Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

arthursranch 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.

small45-670-264771 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.

gullwing592003 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.

Merciful_Wolf It's somewhat surprising how different two versions of the same story can be. While the later version starring Humphrey Bogart had moments so clever and stylish that you find yourself laughing at the greatness of the writing and the actors' delivery, it is this version which really takes a lighter, more humorous approach.Not that it's a comedy -- that would be "Satan Met a Lady" -- but it wisecracks it's way through the labyrinthine plot with a wry smirk the whole way. That's how Cortez plays Sam Spade; more flagrantly immoral, and more satisfied about it, than Bogart, and always with a kind of toothy grin plastered across his face. The character of Spade is always putting on an act, and sometimes he may even fool himself. It's not as great a performance as Bogart's, but it escapes comparison by being such a different take on the character.The story, as I remember, is not as clear here as it is in the later version, nor is it as stylish, or the supporting cast quite as memorable. Still, it's a competent, very entertaining noir. Plus, being made in 1931, it still has the aesthetic of the Roaring Twenties and art nouveau, which again sets it apart with the 1941 version. The dames here have bobbed hair and flapper styles.