Jun. 06, 2002 - 3:05 am

cover
Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

a gangster movie i decided i wanted to see. it's a classic. and apparently the best gangster movie i've ever seen. this was my first time watching it. thanks to my mom for letting me borrow it. from her James Cagney collection. man, she loves him. but not as much as Patrick McGoohan right now. (my friend Lura tells me that she gives this movie a 7/10 because she likes the title. :) she didn't watch it with me though, she was just kidding.)

directed by Michael Curtiz. you'll hopefully remember him directing Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) or at the very least Casablanca (1942). those are his only movies i've seen, from what i can tell. this is only the 2nd James Cagney movie i've seen i think. but he was awesome in this as well. this film was nominated for Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. i'm down for all of that. this gets a 9/10. it was so much more than i was expecting to see.

it's the story of two young men who grow up very differently in the same tough neighborhood. they both rob a train boxcar as kids. one gets caught and goes to reform school. the other escapes. reform school teaches Rocky Sullivan (Cagney) to be the perfect criminal. Jerry, the other kid becomes a priest.

there are some great shots in this movie. awesome cinematography at points. and they put great little finishing touches on the mise-en-scene with certain props like newspapers and playing cards doing some double meanings with people displayed in the foreground. acting was flawless except in one scene where the supporting actress shows her inability to correctly perform the emotion of "sadness." "i know i know, i don't do sad." she says while trying to look ashamed. but James Cagney was amazing. the last scene of this film is great too. i was expecting some sort of copout ending where the bad guy gets shot in the last shootout of the film to keep the critics happy. i'm pretty sure that's how most of these old gangster movies end. plus the production code was heavily in play at the end of the 1930s. but this film finds an amazingly poetic way to tell us that crime doesn't pay. it doesn't say it with a shootout. you have to see the movie to answer this question: who is really glorified by the end of this film, the gangster or the common man? i can't really answer it myself. both maybe? see it. Angels with Dirty Faces.