26 reviews
If ever there was a film that should have been a lot better, it is the 1940 version of "Raffles" - excellently cast is David Niven as the Gentleman cracksman, and with Olivia de Havilland (at her loveliest) as his girl-friend Gwen, with two excellent supporting players in Dame May Whitty and Dudley Digges. Lasting only just over an hour, it misses a wonderful opportunity to make something really exciting and suspenseful, but on those scores it fails. The predictability of it is a real let-down, and really the talent of the two main stars are wasted - Miss de Havilland has absolutely nothing to do except sit around and look gorgeous - she must have been forced by Warners to do this on loan out, because it followed so soon after her big success in "Gone With The Wind".
- dougandwin
- Aug 24, 2004
- Permalink
In order to enjoy either version of Raffles, the Ronald Colman or this one, you have to be a fan of either Colman or David Niven in this case. If you don't like either, Raffles will not be your cup of English tea. Fortunately I like both of them.
David Niven probably carried more films on his personal charm than any other player I know. Even more than Ronald Colman did, because Colman had the advantage of getting better scripts.
This remake that Sam Goldwyn did of his own film had little change in it from the Colman version. David Niven is the debonair cricket player who has a nice sideline as a cat burglar. He's so good, he leaves taunting notes for Scotland Yard, particularly at Inspector Dudley Digges who's in charge of trying to catch him.
The last job he does is for his friend Douglas Walton who has embezzled some mess company funds to gamble with and there's an audit come due. Raffles is a pal good and true and offers to help though Walton does not know about his sideline.
Olivia DeHavilland is Walton's sister who has little to do but sit around and look beautiful. She had hoped that on the strength of her performance in Gone With the Wind, Warner Brothers would giver her more substantial material. That was not to be even on a loan out to Sam Goldwyn.
Despite it being lightweight stuff, Raffles is a key film for David Niven. He was at last given first billing in a film. But as soon as the film was done, he was back to Great Britain to serve in the Armed Forces. Niven made two films in uniform, Spitfire and The Way Ahead, and also saw some combat. He wouldn't see Hollywood again for many years.
Raffles is nice entertainment, but it helps to be a fan of David Niven.
David Niven probably carried more films on his personal charm than any other player I know. Even more than Ronald Colman did, because Colman had the advantage of getting better scripts.
This remake that Sam Goldwyn did of his own film had little change in it from the Colman version. David Niven is the debonair cricket player who has a nice sideline as a cat burglar. He's so good, he leaves taunting notes for Scotland Yard, particularly at Inspector Dudley Digges who's in charge of trying to catch him.
The last job he does is for his friend Douglas Walton who has embezzled some mess company funds to gamble with and there's an audit come due. Raffles is a pal good and true and offers to help though Walton does not know about his sideline.
Olivia DeHavilland is Walton's sister who has little to do but sit around and look beautiful. She had hoped that on the strength of her performance in Gone With the Wind, Warner Brothers would giver her more substantial material. That was not to be even on a loan out to Sam Goldwyn.
Despite it being lightweight stuff, Raffles is a key film for David Niven. He was at last given first billing in a film. But as soon as the film was done, he was back to Great Britain to serve in the Armed Forces. Niven made two films in uniform, Spitfire and The Way Ahead, and also saw some combat. He wouldn't see Hollywood again for many years.
Raffles is nice entertainment, but it helps to be a fan of David Niven.
- bkoganbing
- Jan 29, 2007
- Permalink
"Raffles" seems like it was a quickie - it doesn't last very long and it has an abrupt ending. Nevertheless, "Raffles" features two dazzling stars - David Niven, well-cast as an upper class thief, and Olivia de Havilland as the beautiful object of his affections.
One interesting thing about this film - which made me realize that I had seen it years before - is the early television in the inspector's office at the beginning of the movie.
I regret not seeing the Ronald Colman version. In this one, Niven is charming, handsome, and debonair as a man who seems to steal as a lark and then somehow returns the merchandise, to the frustration of the police. At the film's start, he steals a valuable painting, sends it to his favorite retired actress, and has her return it for the reward money. But when he tries to steal a necklace to help a friend replace money he gambled away before an audit takes place, he runs into another crook attempting to do the same thing, and complications arise.
