The Maltese Falcon (1931) User Reviews (55)

Hollywood's first – and far from negligible – crack at The Maltese Falcon

[bmacv · 8/10 · 14 December 2002]

Over the years, the version of The Maltese Falcon released in 1941 has accrued an enviable reputation: As an opening salvo in the film noir cycle, as Humphrey Bogart's first big starring vehicle and John Huston's directorial debut, and as a favorite example of the pleasures to be found in `old' black-and-white movies. But it was the third crack that Warner Brothers took at Dashiell Hammett's breakthrough novel. Probably best forgotten is the 1936 Satan Met A Lady, where a bejewelled ram's horn subbed for the black bird; even Bette Davis couldn't salvage the movie. But this first filming (later retitled Dangerous Female), made the year after the novel's release – in the technical infancy of the sound era – retains enough punch and flavor to give the formidable forties version a run for its money.

Starring as Sam Spade and Miss Wonderly (who never becomes Brigid O'Shaughnessey) are Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels, the talkies' first immortal guy/gal team. And joining them is the familiar ensemble of grotesques: As `Dr.' Joel Cairo, Otto Mathiessen; as Casper Gutman, Dudley Digges (who, lacking Sidney Greenstreet's girth, is never called The Fat Man); and as Wilmer the gunsel, gimlet-eyed Dwight Frye, familiar from the Dracula and Frankenstein franchises. And while Huston's cast in each instance has the edge, it's not by much – these pioneering hams have a field day.

Huston trusted Hammett enough to preserve more of his astringent dialogue intact, but Dangerous Woman shows surprising fidelity to the book. The subplot about Spade's affair with his slain partner's wife Iva Archer stays prominent, and the merry widow is played by Thelma Todd (herself later to fall victim in one of Hollywood's most notorious unsolved murders). Owing to less prudish times, before the Hayes Office tried to make sex un-American, the scene is kept where Spade, in his quest for a palmed $1000 bill, makes Wonderly strip naked (though left largely off-screen). And in calling Wilmer Gutman's `boyfriend,' Spade makes a mite more explicit their old-queen/rough-trade dynamic.

Roy del Ruth, who directed, was an old newspaper man who came to Hollywood in the silent era, racking up a workmanlike list of credits (in 1949, he would return to San Francisco locales for the unusual noir Red Light). He adds some deft touches, as when, after Spade departs with her bankroll, Wonderly blithely extracts a fat wad of bills from her stocking. Much of what he might be credited for, however, may be inadvertent. Since the novel was published and the movie made on that critical cusp between the Roaring Twenties and Old Man Depression, an authentic period tang asserts itself – Daniels' marcelled hair, for instance (not to mention the Vienna-born Cortez' being palmed off as a Latin lover).

The movie deviates from the novel in ending with a scene in the women's house of detention that manages to be simultaneously sassy and poignant. Dangerous Female offers an instructive lesson in how the various versions, with their differing tones and emphases, shed their own light and shadow on a classic American crime novel.

The Original Screen Version of The Maltese Falcon

[gftbiloxi · 7/10 · 4 April 2005]

In 1931 Roy Del Ruth became the first director to bring Dashiell Hammett's THE MALTESE FALCON to the screen. Although it received favorable reviews and did a brisk business at the box office, like many early talkies it was soon eclipsed by ever-advancing technology and forgotten--until television, with its endless demands for late-late show material, knocked on Hollywood's door. Retitled DANGEROUS FEMALE in order to avoid confusion with the highly celebrated 1941 version, it has haunted the airwaves ever since.

DANGEROUS FEMALE is interesting in several ways, and perhaps most deeply so as an example of the struggle that ensued when sound first roared. What had proved effective on the silent screen suddenly seemed highly mannered when voices were added, and both directors and stars struggled to find new techniques--and DANGEROUS FEMALE offers a very vision of the issues involved.

It is a myth that the advent of sound forced directors to lock down the camera, but it is true that many directors preferred simple camera set-ups in early sound films; it gave them one less thing to worry about. And with this film, Roy Del Ruth is no exception: in a visual sense, DANGEROUS FEMALE is fairly static. The performing decisions made by the various actors are also illustrative and informative, particularly re leads Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels. Cortez is still clearly performing in the "silent mode," and he reads as visually loud; Daniels, however, has elected to underplay, and while she is stiff by current standards, her performance must have seemed startlingly innovative at the time. And then there are two performers who are very much of the technology: Una Merkle as Spade's secretary and Thelma Todd as Iva Archer, both of whom seem considerably more comfortable with the new style than either Cortez or Daniels.

The film is also interesting as a "Pre-Code" picture, for it is sexually explicit in ways most viewers will not expect from a 1930s film, and indeed it is surprisingly explicit even in comparison to other pre-code films. Hero Sam Spade is a womanizer who seduces every attractive female who crosses his path--and the film opens with a shot of just such a woman pausing to straighten her stockings before leaving his office. Still later, the dubious Miss Wonderly tempts Spade with her cleavage, lolls in his bed after a thick night, splashes in his bathtub, and finally winds up stripped naked in his kitchen! It is also interesting, of course, to compare DANGEROUS FEMALE to its two remakes. Directed by William Dieterle and starring Warren William and Bette Davis, the 1936 Satan MET A LADY would put Hammett's plot through the wringer--and prove a critical disaster and a box office thud. But then there is the justly celebrated 1941 version starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor under the direction of John Huston.

Both the 1931 and 1941 films lifted great chunks of dialogue from Hammett's novel, and very often the dialogue is line-for-line the same. But two more completely different films could scarcely be imagined. Where the 1931 film strives for an urbane quality, the 1941 film is memorably gritty--and in spite of being hampered by the production, considerably more sexually suggestive as well, implying the homosexuality of several characters much more effectively than the 1931 version dared.

