That was an excellent one.

Best movie of this year hands down!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

I admit that I am no expert but I do love old movies. Maybe it was the other things I had been watching recently but I really appreciated this movie. I certainly got a kick out of the fight between Robinson and Bogart.The plot has been reasonably well explained here so I won't repeat it yet again. I will say in summary that it is the story of a good person in a bad business and his voyage of discovery of himself. It is not really a gangster movie, that is just the package it is contained in and really not the key to enjoying the movie. One of the things that struck me during the movie was how much it helped me to appreciate Edward G. Robinson as an actor.In this movie he spouts about every cliché that was ever associated with his gangster roles. In fact if someone came up to you and wanted to know what all the fuss about Eddie G. was throwing this movie at them would give them a pretty solid understanding. Yet somehow he manages to communicate how much more depth and potential there is to the character as a person than what you see and hear. Given that he was a well educated guy in real life and the silliness of some of the things he has to say that is quite an accomplishment. His mannerisms and reactions are perfect and I found myself understanding the character better because of what he emoted than what he said.Though most of the plot is formulaic there are a couple of fairly humorous scenes with lively dialog. In fact there are a few that if you don't listen closely you will miss the joke. Another positive is that the humor lends to the plot rather than distracting from it. Something recent comedy-drama films could stand to remember.I will disagree with a couple of posters who said this movie was less than it could of been. I think that is pretty harsh and feel the exact opposite. Given the time, the quality of the script, etc. it is quite well done. People, myself included, always complain that 30's-40's morality plays are always very heavy handed and leave nothing to subtlety or the viewers imagination. Brother Orchid is one that, for me anyway, stayed with me and the message of the film is somewhat open to interpretation: For example: themes of being open to change, accepting where life takes you, you can't always get what you want, understanding yourself, etc. The other thing that someone stated was that Robinson's character was a moron for a)leaving Ann Southern behind, b) leaving the business to Bogie and expecting to get it back. I think they missed something, the character is a self-absorbed man searching and he just doesn't realize it. He leaves Ann Southern because though he cares for her that isn't the life for him. He can't commit. There are several oblique references to this through out the movie.If you are thinking of watching this for Bogie, don't expect much as he is little used but if you are looking for an under appreciated classic I think this is indeed one. I watch five to six old movies a week and this one stood out above the rest. Everyone has their own opinion but for me this was well worth the time and effort. A cut above most films of the period.

