Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

David Niven and Olivia de Havilland star in this 1939 scene-for- scene, word-for-word remake of a 1930 Ronald Colman/Kay Francis film, "Raffles." The reason for the similarity is that director Sam Wood had just finished what Victor Fleming started on the making of "Gone with the Wind" and wanted to make this next film as easy as possible. That's what Robert Osborne of TCM says. But this outing is still just as good with the always debonair Niven as the "amateur cracksman" – a jewel thief who robs from the filthy rich. Just why he ever started isn't explained. But no one really cares. He had decided to quit, when a good friend in need of funds due to a gambling debt asked him for the dough. He said he didn't have it but could get it. Niven comes across more personable than Colman though; Colman has a superior air about himself and David is so much more laid back and down to earth. But, this film does feel less romantic compared with more sensuous pairing of Kay and Ronald. Kay gave the former film more underlying sex appeal, then Olivia does here. Olivia is given very little to do. The primary action is David's latest theft at a swank party of the elite and how the law has been always trying to get him. "Raffles" of 1939 is a enjoyable little film showcasing the gentleman-actor David Niven at his best, entertaining you and stealing your wallet. Watch it!

This appears to be the third remake of "Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman" Which seems to have originally been made in 1925 - No, make that 1905... 1917... 1925, 1930, and 1975 which seems to have spawned a short 1977 TV Series based on the character.I've never seen those, I have only ever seen the Kay Francis/Ronald Coleman version, which I liked very much. So to my surprise I am watching this particular remake: Who knows why this remake was decided upon in 1939? Some of the comments here indicate that it could have been a lot better that it ended up being - And I agree.A Young Snappy David Niven and beautiful Olivia DeHavilland (When is she not beautiful, even when she got older?) spearheading a great cast including Dame May Witty and E.E. Clive.This film with the cast that was attached could have been one of the great films of the 30's but it just kind of sits there like a plate of cold tripe. I give the film credit for atmosphere but not much else. The dialog is delivered in a way in which we do not believe- Almost without enthusiasm.Instead of doing a shot-by-shot and line by line remake (Which was also done with The Prisoner of Zenda) they could have just re-released the great and fun 1930 version. I have only seen one film where Niven was able to get a handle on comedy, and that was "Bachelor Mother" (Another film that was unfortunately remade, as "Bundle of Joy") - And only then because he used very Cary Grant-ish hand and body movements for some reason.Watching this is akin to watching moss grow... Unfortunate, but true. Sometimes there is no reason to remake a film that has already been made three times, as had been the case here. I can understand the need for the 1930 remake, as that was the version that first applied that novelty we take for granted, Sound. Making this film again, so soon, and uninspired like this, I see no reason for it. Why? Nothing special jumps out, even though the performances of the actors are adequate. All of the things that made the 1930 version great are absent from this.On a final note, DeHavilland and Niven do not work as well as Coleman and Francis did: Coleman and Francis have a very "Modern" look, almost contemporary. Which is why I was attracted to it when I originally saw the 1930 version. That timelessness is absent in the appearance of Niven and DeHavilland in this film.

"Raffles" has one thing going for it: Olivia De Havilland is beautiful and appealing. This was in the early phase of her career.. She made many movies in which she was saucy and as pretty as anyone else in Hollywood. Then she turned to serious roles. She did well at those also but in certain ways, these early trifles are fun.Dame May Witty, a versatile character actress, is totally wasted. She plays a standard dithering dowager. Any of at least ten actresses at the time could have done as well.What "Raffles" needed was the right director. Sam Wood was at the helm of many fine movies. But this is not his genre. Alfred Hitchock could have had fun with it. Imagine this movie with Cary Grant in the title role, directed by Hitchcock. (It might have been like "To Catch a Thief." The full axiom from which that tile is taken is quoted in "Raffles.") But Lubitsch would have been the best for it. He could have turned it into a soufflé' about class, criminals vs heroes. It's not a soufflé, though: It's a blintz.

RAFFLES ('40) contains a charming performance by David Niven as the jewel thief who constantly eludes detection by Scotland Yard. Niven has an equally charming co-star in Olivia de Havilland as his sweetheart--a thankless role which gives the actress a strictly cardboard leading lady role. It's Niven and the large supporting cast that consume most of the footage as the plot thickens and a Scotland Yard detective is hot on his heels.Slow paced, only mildly entertaining, this one offers nothing in the way of wit or excitement to stir up anything more than moderate interest. Fans of David Niven and Olivia de Havilland get a chance to see the photogenic pair at their physical peak--but that's not enough to sustain interest in this bland remake of the earlier Ronald Colman version.A standout in the largely British supporting cast is Dame May Witty as Lady Melrose whose necklace has fascination for the amateur thief.Trivia note: Interesting to see a film from 1939 that shows a sports program being televised clearly on a rather medium-sized TV screen...long before TV became a household staple in the late '40s and early '50s.