User Reviews

SPOILERS BELOW ===================== So many criticisms here on the board, but most of them seem to focus on things like bad "ahhccents" and Production Code compliance. To me, such elements are just part of watching a movie from the 1930s -- (sort of like heavy-handed social welfare themes and hyper-realism in films from the 1950s.) If you know such stuff bothers you, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a 1930's pic (just as I tend to avoid those black & white issues pictures from the '50s.)

But, if you can see your way past those endemic elements, this is not at all a bad film. The plot's sort of interesting (I was completely taken in before the big twist about 1/3 of the way into the movie), it has a nice amount of 1930's "isn't it just lovely to be rich?" fantasy, the acting is first rate and it's nice to see Crawford playing a (sort of) nice girl and Powell playing a (sort of) bad guy. In the trivia section it's said that Myrna Loy was originally supposed to play Crawford's part. Now, I ADORE Myrna Loy, but I actually think it was more effective to see Crawford here. With Loy and Powell in the movie, you would have known throughout that everything was going to end up light and cheery and romantic because that's the universe those two inhabit. But with Crawford, you just never know exactly where you're going -- is she going to be a good girl? Will romance overcome greed. Is she suddenly going to shoot someone? Will she go insane? I think she actually added some heft to the storyline.

Joan Crawford, desperate to get out of her shop girl roles, tries to re-do this Norma Shearer vehicle with somewhat staid results. Not for lack of trying -- when she really applied herself and if the part was written and directed well, she shone as clearly seen in GRAND HOTEL or THE WOMEN. The problem lies that the story, that of a jewel thief passing as high society with her partner-in-tow William Powell (who was used to farce and works well here), would have seemed better if Myrna Loy, who had better chemistry with Powell, had taken this part. Somehow something fails here. The comedy is really not all that there, and while Dorothy Arzner was ultimately credited as the director of this film, there were two others, and that makes for some eventual problems which will mar a film.

I was surprised to read some of these unfavorable reviews. The '30s was my favorite era in film history, and this is one of my favorites. It's not "My Man Godfrey" or "It Happened One Night," but it's very enjoyable. I love the scene when her "servants" reveal themselves. I thought Montgomery was charming and adorable as usual, Powell was as awesome as ever, and Crawford was perfectly cast. She has the edge that makes her believable as a con artist. I'm curious to see the original pre-code version, if only TCM would show it! I doubt it's better, though. Norma Shearer was so weepy-eyed and hokey, and I wouldn't buy her as a con artist.

THE LAST OF MRS. CHEYNEY was not a very good film, though you probably wouldn't suspect that until the film was about half complete. That's because the basic premise and acting were very good. In fact, the film had a super-strong cast--with Joan Crawford, Robert Montgomery, Frank Morgan and William Powell. It's obvious that this was a big-budget MGM film. However, towards the middle, the whole thing became a very stagy and dreadful film--with way too little action and way too much horrid dialog. By the end of the film, instead of improving, the film takes a nose-dive into wretchedness! If you don't believe me, then read on to find out about the terrible plot.

Joan plays the title character. She is supposed to be a rich American but is actually a thief working with William Powell's gang. Her goal is to insinuate herself into rich society so she can steal some fancy jewels. However, along the way, she finds that not only are these people very welcoming but nice folks--so nice that it's obvious that she's having a hard time sticking with the plan. However, the gang members won't allow this--even if it's obvious that Powell cares about Joan and wouldn't hurt her himself. So far, this is great stuff and seeing love blossom between Joan and two nice guys (Montgomery and Morgan) made it all the better.

Unfortunately, I assume the original writers must have died or suffered massive head injuries because the witty dialog and fascinating story completely lost its way midway through the film. It was as if they'd set up a good story and had no idea where to go. That, or the writers went on strike and were replaced by lemurs! At this point, the film didn't seem to know whether to have Joan prove herself to be decent or a crook--so they made her BOTH!! This made no sense, but what was worse was the reaction her new society friends had when her plan came to light. Now you'd THINK having a jewel thief lie and steal would cause a problem, but in a case of insane script writing, they had the rich folks not only agree to forgive and forget but try to pay her and Powell 10,000 pounds!!! What the heck was this?! No anger, no recriminations but everyone instead being happy and even talking about setting Joan up in business! This was just stupid and .000000003% believable. Talk about contrived and dopey. To make it worse, all they seemed to do for the last 30 minutes or so was talk, talk, talk and talk. It all seemed like mindless prattle after a while.

I guess the worst part about all this for me was how utterly wasted William Powell was in the film. He is one of my very favorite actors of his age, yet here his performance is very muted and he's given a very bland part. It was as if he was sleepwalking through the film. As for Robert Montgomery, he was pretty typical of his usual devilish playboy character up until the end--where he was transformed by Joan's allure into a simpering wuss. Ugghh! While she was given crappy material to work with, Joan probably came off the best of the leads in the film---and this isn't saying much.