There are some suspenseful moments toward the end of the movie, but all in all, it goes by too quickly, and the character of Raffles isn't sufficiently developed. It's almost as if the movie starts in the middle and ends before it's really over. De Havilland is absolutely beautiful, even if a couple of her hats are outrageous. She's really just doing an average ingénue role here. "Raffles" debuted in the U.S. just before "Gone With the Wind," and she probably made it right afterward.
Entertaining but disappointing.
One interesting thing about this film - which made me realize that I had seen it years before - is the early television in the inspector's office at the beginning of the movie.
I regret not seeing the Ronald Colman version. In this one, Niven is charming, handsome, and debonair as a man who seems to steal as a lark and then somehow returns the merchandise, to the frustration of the police. At the film's start, he steals a valuable painting, sends it to his favorite retired actress, and has her return it for the reward money. But when he tries to steal a necklace to help a friend replace money he gambled away before an audit takes place, he runs into another crook attempting to do the same thing, and complications arise.
There are some suspenseful moments toward the end of the movie, but all in all, it goes by too quickly, and the character of Raffles isn't sufficiently developed. It's almost as if the movie starts in the middle and ends before it's really over. De Havilland is absolutely beautiful, even if a couple of her hats are outrageous. She's really just doing an average ingénue role here. "Raffles" debuted in the U.S. just before "Gone With the Wind," and she probably made it right afterward.
Entertaining but disappointing.
I'm an great admirer of the Raffles books. E W Hornung was a better writer than the more famous Arthur Conan Doyle, his more famous brother in law. The stories were very well constructed,characters well-defined and deserved classics. This is a thin lazy adaptation, combining of several of the stories losing a great deal of what was important. It is though a scene by scene and largely word for word re-make of the superior 1930 Ronald Colman version.
One, and perhaps the, reason for the remake seemed obvious to me. The 1930 version was too steamy and too suggestive for 1939. When Ronald Colman courteously escorts the large and elderly Lady Melrose to her bedroom and wishes her goodnight, Lady Melrose affects to mishear and Colman repeats with great emphasis the finality of NIGHT!. It is made very clear from their expressions that Lady Melrose was hoping Colman would join her. It think it was not perhaps until the 1970s that Hollywood would again dare suggest such a thing. Colman's love interest is clearly passionately besotted with him and would do anything for him. It was realism but of a kind which Hollywood would I think never portray again. Firstly Hayes Code prudery and later the box office obligation to show women as heroic and independent.
The adaptation removes Bunny's connection with Raffles (formerly a junior at Raffles public (fee paying) school and the odd obligations this entailed. Bunny in this version has little purpose. Raffles was the ultimate professional thief and corrupts Bunny and in the process teaches him (and the reader) his philosophy of life and crime. His cricket was a calculated necessary high profile front. Raffles lived alone without a servant - his night time arrivals and departures, often in disguise made that obligatory
As other reviewers have said, Niven makes a good job of his part but only Olivia de Havillands loveliness makes the film at all watchable.
The best screen rendering of the Raffles was a 1975 British TV series - again combining different stories but a seamlessly invisible adaptation. The interiors were those of a wealthy single gentleman of 1890s London - based on gentleman's clubs. Raffles, Bunny and McKenzie were authentically true to the books. It did Hornung honour. BBC Radio has done two versions (at least), first a reading and second a full production complete with distinctive signature tune.
Thanks once again to Talking Pictures TV for screening these famous early Raffles versions. Otherwise I would never have known of them.
One, and perhaps the, reason for the remake seemed obvious to me. The 1930 version was too steamy and too suggestive for 1939. When Ronald Colman courteously escorts the large and elderly Lady Melrose to her bedroom and wishes her goodnight, Lady Melrose affects to mishear and Colman repeats with great emphasis the finality of NIGHT!. It is made very clear from their expressions that Lady Melrose was hoping Colman would join her. It think it was not perhaps until the 1970s that Hollywood would again dare suggest such a thing. Colman's love interest is clearly passionately besotted with him and would do anything for him. It was realism but of a kind which Hollywood would I think never portray again. Firstly Hayes Code prudery and later the box office obligation to show women as heroic and independent.