In the final analysis, the 1931 THE MALTESE FALCON (aka DANGEROUS FEMALE) will appeal most to those interested in films that illustrate the transition between silent film and sound, to collectors of "pre-code" movies, and to hardcore FALCON fans who want everything associated with Hammett, his novel, and the various film versions. But I hesitate to recommend it generally; if you don't fall into one of those categories, you're likely to be unimpressed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon reviewer

Not bad first version (which John Huston must have seen!)

[mgmax · 8/10 · 6 January 2000]

This is a fascinating version of the story definitively filmed ten years later by John Huston, because of the ways in which it comes close to capturing the Hammett novel-- and the ways in which it doesn't. As a pre-Code film it's often more explicit than the Huston version-- especially about the fact that Spade was having an affair with his partner's wife, and about the homosexuality of the male crooks (this movie's Gutman is plainly depicted as a seedy john rather than as the refined aesthete Sydney Greenstreet would play). But hardboiled attitude is what really matters, and Ricardo Cortez (a good early talkie actor who always tried hard) just isn't playing Hammett's hardboiled, unsentimental Spade-- he's playing the more typical suave gentleman detective of the period, like Philo Vance. As a result, it's the love affair with Ms. Wonderly that takes over, and the shocking bite of Hammett's ending is lost. It was capturing the Hammett worldview that was John Huston's great accomplishment, and that made his Falcon so influential over the films noir to follow.

All the same Huston, who was working at Warner Bros. when this was made, must have liked something about this movie-- the scene where Spade first meets Joel Cairo (Otto Mattiesen, doing an excellent Peter Lorre imitation years before the fact) is repeated almost shot for shot and inflection for inflection in the Huston version, the only such case of direct inspiration I spotted here. Mattiesen, a familiar silent era character actor, sadly died not long after the film came out; had he lived he certainly could have had as interesting a talkie career as Lorre eventually did.

Wilmer is played by Renfield!

[reptilicus · 31 May 2001]

DWIGHT FRYE plays Wilmer Cook in this version! Imagine my amazement at finding this out. Don't get me wrong, Elisha Cook Jnr. was extremely good in the later version and Dwight's role is considerably smaller but if you asked me to pick which one was the deffinitive Wilmer I would have a very hard time. The role does not call for subtlety; Wilmer is a psychotic who enjoys his work a little too much. Both men do an admirable job playing a role that is more complex than appears on the surface. The audiences first impression is to laugh at the baby faced kid waving his big .45 automatics around and talking tough but as soon as we find out that not only is he not shy about using his weapons he is darn good with them too he becomes a frightening image because his young, fresh faced looks hide a true monster beneath the surface. Well done, Dwight. I have a new respect for this hard-to-find early version of the famous novel now and it's all thanks to you.

early version of the classic

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 23 May 2007]

Before Humphrey Bogart, Ricardo Cortez, as Sam Spade, was looking for that big black bird in 1931's "The Maltese Falcon," also starring Bebe Daniels, Una Merkel, and Thelma Todd. Since it's 1931 and therefore pre-code, the emphasis is on sex and Sam's libidinous nature. In the first scene, a woman leaves his office straightening the seams in her stockings. Bebe Daniels as Ms. Wonderly takes a bath in Sam's tub, strips in the kitchen - you name it. Thelma Todd is on hand as the wife of Spade's partner, Miles Archer who, if you know the story, gets it in the first reel. Sam's had a thing with her too. He keeps them all on the hook.

I found this version slow going, mainly because it's an early talkie - the dialogue pacing isn't quite right. You can drive a truck through the pauses. The only one with a more modern feel for the dialogue is the handsome, smiling Cortez, and he's absolutely marvelous as Spade. His Spade is more relaxed than Bogie's, less sardonic, more delightfully crooked - in short, he has a lot more fun. He fits just as well into this version as world-weary Bogie does into the 1941 version.

Bebe Daniels is attractive and alluring as the greedy and totally ruthless Miss Wonderly. The gay subplot between Greenstreet and Lorre everyone assumes isn't as apparent in this film between Wilmer (Dwight Frye) and Caspar Guttman (Dudley Digges).

I found the comments in the first post on the actors' approaches to their roles very interesting; I'm not sure I totally agree, but for sure, Cortez spoke louder and Daniels did underplay (which she did not do in "42nd Street" - at all). However, as far as the pace, I still Cortez did better in keeping the dialogue going than anyone else.

This is a fascinating film - so different from the 1941 version, which I hope to see this evening - it's definitely worth catching.

A more primitive but sexier version of the Dashiell Hammett novel

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 7 January 2017]

Roy Del Ruth directed the original adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett novel in 1931, which starred Ricardo Cortez.

In a nutshell, THE MALTESE FALCON told the story about a San Francisco private detective named Sam Spade, who finds himself drawn into a search for a valuable falcon statuette first created during the Crusades, while investigating three murders.

The story began with a Miss Ruth Wonderly hiring Spade and his partner, Miles Archer, to find her missing sister and a man named Floyd Thursby. When Thursby and Archer end up murdered, Spade discovered that Miss Wonderly is one of three people searching for a statuette called the Maltese Falcon. A mortally wounded ship's captain delivered the statuette to Spade's office before dropping dead, making him the case's third murder victim. The entire case spiraled into a game of cat-and-mouse between Spade, Miss Wonderly, a wealthy fat Englishman named Caspar Gutman and an effeminate continental European named Dr. Joel Cairo. Spade also had to deal with the police, who are determined to pin the three deaths on him.

