One of the worst movies I've ever seen

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Copyright 25 October 1932 by First National Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Warners' Strand: 28 October 1932. 7 reels. 64 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Ten years after graduating from public school, three girls meet again. Mary, the tomboy, has been through reform school and is now on the stage. Vivian, the snob, is married to Henry Kirkwood, a rich lawyer. Ruth, the honor student, is a business girl. Reminiscing, the girls light their cigarettes from a single match and laugh off the superstition that bad luck will befall the third person (Vivian) to use the said match. Vivian, suddenly bored with her life, decides to take her son, Junior, on an ocean cruise, and invites her girl friends to her bon voyage party. Mary arrives with a gambler, Mike Loftus, to whom Vivian is immediately attracted, and instead of sailing, she runs off with him.NOTES: Re-made in 1938 as Broadway Musketeers. COMMENT: Is this the only teaming of Bogart and Davis? Both, alas, have very small roles. But this fact is the movie's only disappointing aspect. It's a fast-moving gangster yarn, superbly photographed, with a great music score and admirably lively direction from Mervyn LeRoy. I loved the montage cuts of newspapers and events which not only give the proceedings a realistic topicality but add to the marvellous rapidity of the pace. It is Dvorak who walks away with the acting honors, but what a great cast! Curiosity-value plus. The story obviously inspired The Group and later similar studies, but the original Match is far more entertaining. No padding, no boring marking-time, but solid, believable drama all the way.

What is amazing about this movie is how it is dominated by the baddies. Harve (Humphrey Bogart in his FIRST Movie @ Warner Brothers), in perhaps his most evil role. Why? Wanting to kill a kid that is why, and Vivian Revere-Kirkwood (Ann Dvorak), who abandons her husband Attorney Robert Kirkwood (Warren William) and puts her son in danger, not once but twice, are the standouts. Its basically about the bad good girl(Dvorak), the good bad girl Mary Keaton (Joan Blondell), and the average girl Ruth Wescott (Bette Davis in perhaps her most subdued performance (and actually looking beautiful for a change (see her and Blondell on the beach, very interesting comparison to what those two usually show)). They all go to PS 62 and end up with different outcomes. Dvorak, Finishing School, Davis, Business School, and Blondell, Boarding School. Spoilers ahead: The drug use, suicide, and sleeping around by Dvorak (as well as early Bogart and Davis) are what this Pre-Code movie is known for. One interesting point about Blondell. You will see how different she is then in 'Night Nurse' (another movie about kids in danger). You will see how much she really cares for the boy: First she tries to get Vivian to give him to Ruth, then she goes to Kirkwood when she does not. She is not in it for the money she does it because it was the right thing to do. She says "I don't care what happened between you and Vivian I care about the boy." The movie is not perfect, that kid is obnoxious but the rest of it makes it 10/10 stars.

Three on a Match (1932)A tightly interwoven plot about three "types" of women, from their school days into adulthood, played out with snap and sizzle. This is one fast, loaded movie, playing loose with morals and fast with stereotypes, and playing against them at times. There is little more painful than a man or woman falling to ruins, and it's made so reasonable, so nearly exciting, and so really reprehensible it's a surprise and a cinematic thrill.Yes, a terrific movie, and not just for 1932. The interplay between the lead women (including a tart young Bette Davis) is great, and as the plot moves into a full blooded crime film (with Warner Brothers knew how to make better than any of them), it really screams. Throw in Humphrey Bogart (a decade before Casablanca) and you have something you have to watch.But these are the obvious reasons, the film buff draws. Watch lead actresses Joan Blondell and Ann Dvorak for their sheer ability, and their likability. And for how they can be themselves before the code kicked in in two years. Mervin Leroy is a great director, of course (the same year he did the incomparable I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang) and seeing his range and control is a treat. Don't miss it. Just an hour long, too.

The plot is a little thin and kind of predictable but the movie has a good feel to it and is a precursor of films to come with it's style of using the childhood to adulthood buildup and does it well. Bette Davis looks very pretty but is under used and the other female leads give good performances especially Joan Blondell. Bogart is good as a tough guy but his line delivery is still in it's early stages. The heroin (some say cocaine but are wrong. She just snorted it instead of shooting it and then the guy scratches his arm asking for some, plus she is moaning in the next room, cocaine addicts don't moan) reference is cool but it's a little hard to believe this upstanding citizen and good mother turns into a drug and alcohol addicted trollop within a couple weeks. A good romp to the past before the coding system toned it all down.