That was an excellent one.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Thus went the conversation between Ronald Colman's Raffles and the rich but vast and ageing Lady Melrose after he had courteously escorted her to her bedroom and the two hovered either side of the open door. The lady's expression, which went from bright expectation to annoyed disappointment, left no doubt what was happening. This was pre-Hayes Code and both here and elsewhere it was very obvious. Also the question of Raffle's morality. In the book, Raffles does give some kind of justification for his thieving - "the richly immoral robbing the immorally rich". He also never befriends soon to become victims. Here Colman blithely disregards all of this. The 1939 almost scene for scene word for word remake with David Niven was entirely cleaned up - but weaker and more colourless for it.I'm a great fan of the Raffles books. E W Hornung the author was not so well known as his brother in law, Arthur Conan-Doyle but was though alround a better writer. This film is engaging and quite exciting, brings together parts from different stories and the result is entertaining but in terms of story, thin and slap-dash. The adaptation is dominated by the requirement to continue/assist Ronald Colman's highly bankable screen persona as an elegant, humorous, charming pleaser of ladies.(Raffles in the book is too dedicated to be humorous or charming unless necessary in pursuit of crime). Here Raffles love interest, Kay Francis, is very passionate, unlimited in her devotion to him. Of the two other central characters, companion in crime "Bunny" Manders is reduced to an irrelevance. Curiously the third character in the trio - McKenzie, the "Scotch" detective - alone is the all-time definitive rendering of the character in the book - Raffles' feared Nemesis: dogged, doughty and determined. Indeed the adaptation gives him equal billing with his quarry. It's a joy to watch a character from the books so vividly and truthfully brought to life. Clearly whoever did the adaptation was more interested in and relished McKenzie more than the other two.All in all, a good entertainment.

As much as I've always revered Ronald Colman, this film just hasn't got it! By "it" I mean continuity...and common sense.Colman plays a gentleman jewel thief named Raffles, who decides to give up crime and marry Lady Gwen (Kay Francis). When Raffles' friend's debts mount up and he attempts suicide, Raffles plans one more jewel heist to provide him with finances to cure his money problem. He plans to steal the Melrose necklace, which was once the property of Empress Joséphine, but now belongs to a rather goofy old woman whose equally goofy husband walks as if he has filled his pants (Frederick Kerr). But, to screw up his heist plans, a gang of amateurish thieves are trying to steal the necklace at the same time. A Scotland Yard detective gets wind of their plot -- although the script never quite tells you how (a real oversight). But during the investigation of the theft, the detective begins to suspect Raffles. Up until this point, I found the movie to be quite poor. But then the love between Colman and Francis bring the movie to a more sophisticated level, and the tone of the movie changes, much for the better. Raffles returns his booty, then escapes and he and his lady head for Paris.Colman is as suave and sophisticated as ever, and perhaps gives the only modern performance in the film. Kay Francis, is good, although she was better slightly later in her career.This is worth watching...at least once, but it won't end up on my DVD shelf.

Although this is not the first rendition of "The Amateur Cracksman" made for film, it is certainly my favourite- Due to the combination of Kay Francis and Ronald Colemand... And mainly due to Kay.In this version of "It Takes a Thief to Catch a Thief" (or so the dialogue says in the film), there is an almost-sadness between Kaye Francis and Ronald Coleman, and this is refreshing. There is something about Kay that is making Ronald Coleman want to straighten out, and who would not want to get straight after meeting Kay Francis? This is 1930, before the "Code" dictated what could be said (and done) on the screen- Ergo, Kay and Cole get away with all kinds of fun stuff. Never mind what "stuff" - they just get away with it- And Coleman just plain "gets away" - and the "how" in this film makes it worth watching.Once Kaye gets into the comic spirit of things, she fits in rather well and wears the mantle of a comedienne like a trouper.God Bless Kaye Francis and Ronald Coleman, this film is very fun!

The early Goldwyn Colman films had a lovely atmosphere all of their own. Just learning to cope with sound they exhibit an echoey creaky staginess which in turns is charming and irritating when watching a romantic adventure/mystery. Every action was pointed and often laboured with the handed down techniques from silent days, meaning once seen you seldom forget it. It's the same with Raffles, a ridiculous script if there was one (heavily mucked about with from the book) but if you don't see it for 20 years you'd probably remember every act and scene.Raffles has been a reformed ex-Cracksman for a few hours but finds he suddenly has to help his limp friend Bunny repay £1000 within 2 days and he only knows one way to get it. An invite to Lady Melrose's country house for cricket and a garden party of hundreds provides him with the chance – and also a gang of six ineffectual Cockney burglars who skulk around in the dark loudly laying their plans. The scene where the burglar is caught and venomously points out Raffles on the stairs is pivotal to the film but it never recovers from the clumsy handling of it – did Colman know what to say at that point? Colman was great in the role, his clipped accent and perfect diction usually used to good effect. Good support was from Kay Francis who played his understanding girlfriend although she didn't get to say Divine, and David Torrence the chunky and heavily cloaked Scotland Yard Inspector. Favourite bit: the torchlit confrontation between Raffles and Crawshay in the bedroom at midnight.Simple old fashioned entertainment - I stick it on every few years without fail because with all its faults I like this one.