In the end, this version turned out better than I had expected. However, the movie is not without its faults. There were times when I felt I was watching a filmed play (very common with early talking movies). But the film's main problem seemed to be its pacing. It seemed too slow for what was supposed to be a witty murder mystery. Especially during the first half hour. By the time Joel Cairo was introduced into the story, the pacing finally began to pick up. The dialogue provided by screenwriters Maude Fulton, Brown Holmes and an unaccredited Lucien Hubbard failed to improve over the course of the movie. Not only did the screenplay allow the dialogue to drag throughout the entire film, the latter was not that memorable.

Considering that this is the only precode version of the film, it is not surprising that this version is considered the sexiest of the three filmed versions of the novel. Del Ruth, along with Fulton, Holmes and Hubbard, did an excellent job of conveying the womanizing aspect of Spade's character by revealing his affairs with Archer's wife Iva, his casual flirtation with his secretary Effie, and visual hints of his relationship with Ruth Wonderly like a small indent in the pillow next to the client's head, which hinted that Spade had spent the night with her. Other signs of precode sexuality included Spade bidding a female client good-bye at the beginning of the movie, a nude Miss Wonderly in a bathtub, and a hint of a homosexual relationship between Caspar Gutman and his young enforcer Wilmer Cook.

This version lacked the sharp wit of the 1941 adaptation. Considering that I have never read the novel, the screenplay did allow me to completely understand the story in full detail for the first time, without leaving me in a slight haze of fog. I found nothing memorable about William Rees' photography or Robert M. Haas' art direction except in one scene. The scene in question featured an exterior setting, namely a street in San Francisco's Chinatown where Miles Archer's body was discovered. I suspect that this particular scene gave both Rees and Haas an opportunity to display their artistry beyond the movie's usual interior settings.

There is also a solid cast here. Ricardo Cortez, led the cast as detective Sam Spade. Cortez gave a very sexy interpretation of Spade in his performance. His constant smirks and grins in the film's first ten to fifteen minutes seemed annoying. But in the end, Cortez grew on me. I can honestly say that not only did I find him very effective in portraying a sexy Sam Spade, he also managed to superbly capture the character's cynical humor, toughness and deep contempt toward the police.

Bebe Daniels, another survivor from the silent era, portrayed Ruth Wonderly, and this role has to be considered as one of her best. She managed to give an excellent performance as the ladylike yet manipulative woman who drew Spade into the labyrinth search for the Maltese Falcon. Mind you, she lacked Mary Astor's throbbing voice and nervous manner. But that is merely a minor hitch. Daniels still managed to portray a very convincing elegant temptress.

Irish-born Dudley Digges portrayed the wealthy and obsessive Caspar Gutman, who is not above murder, bribery and a score of other crimes to acquire the falcon statuette. Digges lacked the style to believably portray a man wealthy enough to conduct a twenty-year search for a valuable artifact. Instead, Digges reminded me of a corrupt minor official at a British post in the tropics. He seemed to lack talent and subtlety for infusing menace into his character. Whenever he tried to menacing, he only ended up giving a hammy performance. On the other hand, Otto Matieson gave a more believable performance as Dr. Joel Cairo, Gutman's Continental accomplice. Matieson portrayed Cairo as a no-nonsense and practical man who is careful with his money and with whom to trust it.

Una Merkel gave a humorous performance as Spade's Girl Friday, Effie. Her Effie is not hesitant about expressing her attraction to Spade, yet at the same time, she seemed to find the detective's other amorous activities rather amusing. Todd seemed to be trying too hard as a scorned lover without any subtlety. At least Dwight Frye fared better as Gutman's young enforcer, Wilmer Cook. He did a solid job in conveying the portrait of a baby-faced killer.

I'd suggest watching the 1931 version and the 1941 versions back to back, to get an idea of how Warner Brothers "grew up" during the 1930s. Remember they were just a poverty row studio mainly known for their Rin Tin Tin silent until The Jazz Singer made them rich.

The far sexier, precode version!

[overseer-3 · 10/10 · 13 July 2004]

I got such a kick out of this filmed version of Dashiell Hammett's detective novel that I think I was grinning from ear to ear throughout the movie. Because it was a pre-code film it was much more open to the sexiness of the original novel, for instance here we have Miss Wonderly (Bebe Daniels in the role played by Mary Astor in the 1941 version) actually undressing in the kitchen scene. In another scene, when she claims someone is following her and she is frightened to be alone, Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez, who is much more handsome than Bogart) offers her his bedroom for the night. "You can have my bed, I'll sleep out here." She turns to him coyly from the sofa and says "Aw, don't let me keep you out." I burst out laughing. Couldn't imagine this repartee between Bogie and Astor!

Una Merkel was superb as the devoted secretary of Sam Spade. She constantly gives off the aura that she has had a physical relationship with him in the past and that some of it still hangs around even though it is essentially over (note their sitting real closely on a chair in one scene, lingeringly holding hands). Thelma Todd plays Archer's wife, who has also had an affair with Sam in the past, and she adds some more spice to the film which is already loaded with it compared to the 1941 version, which was made under the control of the Hollywood Production Code.

The other cast members are wonderful, including Dudley Digges as Casper Gutman, Otto Matieson as Joel Cairo, and Dwight Frye as the psychotic Wilma Cook. They completely hold your attention and are just as interesting, perhaps even more so, than the 1941 version actors.

I am a Bogie fan, but Ricardo Cortez steals the picture with this performance. He is a much more selfish, less noble character than Bogie's Sam Spade, and that makes him more interesting to watch on screen. For instance, in the 1941 version, Bogie's Sam Spade reluctantly gives over the girl to the police because "when your partner is murdered, you are supposed to do something about it." In the 1931 version Ricardo's Sam Spade hands her over simply because he himself doesn't want to be charged with murder. He's saving his own neck, not acting out of some false loyalty to a partner he didn't even like. In fact in this version Ricardo as Sam states firmly, "I couldn't shed a tear for Archer, dead OR alive." This is a lot more honest and realistic.

Don't miss your chance to see this early talkie gem. It is fascinating to watch on its own merits, and also to compare with the later, more famous, Bogart version.

I Liked It Better

[arthursranch · 7/10 · 15 December 2012]

Despite the silent-to-talkie transition style, I liked this one better than the Bogart one. In fact, I think it exposes Bogart's counterfeit toughness (among other things, he was too short). Ricardo Cortez was a great choice. Perhaps George Raft might have been a better Sam Spade in the 1941 version. The similarity in dialogue between the two movies begs the issue of insufficient originality in the later version.

Comparing 1931 v 1941 characters, I think only Sydney Greenstreet provides a more interesting product. As the same (or similar) character, Alison Skipworth, as Madame Barabbas in Satan Met a Lady 1936, finishes second. From that same movie, Marie Wilson finishes second to Una Merkel as Effie, with 1941's Lee Patrick a distant third.

I like them all. I like the structure of the mystery. It reminds me (it's just me) a little of John Le Carre mysteries where, as in Tinker Tailor, the investigator knows the answer from the beginning.

Adds a new dimension to the classic version

[sryder-1 · 8/10 · 18 April 2006]

I have seen this version of Maltese Falcon three times, from off-the-air taping. Of course, it follows the same basic plot line of the 1941 film, but that early film noir classic becomes more like a morality play, with relatively little emotion. From the start, Sam Spade is portrayed as a ladies man: an approach validated by the smooth good looks of Ricardo Cortez and his urbane manner. It is difficult to imagine a first shot of a woman's legs coming out of Sam's office as the first shot of the 1941 film, in light of Bogart's understated performance. Moreover, one gets a strong impression that there is a real attraction between Cortez and Daniels, conveyed not so much by the scene in Sam's apartment with its bathtub scene and her stripping in his bedroom, where she has spent the night; rather, in the last scene where Sam is visiting her in her prison cell (instead of turning her over to the police with no regrets, as in 1941) and tells the matron to provide her with every luxury she wants, and we see her alone in the cell, weeping and bitterly commenting on (their?) love. There are other interesting features. Whereas in 1941 a homosexual relationship between Greenstreet and Lorre lay beneath the surface, in this film Gutman strokes Wilmer as "my own son" and seems truly troubled at the thought of giving him up as the "fall guy". Dwight Frye as Wilmer has only a few lines, but gives his usual expressive performance of mental unbalance, without the hardness of Elisha Cook, Jr. in 1941. It's interesting for me to speculate how I would have evaluated the 1941 film if I had seen this one first, and used it as the basis for comparison.

Not bad, but a tad stale

[zetes · 7/10 · 16 October 2006]

It might have been wise to watch the two earlier versions of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon before I re-watched the 1941 classic. It would have reminded me just how great Huston's film is. The '31 version isn't bad, per se. It has the same major flaw that most films of this early talkie era had: leaden dialogue delivery. It's also a bit stagy, though by no means the worst I've seen from the time. None of the actors are as good as their '41 counterparts, with the possible exception of Bebe Daniels, most famous for her role in 42nd Street. She's a bit sexier than Mary Astor, and it's more believable that she could hold sway over men. I also thought Otto Matieson was pretty good as Joel Cairo. Una Merkel is very cute as Effie, Spade's secretary. Thelma Todd, of Marx Brothers' movies fame, also co-stars as Iva Archer. Ricardo Cortez plays Sam. He's a bit too nice for the part, like he should rather be starring in musicals (Daniels doesn't suffer this way – she's appropriately ruthless). The film only runs 78 minutes, but it feels a lot longer. It excises even more of the novel than Huston's version, but the pacing is really slow (the '41 movie runs 100 minutes). It seems the major success in Huston's movie – well, besides the awesome cast – was its lightning pacing. It also changes some things around at the end, if I remember right. I actually really liked the final sequence, not in the '41 version and (if memory serves me correctly) not in the novel, either, where Spade visits Ms. Wonderly (which isn't a pseudonym in this movie) in prison. I wouldn't say it surpasses the '41 version in any way, but then again I've never quite been satisfied with Spade's final exchanges with Brigid O'Shaughnessy either.

The stuff that naps are made of

[eebyo · 4/10 · 12 July 2004]

Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't.

This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.

"Well, if I'm peddling it, I'm selling to the highest bidder."

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 18 June 2019]

The first film version of Dashiell Hammetts' famed story stars Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade, private detective. He's led into a whole lot of trouble by a truly conniving femme fatale, Ruth Wonderly (Bebe Daniels). She and her underworld cohorts desperately want to get their hands on the supposedly very valuable title object, and will kill to get it. But Sam handles each potentially dangerous situation he's in with a lot of poise.

The fact that this is a pre-"Code" film allows for some interesting touches: a heightened accent on sex (with female characters showing off a lot of leg), and the ability to bring the homosexuality of the villains more to the forefront. Directed by Roy Del Ruth, the film is actually quite comparable to the more iconic feature film version of 1941. It's very entertaining. One noticeable difference is that the charismatic, oft-smiling Cortez is more cheery than Humphrey Bogart would be ten years later, and is a major league womanizer, to boot. It's a running gag the way that he keeps going gaga over attractive women; he even flirts regularly with his secretary Effie (Una Merkel). The pacing is more rapid fire than in the 1941 picture, with a running time coming in at a difference of minus 22 minutes.

What makes this version a joy are the performances. Cortez is a hoot, and is well supported by Daniels, playing a woman for whom lying is second nature. The strong supporting cast includes Robert Elliott and J. Farrell MacDonald as investigating detectives, Walter Long as Spades' partner Miles Archer and Thelma Todd as his hot-to-trot wife, Otto Matieson as the effeminate Joel Cairo, and none other than Dwight "Renfield" Frye as the gunsel Wilmer Cook. But the show tends to get stolen by the priceless Dudley Digges as the slimy Caspar Gutman.

