poorly written, so poorly explored it lacks any depth or credibility. She is is ridiculously unreal.

Like with BROADWAY THOUGH A KEYHOLE and BORN TO BE BAD, this picture which is one of the very first films to come out of that brand new studio: Twentieth Century Pictures. It seemed like they hadn't quite found their mojo. Even with their big bank account, their talent and enthusiasm, the teamwork hadn't seemed to have quite gelled yet.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed