Expected more

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

. . . of Heathen America's Hypocritical Wastelands, Warner Bros. presents another never-heeded classic warning, 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING. This flick documents the fact that the main purpose of the U.S. "Justice" System is to waste taxpayer money by "legally" murdering (or "executing") a few (mostly innocent) Poor People to keep the rest of We Loyal Patriotic Normal Average 99 Per Center Progressive Union Label folks "in our place." Naturally, when the government sets out to slay U.S. Citizens with tons of hype and ballyhoo, the weak-minded majority of toiling ordinary people will feel "grateful" that America has not singled THEM out for "Capital Punishment." Warner Bros. emphasizes during 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING that "Tommy" is a spiritual figure akin to Gandhi or Mandela, compared to a venal prison warden content to rub out countless railroaded inmates as long as he's making a comfortable living with his Frau and his Kinder at his Death Camp. Warner is ahead of its time in depicting Minority Folks and the Mentally Impaired among Sing Sing's Death Row Population. Now that the USA's "state hospitals" all have been bulldozed and cops take "target practice" at the insane consequently over-running our streets, this new system of "mental health care" is saving the Fat Cat One Per Centers truckloads of money, through their Reverse Robin Hood "tax cuts" (that is, Steal from the Poor, Give to the Rich).

Like so many films made during Hollywood's classic era, this one was re-made just a few years later as "Castle on the Hudson" (with John Garfield). Both are quite good but I prefer this original film...slightly.The film begins with Tommy Connors (Spencer Tracy) arriving at Sing Sing. He's cocky and assumes that with his connections he'll get all sorts of special privileges. The warden (Arthur Byron) puts Tommy in his place...and informs him that if he doesn't want to work or wear a prison uniform, he didn't have to...even if that meant going outside in the winter in rags! Eventually, Tommy gets with the program and develops a grudging respect for the warden...and vice-versa. So how does this new-found respect end up backfiring for both of them? Watch the picture.The acting in this one is simply wonderful. Tracy, as usual, is great but so is the supporting cast. The script also is quite nice...and make for an enjoyable viewing experience.

Michael Curtiz directed this above average prison, crime drama adapted from the book of the same name written by Lewis Lawes (who really was a Warden at Sing Sing!) by Courtney Terrett and Robert Lord, with a screenplay by Wilson Mizner and Brown Holmes. It stars Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis (their only film together), as well as Arthur Byron and Louis Calhern (among others).The title refers to the cumulative sentencing time of all the inmates held at the famous New York state prison.The film was later remade by director Anatole Litvak as Castle on the Hudson (1940) with John Garfield, Ann Sheridan, Pat O'Brien, and Jerome Cowan (respectively).Since I saw the latter first, the plot summary is contained within my review of that film on IMDb.com.As far as I can tell, there is little difference between the two films. In fact, their run-times are within 5 minutes of each other; this one is the longer of the two, and its ending does drag a bit.Even though Tracy played a number of tough characters early in his career (like Davis, this was one of his first 10-15 roles), I think Garfield was better suited to the role. Tracy's character is named Tom Connors in this one.Ms. Davis, who is perhaps my favorite actress (and the greatest who ever lived?), wasn't as much of a factor in her ingenue days (e.g. in this film, as Fay Wilson, she didn't stand out) as she was later in her career whereas Ms. Sheridan (whose performance is very good) was given more to do in the remake.Byron, who was in scant few films, does a credible job if not as effusive as O'Brien, as Warden Long. Lyle Talbot and Warren Hymer play the smart and dumb cons, Bud Saunders and Hype respectively, though Burgess Meredith and Guinn "Big Boy" Williams had already established themselves in these type of roles by the time they appeared in the remake. Calhern's lawyer Joe Finn isn't much different from the one Cowan played.The role that's changed the most between the films is that of the death row prison priest, played by an uncredited actor (Hardie Albright?) in this one and John Litel, who's given a little more screen-time in the latter. Grant Mitchell appears uncredited in both films as the prison's IQ tester.It's ironic that the first film is longer when the second film contains a court scene (with Henry O'Neill) and more of Garfield's planned escape being shown, including his being conscious of "the heat" being put on the warden by the press.

20,000 Years in Sing Sing" is set in the notorious jail in New York State; the title refers to the combined length of the sentences being served by all the inmates of the prison. It was based upon a book written by Lewis E. Lawes, the warden of Sing Sing at the time the movie was made. The character of Paul Long in the film is a thinly-disguised portrait of Warden Lawes. Some prison dramas from this era, notably "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang", highlighted harsh prison conditions and called for reform, but this one is generally supportive of the system.The film opens with a gangster named Tommy Connors arriving in Sing Sing after being convicted of robbery and assault with a lethal weapon. His associate, Joe Finn, attempts to bribe the warden to get Tommy special treatment, but Warden Long indignantly refuses. (Apparently at one time it was commonplace for wealthy or well-connected prisoners in Sing Sing to use their money or influence to obtain special privileges, but Lawes and his predecessor had put an end to such malpractices). At first Tommy proves a cocky, troublesome and rebellious prisoner, but his attitude gradually changes under the influence of Long's discipline. In the early part of the film Long seems a strict-but-fair disciplinarian, but we see a more liberal side to his character when a telegram is received stating that Tommy's girlfriend, Fay, has been seriously injured in a car accident. He grants Tommy a 24 hour leave to see her, on Tommy giving him his word of honour to return at the end of that period. On arrival, however, Tommy gets involved in an altercation with Finn, who has been paying attentions to Fay. A fight breaks out which ends with Finn being shot dead. Tommy now has to decide whether to keep his promise to Long and return to the jail, even though he knows that to do so could result in his conviction and execution for murder. The fatal shot was in fact fired by Fay, but her confession is not believed by the authorities, who think that she is just trying to shield her boyfriend. Spencer Tracy, who normally played the hero, unusually plays a criminal, although in this case one who eventually reforms. Indeed, by the end of the film Tommy has redeemed himself to such an extent that he can be regarded as the film's hero. This means that the role cannot have been an easy one to play, but Tracy handles it well, making us believe in all the stages through which Tommy passes, from arrogant thug to man of integrity. We also get to see a young, pre-stardom Bette Davis as Fay. In its subject-matter and plot the film seems to prefigure the film noir style which was to evolve in the following decade, although it lacks the expressionist photography which was so characteristic of noir. Its main weakness is that the plot is not always easy to follow, but Tracy's performance and the way in which director Michael Curtiz handles Tommy's central dilemma- whether to stay true to his word at the possible cost of his life- means that it retains enough dramatic intensity to keep it watchable even today, more than seventy years after it was made. 7/10