Overall, a fine early crime thriller that's worthy of some respect.

In 1936, a more comedic version of the tale was released called "Satan Met a Lady", starring Bette Davis.

Eight out of 10.

Plenty to like in this original version of Dashiell Hammett's story.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 24 April 2013]

While the fun tough-talking dialog of the much more famous 1941 version isn't as prevalent here, there is much to admire in the forgotten original film which has a much more light-hearted atmosphere, slightly comic, but not as farcial (or off-putting) as the 1936 disastrous remake "Satan Met a Lady". The 1941 version follows closely to this, adding more detail to stretch out the running time somewhat, but never adding material which is unnecessary to that version's overall plot. The grinning Ricardo Cortez is playboy detective Sam Spade, seen in the very beginning saying goodbye to a female conquest (presumably his partner's wife), then flirts openly with his officious secretary (Una Merkel). In comes femme fatal Bebe Daniels, a bit younger looking than her replacement Mary Astor, but still quite deadly. (In fact, to escape confusion with the remake, the title was changed to "Dangerous Female" for television, but fortunately changed back with its original titles for the DVD release).

Then, there are the other villains. Dudley Digges takes sleaziness to a new level in the future Sydney Greenstreet role of Casper Gutman. There is nothing to trust in this man; In fact, the character oozes with creepiness and at times, you can't watch him without thinking "eeew!" to yourself. The same can be said of the film's Joel Cairo, here played by Otto Matieson with a different effemininity style than Peter Lorre's. He seems like the type of creep that would shoot or stab someone, then comb and re-style their hair so at least they'd be found properly coiffed rather than a corpse with hair out of place. And who better in the early 30's to play the dumb Wilmer than Dwight Frye, the fly-eating psycho from "Dracula"? So the detail for character is dead on here, if not a bit frightening.

As a pre-code film, this outdoes its superior remake, perfect as a film, yet missing the fun of the innuendos of this version. Once it was re-vamped in the 1940's, it took on a different quality which makes the same story seem quite different. So feel free to watch both versions back to back (I suggest skipping "Satan Met a Lady" other than to see a young Bette Davis in a film she detested) because they are different enough even with all of their similarities to be judged on completely different merits.

A Bird in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Bush

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 15 December 2007]

Ricardo Cortez plays playboy detective Sam Spade, in this first version of novelist Dashiell Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon". Bebe Daniels (as Ruth Wonderly) is the femme fatale with whom he becomes involved, along with Dudley Digges (as Gutman) and Otto Matieson (as Dr. Cairo); for various reasons, they all seek "The Maltese Falcon". It's an exceptionally rare piece...

The production "look" of this early "talkie" is nowhere near as good as "The Maltese Falcon" (1941), which was directed by John Huston, and starred Humphrey Bogart. However, this 1931 version is more enjoyable that you'd expect; it is especially recommended as a viewing addendum to its better known re-make(s). Mr. Cortez and Ms. Daniels liven things up with some sexual play; this was so subdued in the 1941 version, it was almost sexless. Mr. Matieson and Una Merkel (as secretary Effie) are the best supporting performers. In this version, the characters' actions make more sense. There are a few noticeable story differences; for example, this one ends quite differently...

***** The Maltese Falcon (5/28/31) Roy Del Ruth ~ Ricardo Cortez, Bebe Daniels, Dudley Digges, Otto Matieson

Interesting version of a classic

[McGonigle · 20 November 2004]

As everyone knows by now (at least if they're on this IMDb page!), this was the original film version of "The Maltese Falcon". And, of course, it (being pre-code) is a lot sexier than the Bogart version, which is to say, comparable to a racy 1970s TV movie. We see Miss Wonderley sleeping in Spade's bed, and actually see her naked in the bathtub (from the shoulders up) at one point.

As in "Satan Met a Lady", the detective is made out to be a sleazy ladies' man in this movie. When we first see him, he's kissing a woman goodbye; we never actually see her face, but we see her adjusting her stocking, and when Sam returns to his office, the pillows from his couch are in disarray. He seems to be getting some from Effie as well (and I must point out that Una Merkel, as Effie, is hot, hot, hot in this movie; quite a contrast to the matronly Lee Patrick in the 1941 version).

Overall, though, this movie is still somewhat unsatisfying. I suppose if we had never seen the Bogart/Huston version, this would stand as an acceptable adaptation of Hammett's novel (by the standards of the time). It follows the novel fairly closely, but skimps on the plot somewhat. The subplot where Wonderley disappears, and then reappears (as O'Shaughnessy) because she realizes Gutman is in town is missing, as is all the great interplay between Spade and Wilmer ("Just keep riding me, buster", "This'll put you in solid with your boss", etc.) that was such a treat in the later version. True, this movie is a little more explicit about the relationship between Gutman and Wilmer, but Wilmer is such a minor character (with literally only a few minutes of screen time) that their relationship still seems more fully-developed in the 1941 movie. There's also a very odd change at the end (just before the prison scene) that seems like something of a cop-out.

And, finally, it must be pointed out that Ricardo Cortez really stinks in this movie. He spends most of the movie with a smirk plastered on his face, and his performance in general is extremely stiff. I suppose that's to be expected in such an early talkie, but, combined with the general aura of sleaziness that his character exudes, it makes it impossible to really care what happens to him. In the end, this is an enjoyable movie, but mainly for reasons of historical curiosity, and it never comes anywhere near the "classic" status that the later remake has achieved.