Please understand that of all eras, 1930s films are my very favorite and I adore Hollywood's Golden Age. So my dislike for this film is not because I hate older films. It's just that with so many wonderful films out there (often starring these same actors), this is among the worst of the larger budget MGM films. This film is ONLY for devoted fans of the actors--and even then you might want to think twice about seeing this one.

Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Greer Garson. Between the mid 1920's through the mid-1950's, one of these women dominated MGM as their queen of glamour. Each of them also played the sophisticated jewel thief who schemes her way into society with the intention of robbing her hostess and guests of their valuables. Shearer's version came out in 1929, Crawford's 8 years later, and Garson's, called "The Law and the Lady", nearly 15 years after this version. In between, Crawford co-starred with Shearer in "The Women", and with Garson in "When Ladies Meet". this is the only time on screen that Crawford was paired with the suave William Powell who initially seems wasted in this film, but actually ends up having a major part, even if it is somewhat supporting.

The leading man is Robert Montgomery home Crawford had appeared within several films. She maneuvers her way into the home of wealthy duchess Jessie Ralph, a lively matron who has seen everything and probably done even more twice. she has secrets of her own, and as she grows to trust and like Crawford, Ralph (the intended victim of Crawford's latest jewelry theft) gets to see the truth about her pretentious family and finds that she has more in common with Crawford then she realized. Why Ralph was never nominated for an Academy Award for either this (or "San Francisco") is a great mystery to me. She is one of the most lovable dowager types on film, not afraid to play the occasional battle axe as she did opposite WC Fields in "The Bank Dick".

The first half of this film is a mixed bag dealing with Revelations of the people in Ralph's social circle and the mysteries surrounding Crawford's intentions and those who may or may not be in on her scheme. Frank Morgan is initially seen encountering Crawford in his hotel suite, she claiming she has made the mistake of believing that it was her room. That gives her access to his world and from there, she encounters such familiar faces as Nigel Bruce, Melville Cooper and Sara Haden. The film culminates with a delightful comic scene where the family skeletons are threatened to be revealed in an effort for Crawford to stay out of prison and it is the highlight of the film, delightfully funny and extremely well-written.

I wouldn't call this a great film, but it is typical glossy MGM fair with Crawford of course gorgeous, Montgomery and Powell dashing, and Morgan and Bruce delightfully pompous, droll and unknowingly goofy and foolish. it is everything that audiences in the 1930s would want from a Crawford film, but unfortunately this was at a downside in her MGM stay and did not get the box office that it deserved. Perhaps having three directors (of whom only Richard Boleslawski got billing) is at fault, although you can definitely see the influence of Dorothy Arzner in Crawford's glamorous characterization. It all ends as a laugh fest to where the victims come to agree that they've never had a more delightful time in their life, and even with slow moments, the audience will have as much of a delightful time as Ralph and her messed up family did.

Copyright 15 February 1937 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp. New York opening at the Capitol: 18 February 1937. U.S. release: 19 February 1937. 98 minutes. (Warner Archive has a 10/10 DVD). SYNOPSIS: Although she poses as a prominent socialite, the charming and fashionable Mrs Cheyney (Joan Crawford) is actually a jewel thief who takes advantage of invitations to aristocratic homes, such as that of Lord Kelton (Frank Morgan), to spy out the lay of the land. Her partner, Charles (William Powell), believes he has complete control over Mrs Cheyney, but his dominance is threatened by a young man-about-town (Robert Montgomery) who falls in love with her.

NOTES: The last film directed by Richard Boleslawski, who died before the picture was completed. A re-make of the 1929 film directed by Sidney Franklin, starring Norma Shearer, George Barraud and Basil Rathbone. The costumes were designed by Adrian. The stage play opened in London at the St James on 22 September 1925, running a hugely successful 514 performances. Gladys Cooper played Mrs Cheyney, Ronald Squire was Charles, and Gerald du Maurier, Arthur. On Broadway at the Fulton from 9 November 1925, the play chalked up a very successful 283 performances. Ina Claire played Mrs Cheyney, A.E. Matthews was Charles, and Roland Young, Arthur. M-G-M re-made the film in 1951 as The Law and the Lady with Greer Garson as a re-vamped Mrs Cheyney, Michael Wilding as his lordship, and Fernando Lamas, the equivalent of Charles. COMMENT: Joan Crawford gives such a luminous performance in the title role as to put all the other players, except Frank Morgan and Bob Montgomery, firmly in the shade. Mind you, Jessie Ralph can stand up to Joan, but her role of course is a subsidiary one and she has her best scene at the climax when Crawford is mostly off-camera. Morgan has a grand time in a typical role, whilst Montgomery is a revelation in what is basically an unsympathetic part. He even manages to steal scenes from Bill Powell, whose role here is often to act as an astute stooge - which he does with great finesse and charm. We also liked Benita Hume's adulterous wife, while Nigel Bruce grandly enacts his usual character of a blithely aristocratic ass. The picture is entrancingly photographed, stylishly directed and most attractively set.