With all of the Edward G. Robinson gangster movies, I wanted to watch this one to see how it stacked up. There's "Little Caesar" (1931), "The Widow from Chicago" (1930), "Smart Money" (1931), "The Little Giant" (1933), and this one: "Outside the Law." I'd say that "Little Caesar" and "The Little Giant" are a toss up, "Smart Money" is next, "The Widow from Chicago" is a distant fourth, and "Outside the Law" is dead last.
This movie is abysmal. I've never seen a child muck up a plot as much as the kid did in this nonsense.
Two bank robbers named Harry 'Fingers' O'Dell (Owen Moore) and Connie Madden (Mary Nolan) pulled a fast one over on Cobra Collins (Edward G. Robinson). Cobra ran the city and he knew the couple was in town to rob a bank, except they never asked his permission; which, of course, includes a cut of the money.
Even though Cobra had eyes on them they were able to get away with a half million dollars. Before they could skip town they had to lay low, and this is where the movie got goofy.
Fingers, to pass the time, was entertaining the neighbors toddler. If it sounds stupid that's because it is. Connie was frustrated with him for exposing them in such a manner. What part of "laying low" did this guy not understand? But Fingers had such a hankering for the joy of a child he couldn't pass up the opportunity.
The boy quite literally came over to their hideout apartment to play with the grown man. Where were his parents and where was his nanny? Nevermind that we have a plot to keep pushing forward. No time for sensible questions.
While Fingers was gushing over the boy, a cop's kid no less, Connie couldn't be more put off by the child. This was very abnormal, but welcomingly so. Connie was the most sensible of the two and she wasn't betrayed by her feminine sensibilities or motherly instincts.
Then everything flipped in one of the most annoying and aggravating scenes.
Fingers was gone to buy a toy for the boy. While Connie was at the apartment alone the boy opened the door and walked in with a parade of puppies. It was a deliberate ploy by the writers. It was supposed to be a cuteness overload designed to break Connie down and melt her heart.
She wasn't having any of it. She yelled at the kid to go home.
Instead, he sat with his puppies.
She yelled at him again to go home.
He began to cry. I'm talking ugly cry. The twisted up face wail that drives a person nuts.
She yelled at him again to be quiet and go home.
He walked towards her, weeping, and got up on the chair with her, and hugged her around her neck as he sobbed. Because that's exactly what children do! When they're be yelled at by a strange adult they go to that adult and hug him/her instead of going to a known comfort spot like their mother, father, nanny, or bed.
Naturally, Connie broke down. She began to console the little rugrat and like that Connie's total resolve was broken. She went from the rational, stoic leader of the duo to a sniveling, sobbing female--exactly what was expected of women back then (see "Female" for a similar meltdown).
Before Connie's full meltdown, the nanny (Louise Beavers, the perennial nanny and maid)--or should I say mammy--came over to get the boy at which point I was totally livid.
Where in the world was she before?? Does she make it a habit to let the child wander out of the house and out of her sight?
The whole set up led to a rather absurd ending with the boy's father being shot by Cobra, then Cobra being shot by Fingers, and a whole sloppy scene with a crying baby, etc. It was a mess and another Hollywood fairytale in which intelligent gangsters become real stupid for no apparent reason.
Free on Daily Motion.