This flick was a lot better than I expected

[small45-670-264771 · 7/10 · 22 September 2010]

The 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart was actually the second remake of The Maltese Falcon. The first remake was Satan Met A Lady, (1936) starring Bette Davis. This film (The Maltese Falcon - 1931) was the original. It doesn't have the pizazz of the Humphrey Bogart version, and it is not a film noir version, but it is extremely faithful to the story, and much more explicit about the various adulterous affairs, out of wedlock sex, and homosexuality. Ricardo Cortez was a big star at the time.

Contrary to the many comments in user reviews, it is not a pre-code movie. The Movie Production Code (aka Hays Code) was instituted in 1930, but largely ignored by the studios. It wasn't enforced until 1934 when Joseph Breen took over as head of the Motion Picture Code. The story of the years 1930 - 1933 films which contained much more explicit material than was technically permitted by the code is well told in the TCM documentary "Forbidden Film".

Of the three versions of The Maltese Falcon, this is, in my opinion, the second best, with Bogart's version being the best. But this version is a close second, with much to recommend it. It is not more faithful to the novel than the 1941 version, but it is much clearer, especially concerning the sexual sub-plots of the film. It was an A movie in it's time, with top stars including Thelma Todd, Una Merkel, and Dwight Frye. If you like the Bogart version you will probably enjoy this antecedent. Film aficionados and lovers of film history should take special note of this gem.

"Here's to plain speaking and clear understanding."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 29 April 2017]

I'll try to be fair in my review of this early version of "The Maltese Falcon", but with Bogart as my favorite actor and the 1941 remake as one of my Top 10 films, it's going to be difficult. Not that this isn't a serviceable story, it is, but if you've seen the Bogey crew in action, there's no comparison, at least for this viewer.

I never read the Dashiell Hammett novel, so I don't know which Sam Spade more closely resembles the literary version. I can say though, that I didn't care for the Ricardo Cortez portrayal here all that much. Perhaps it's because he was a flagrant womanizer, or because he didn't trade barbs with Polhaus (J. Farrel MacDonald) and Dundy (Robert Elliott) with the sardonic wit of Bogart's Spade. On the flip side though, the fact that Spade understood Chinese was an interesting idea; it's not till late in the story that we learn that Lee Fu Gow told Spade who killed his partner. So he knew all along, and kept it close to the vest to see how things played out.

Character for character match-ups between the two pictures makes it a hands down proposition for the later film. How can you top Greenstreet, Lorre and Elisha Cook, Jr. as the heavies compared to the statue hunters here? As Ruth Wonderly, Bebe Daniels uses only one name in the story compared to Mary Astor's character, and Sam's secretary in this version, portrayed by Una Merkel, gave every indication that she had a past, present or future in the romance department with her boss. Bogart's Spade wisely kept his hands to himself around his secretary, maintaining a professional relationship instead of a lecherous one.

I guess there are those who'll see things just the other way around with this pre-code version of The Falcon. There's something to be said for the free wheeling attitude displayed toward sexual innuendo in the story. It helps explain how Miss Wonderly wound up with a woman's kimono in Sam's apartment - it belonged to partner Archer's wife!!

I did get a big kick out of one thing that blows by pretty quickly if one is not attentive to it. Listen carefully when Sam Spade makes a call to Effie's home phone - her number is Berkeley, Double O-7! It would be a couple decades before writer Ian Fleming came up with that designation for his secret agent, James Bond! I wonder if he saw this picture.

Enjoyed this 1931 Version of the Film

[whpratt1 · 10/10 · 9 September 2005]

Discovered this original film of "The Maltese Falcon" 1931 and was amazed how this version of the story was produced. The film stayed pretty close to the Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greestreet and Peter Lorre theme. However, Ricardo Cortez (Sam Spade) and Bebe Daniels(Ruth Wonderly) acted completely different and the cheating of money from an envelope, caused a gal to have to take all her clothes off, in order to find out where she might have hid the money. Just mentioning the word take your clothes off in those days was probably horrible in a film during the 1930's. The ending of the picture was completely different, and the gal in question was treated with kid gloves. I always felt the Bogart Maltese Falcon could have done away with Mary Astor, the gals in this picture were more sexy and attractive that the 40's version.

More Of A Smart Aleck Than A Cynic

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 1 September 2010]

When Warner Brothers did the original The Maltese Falcon, they had in mind trying to convert silent star Ricardo Cortez from an ersatz Rudolph Valentino. Latin lovers were going out of style and the cynical Sam Spade character seemed just the thing to give Cortez a new image. Though Cortez did a good job, this Maltese Falcon was put in the shade by the classic with Humphrey Bogart.

Cortez's Spade is more of a smart aleck than a cynic. If you've seen the Bogart version you know exactly what happens here. The cast that Warner Brothers assembled to support Cortez and Bebe Daniels as Ms. Wonderly is a good one. I particularly liked Dudley Digges as Guttman and Dwight Frye as Wilmer. The gay relationship is more pronounced as this version is before the Code.

It's a good film, but a curiosity most of all to those of us who are fans of the John Huston version.

Practically the 1941 version throughout much of the film!

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 21 December 2007]

This film, like the 1941 version of the same movie, is about a group of rogues searching for a famed gold and jewel encrusted statue. Along the way, greed resulted in the murders of several people and the police suspect Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) for the murders--or at least thinking he knows far more than he's admitting.

While the 1941 version of THE MALTESE FALCON has become a classic, this original version from 1931 is oddly forgotten. While I could understand a little of this (after all, Bogart was better as Sam Spade), it's not fair that the 1931 be given its just due. That's because much of this 1931 film is copied word-for-word in 1941--making the 1941 a rather by the numbers remake. Sure, there are improvements here and there, but nothing essentially ground-breaking or significantly different.