I agree with another writer on this thread that this should have been a better film - but it suffered from a poor script.Until he became a major star (possibly Hollywood's biggest star) in the 1940s, Humphrey Bogart was doomed to rarely be more than a movie menace. Prior to HIGH SIERRA and THE MALTESE FALCON a role like his horse trainer in DARK VICTORY or his frightened stooge of a Klan group in BLACK LEGION were rarities. Most of his roles were villains. Against Cagney in THE ROARING TWENTIES and THE OKLAHOMA KID. Against Flynn and Randolph Scott in VIRGINIA CITY. And definitely against Eddie Robinson in KID GALAHAD, THE AMAZING DR. CLITTERHOUSE, and this film. As we will see, it is a little odd that he got cast as a thuggish villain so often (even with his harsh if handsome presence), particularly in a film like BROTHER ORCHID.For Bogie happened not to be born in a city ghetto like Cagney, or raised in one like Robinson. He was born in an upper class background, the son of a society doctor. In fact, in his early stage training, he appeared in society comedies. Reputedly he was the first young actor to pop up in such a play through the garden doors into the crowded parlor, racket in hand, saying "Tennis, anyone?" Actually (and ironically, as he hated it) the film that closest mirrored his early years was SABRINA, which Bogie did not make until the 1950s.On the other hand, his more successful fellow Warner Brothers actor, Eddie Robinson, relished a chance to alter his public image. Having achieved movie stardom as Rico in LITTLE CEASAR, Robinson constantly tried to get out of movie gangster-dome. Sometimes he succeeded (like his biography films such as A DISPATCH FROM REUTERS and DR. EHRLICH'S MAGIC BULLET) but more frequently the gangster film was altered - particularly the "comic ones". CLITTERHOUSE, for example, has a whimsical premise of a society doctor gathering material for his opus on the criminal mind by becoming one. Better examples are THE WHOLE TOWN IS TALKING, whereas a befuddled little clerk is constantly dragged into crime by his resemblance to a crime kingpin, or A SLIGHT CASE OF MURDER (wherein beer baron Remy Marko has a whole slew of problems to straighten out in one afternoon).BROTHER ORCHID takes off on a different slant regarding Robinson. A Roumanian (and Jewish) immigrant, Emmanuel Rosenberg happened to be pretty well read and educated, and continued showing interests in books and art all through his life. He was far from the "Ricos" he played on screen. Put another way: when he played "Wolf Larson" in THE SEA WOLF, the character personifies "Social Darwinism". Robinson could have critiqued "Social Darwinism".Naturally this culture business may have amused the Warners, and they had already lampooned it in an earlier Robinson film LITTLE GIANT, wherein (again looking for class) Robinson discovers that social position does not make a person nice or decent. There it was the family of Berton Churchill, all seeing him as a sucker to unload worthless stock on. In BROTHER ORCHID it is a gangster who finds that it is a whole change in his life's attitudes that is needed to gain real class.Robinson does a "Johnny Torrio" Act. He leaves his enterprises in the hands of his able lieutenant Bogart, while he takes a long trip to try to acquire class. Instead he slowly gets ripped off by every con-man and salesman who sees him coming. Finally he returns from Europe, and decides to resume his old job. But Bogie is well planted in the seat of power (as Al Capone was when Torrio retired), and Robinson finds his girlfriend (Anne Southern) has married rancher Ralph Bellamy (sort of a flip side to Bellamy's Oklahoma lover in THE AWFUL TRUTH). Bogie, seeing Robinson is trying to force his way back, has the latter taken for a ride and shot. But he is dumped on the grounds of a monastery run by Donald Crisp. Robinson is nursed back to health, and slowly begins to appreciate the finer things of a quiet, spiritual life.The problem of the script is that Robinson's second half should have emphasized his discovering spirituality. Actually the script began to do that at the best moment in the film, when Robinson is almost thrown out of the order due to violating a rule, and protests that it was just a momentary mistake on his part. Crisp decides to give him another chance. His growing abilities to work with flowers in the monastic garden (the title is his name due to his abilities with orchids) could have been used to expand on. Instead the film has to resume the gang warfare - the monastery's income is threatened by Bogie's mob, and Robinson (with Southern and Bellamy's help) beat Bogie's men. That's fine, but it threw aside the triumph of a real type of class that Robinson was finding. Possibly had the writers seen fit to have Bogart avoiding capture by the police because of Robinson and the monastery giving him a temporary sanctuary the story line could have been straightened out, with Bogart wondering in the end if he had really gotten the better of the deal. But unfortunately that was not done here.It is a moderately entertaining film, but it might have been a more meaningful one.

I do wish when individuals watch a movie that they get the person who says the lines correct. It is not Donald Crisp that makes the comments about the watermelon to Edward G. Robinson. Donald Crisp as Brother Superior is walking the young boy out of the room after giving him $2.00 for shoes. The other two monks make the comments to Robinson about not liking watermelon and then Robinson says "I get it." Now that that is out of the way, this is an excellent movie with a cast of characters that will later go on to become major stars i.e.-Humphrey Bogar and Ralph Bellamy. There are also plenty of strong character actors in this wonderful movie such as Allen Jenkins and Cecil Kellaway.

Here's an odd Edward G. Robinson picture. It has the unusual combination of crime, humor, drama and romance - a real mixed bag - and Robinson pretending he's a monk!It's billed as a crime story but it's more of a comedy. There are lots of snappy lines and expressions of the day, most provided by Robinson, a hoodlum type who winds up in a "floral" monastery (the monks grew and sold flowers).This has a good cast with Ann Southern, Humphrey Bogart, Ralph Bellamy, Donald Crisp and Allen Jenkins all contributing. Bellamy was so young I didn't recognize him, only through his distinctive voice.The first time I watched this I thought it was pretty good. Perhaps it was just more of a curiosity piece, because I really got bored with it on the second look. When it came out on DVD, I gave it a third chance and really liked it. Go figure.