So how is the original better and worse than the 1941 film? Well, it's better because Spade is grittier and more amoral--much more like you'd think a real private eye might be. Plus, since it is original, I usually feel that original's are best and deserve to be seen. On the negative side, the 1931 film is lacking much of the wonderful incidental music. This was common for films in 1931, but the 1941 movie sounds better and this makes the film come alive. The pace is also much better in 1941--as the film is less rushed and hence unfolds better. Also, Bogart was a bit better in the lead--a bit more rugged and bigger than life. Finally, the tacked on ending in the 1931 film was unnecessary and actually blunted the impact on the final confrontation scene.

Now one way they are VERY different but which is neither better nor worse is that the 1931 film was made before the strengthened Production Code was enforced. This allowed Spade to be much more of a sexual Lothario and there was a scene where it strongly implied that he'd had sex with Bebe Daniels' character--something that did NOT happen in the later film.

Overall, this is a terrific film--especially since it was so much better than the average fare of the day. While not quite as good as the 1941 version, it's so close that frankly it's almost a toss up as to which is best. Despite all the hype, the 1931 FALCON is a great film and one not to be missed by film historians and lovers of Pre-Code cinema.

This actually has the Wow factor!

[1930s_Time_Machine · 7/10 · 25 April 2023]

It's an impossible ask but try to forget that other picture - it's like comparing a painting with a piece of music - different things altogether.

This actually has the Wow factor! It's a great story - it has a beginning, a mass of confusion and then an end with a satisfying easy to understand explanation for everything. There's so much happening all of the time but Roy del Ruth presents it all nicely in order so everything follows. As with a lot of early 30s pictures, the story telling is simpler and less sophisticated they would become a few years later but that clarity of dealing with one thing at a time makes it easier to focus on each individual as they're presented and discover their character. Even with that simple premise, because the plot of THE MALTESE FALCON is essentially layers of lies upon lies obscuring more lies, the task of working out who they really are and what makes these characters tick isn't particularly easy but all the more rewarding when you do get to know them.

Sam Spade is played by Ricardo Cortez and he's an absolute superstar. He clearly loved doing this role, he plays it with such enthusiasm and energy that his joy floods out of the screen like a tsunami at you so much, you just can't help sharing his enjoyment.

There's a lot of imagery in this production (and the book): Cortez' Sam Spade is very much a reflection of the Maltese Falcon itself: something hidden in disguise, something pretending it's something else, something smooth, slippery and superficial on the outside hiding something secret, never to be revealed under that hard shell. Ricardo Cortez' Spade is the slick, smart, sophisticated man about town with beautiful clothes, a beautiful apartment and a different beautiful woman in his beautiful apartment every beautiful night. As this film progresses you're privileged to catch a few glimpses of the real Sam Spade. Ricardo Cortez is perfect as the smiling debonair THIN MAN type of detective, along with all the lies upon lies of the story, his own character is clearly a complete fabrication. Maybe this is a perfect role for him because Ricardo Cortez himself is kind of just an act, in real life he'd originally been Jacob Krantz - ah, the masks of Hollywood! ........did I say earlier that pictures from this era weren't sophisticated......clearly I wasn't entirely correct.

This isn't a perfect picture by any means. Unlike Rouben Mamoulian's CITY STREETS also made in 1931 but by the much wealthier Paramount Pictures or even BLONDE CRAZY made by Roy del Ruth himself but six months later, this film does show its age. Technology was evolving so fast just in that one year that you can see and hear the difference in quality from this to BLONDE CRAZY. What is noticeably clunky about this is how slow and precise the talking is. The actors sound like they are talking extra slow carefully in that strange, over-enunciated voice we think makes us understandable to foreigners or to our Alexa! This has the knock on effect of slowing down the action and so some of the energy gets a little lost at times. This is a flaw but a forgivable one and it doesn't ruin the film - it almost gives it some sort of charm.

So what about the rest of the cast? Bebe Daniels has almost as much screen time as Sam Spade and apart from that peculiar accent she employs she is THE classic, THE ultimate femme fatale (and ten times more believable than Mary Astor). She's absolutely untrustworthy but also absolutely adorable. You would know with complete, one hundred percent certainty that without any doubt whatsoever she would stab you in the back but you also know that with just as much certainty you would definitely fall in love with her. And that's what happens two fake personas fall in love with each other but what about the real people underneath? Like we see the superficial nature of Sam Spade starting to flake away, Bebe Daniels' character Ruth also begins to slip as well. She however reveals herself to be more like the fake bird, the one that's got nothing inside it rather than the real Maltese Falcon. Deep stuff but fun!

And talking of revealing herself, I wonder whether that was the same bath Roy del Ruth had Miss Daniels in which he also had Joan Blondell in a few months later. Was that part of the deal for doing one of his pictures - nice one Roy, I like your style!

Murky Main Character

[view_and_review · 5/10 · 23 August 2022]

A flawed protagonist is usually a good thing in a movie. I, for one, don't care to see a perfect person as the protagonist most of the time. I prefer to see someone with imperfections and fallibility so that they are more human and have something to overcome. But there are some flaws in a main character that I can never get past. One such flaw is an adulterer, or a person sleeping with someone else's spouse. That is a deal breaker for me. The guy or gal can go on to save the world, for which I will be grateful, but I still would harbor some ill-will towards him or her.

Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) was such a protagonist. Within the first five minutes we find out that not only is Sam messing with someone's wife, he was messing with his partner's wife which is doubly bad. I think there is a commandment that goes "don't covet thy neighbor's wife" or something like that. Commandment or not, it's a big no no.

Things got dangerous for Sam and his partner Miles Archer (Walter Long) when they accepted a case from Ruth Wonderly (Bebe Daniels). She claimed that a dangerous guy had her sister in San Francisco somewhere and she needed their help to locate her. The next thing you know Archer was dead and so was a guy named Thursby.

Sam wasn't the least bit sympathetic about either death. He didn't even feign sadness when he was told his partner was dead which made him more despicable to me. You were banging his wife, then he was murdered and you didn't bat an eye. You should've been the one with a .45 slug in his chest.

The real picture, and Ruth's part in it, slowly came into focus as the movie went on. After the appearance of Casper Gutman (Dudley Digges) and Dr. Joel Cairo (Otto Matieson) we knew that an expensive black bird statue is what Ruth, Gutman, and Cairo were after. If Sam could find it there would be a lot of money in it for him from Gutman. He got a *wink wink* prepayment in another form from Ruth.

As a mystery this movie was pretty good. My main problem was with the main character. I know I would've had a better opinion of the movie had I liked the main character more. It was bad enough he was a womanizer and had a secretary who was there for more than her typing, but to also be a homewrecker; that was too much. I don't need my protagonist squeaky clean, but he can't be grimy either.

Good forerunner to the '41 classic !

[gullwing592003 · 8/10 · 9 June 2010]

I first saw this original pre-code 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon titled "Dangerous Female" on the big screen in 1994 & I was shocked & impressed by just how good it was & it gives the classic 1941 version a run for it's money. For it's an interesting historical curiosity. I can see why this version was very successful & well received in 1931 but I can also see why it was soon forgotten.

Having read the novel by Dashiell Hammett detective Sam Spade was a ladies man but not to the extent to where Ricardo Cortez took him. Cortez went too far & was a bit excessive & extreme even for a pre-code movie. Spade was also a hard boiled cynical private eye with a code of ethics. Cortez did capture this to a certain point when he wasn't womanizing.

Because of it's suggestive, sexual explicitness this version was not re-released when the strict censorship code was enforced in 1934 governing morality & decency. This original version deviates from the book considerably & only touched on the original story & the cast is not that memorable for the most part with the exception of Dwight Frye, we all know him from Dracula & Frankenstein.

Ricardo Cortez, Otto Matiesen & Dudley Digges pales in comparison to their 1941 counterparts more stronger screen presence of Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre & Sydney Greenstreet in their respective roles as Sam Spade, Joel Cairo & Kasper Gutman the fatman. I will say that it's a toss up with Dwight Frye & Elisha Cook Jr. as Wilmer the gunsel. Both were equally good & right for the part.

As for the females, Bebe Daniels, Thelma Todd & Una Merkel are very sexually seductive exciting women more so than Mary Astor, Gladys George & Lee Patrick respectively as Brigid Wonderly, Iva Archer & Spades secretary Effie. Even though the women in the 1941 version were less appealing, for some reason they were more memorable than the more sizzling hot women in the 1931 version. Although I don't think Mary Astor was a great Brigid, I think Bette Davis or Barbara Stanwyck would've been better.

It was these factors in addition to the definitive indelible 1941 version that contributed to why this pre-code version was reduced to a dim memory. Did people even remember this version by 1941 ?? Of the 3 versions of The Maltese Falcon it was the John Huston directed film that was the most faithful & closest adaptation that stayed true to Dashiell Hammett's book.

It was John Huston's direction giving the film a dark, cynical, gloomy & atmospheric quality that permeates through the entire story. And the dramatic use of lighting & shadows & the expressive camera-work of Arthur Edeson bringing us into the world of film noir. This is why the 1941 version became the enduring classic cinematic quintessential prototype private detective thriller. Something that the 1931 version lacks to some extent.

But this original version should be seen & enjoyed in it's own right as a forerunner to the later classic & also as a historical reference point as to what these early talkies were like before 1934. I would like to see this version again & obtain a copy on DVD & watch it back to back with the '41 classic. If you're into pre-code cinema by all means see this original version.

Sam Spade, Lounge Lizard.

[adamk-2 · 7/10 · 26 June 2009]

I recently sat down and watched the more-renowned 1941 version of this and then, by way of comparison, watched this earlier take on the same story. It's an approach I'd recommend, as the two versions complement each other wonderfully. While the 1941 is proto-noir with all its labyrinthine motivations and machinations, this lesser-known version creaks a fair bit and, although the performances are generally awkward and the direction stilted, everyone has their moments. Bebe Daniels, for instance, shines as the "heroine", exhibiting far more bubble and downright sexiness than Mary Astor did. Which segues neatly into this version's most startling asset: sex. Quite a bit of it, by Hollywood 30s standards. coming pre-Hays Code, there's a fair amount of flesh on view and an abundance left to the imagination. The scene with Daniels taking a bath was astonishing for its sexiness and the homosexual frisson between Gutman and Gunsel was quite marked.

The script is very much the same, and it's fascinating seeing such familiar lines coming out of unfamiliar mouths. This film, however, fills in some holes that the '41 version skated over (Spade's affair with Mrs Archer, for instance) so, seen together, they can be seen as two pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle. As I said, the performances are a little stiff, there are some delightful moments (watch as they wait for the arrival of the falcon: Daniels cheating at Solitaire and watching to see if anyone sees her; Cortez as Spade playing with a kid's game, chewing gum and idly looking around). It could use a little jazz-age looseness in its staging, but I think this is a worthy predecessor to the '41 version, and fans of that should definitely take a looks at this one.

Don't waste your time.... absolute trash. Cartoons are better.

[nitestar95 · 1/10 · 15 May 2020]

This film remains proof of how much 'Chuck Norris' quality acting was common in the 1930's. Every actor seems to be reading his lines off of a teleprompter, never having seen them on a script before. I watched this decades after seeing the 1941 version. All I can say, is I've seen better acting in primary school plays. I can't imagine a movie studio exec watching the dailies and allowing this tripe to continue to be made. I'm guessing that the studio owed some sort of favor to a director, producer or actor. I guess it might have been a good matinee for school children, though.... or perhaps people that thought Blair Witch movies enjoyable.