The adaptation removes Bunny's connection with Raffles (formerly a junior at Raffles public (fee paying) school and the odd obligations this entailed. Bunny in this version has little purpose. Raffles was the ultimate professional thief and corrupts Bunny and in the process teaches him (and the reader) his philosophy of life and crime. His cricket was a calculated necessary high profile front. Raffles lived alone without a servant - his night time arrivals and departures, often in disguise made that obligatory
As other reviewers have said, Niven makes a good job of his part but only Olivia de Havillands loveliness makes the film at all watchable.
The best screen rendering of the Raffles was a 1975 British TV series - again combining different stories but a seamlessly invisible adaptation. The interiors were those of a wealthy single gentleman of 1890s London - based on gentleman's clubs. Raffles, Bunny and McKenzie were authentically true to the books. It did Hornung honour. BBC Radio has done two versions (at least), first a reading and second a full production complete with distinctive signature tune.
Thanks once again to Talking Pictures TV for screening these famous early Raffles versions. Otherwise I would never have known of them.
- trimmerb1234
- Feb 7, 2017
- Permalink
With the amount of epic classics that were released in 1939, it's no wonder why lighter films from that year have been forgotten about. Raffles, while not worthy of any Academy Award nominations, is a very cute and entertaining movie.
David Niven stars as the title character, a wealthy and famous cricket player who moonlights as a burglar. There are several stealth scenes, and even though we know we shouldn't be rooting for the criminal, the fact that he's a compulsive thief rather than a desperate one makes us root for him instead of the police. Those scenes are quite suspenseful, so don't be surprised if you find yourself holding your breath until The Niv is home safe and sound.
There are lots of twists and turns in this movie, so I'll skimp on the plot overview so nothing will be ruined for you. It's much better if you experience it during the moment. This is a quick-paced, clever, romantic, classy, overlooked old movie that, had it been released in 1938 or 1940, might have become a classic. Check it out if you like heist movies, or if you like leading men with double lives and lots of secrets. You might get a new celebrity boyfriend from this movie!
David Niven stars as the title character, a wealthy and famous cricket player who moonlights as a burglar. There are several stealth scenes, and even though we know we shouldn't be rooting for the criminal, the fact that he's a compulsive thief rather than a desperate one makes us root for him instead of the police. Those scenes are quite suspenseful, so don't be surprised if you find yourself holding your breath until The Niv is home safe and sound.
There are lots of twists and turns in this movie, so I'll skimp on the plot overview so nothing will be ruined for you. It's much better if you experience it during the moment. This is a quick-paced, clever, romantic, classy, overlooked old movie that, had it been released in 1938 or 1940, might have become a classic. Check it out if you like heist movies, or if you like leading men with double lives and lots of secrets. You might get a new celebrity boyfriend from this movie!
- HotToastyRag
- Mar 20, 2018
- Permalink
A gentleman jewel thief who routinely baffles Scotland Yard decides to retire. This is because the thief - really A.J. Raffles, famous cricketer - has fallen in love with a girl called Gwen and has vowed to end his career of safe-cracking. However, when his friend Bunny is unable to pay off his debts, Raffles decides to help by stealing Lady Melrose's necklace. He manages to wangle an invitation to a weekend party she is hosting at her estate and anticipates an easy success. However, Inspector McKenzie attends the party to prevent the theft and another burglary is set to go down the same night...
Today, we're in an era of Hollywood studios remaking films which aren't yet twenty years old. Well, this one certainly kicks them to the curb. This is a remake of a nine-year old film from the same country, same studio, same director and same script. And, as David Niven replaces Ronald Colman, it could even have the same moustache too. But, this isn't a criticism. For one thing, in 1939, they didn't have DVDs (imagine!), so it had been nearly a decade since people had seen the first film. Also, this has David Niven. Also, this has David Niven. Also, this has ... well, it does.
Niven was born to play the role and it's a shame that he didn't make a bigger splash with it. This could easily have been a series, like the Universal set of Sherlock Holmes films with Basil Rathbone. Of course, the war happened and Niven, quite honourably, left Hollywood to fight. And maybe the idea would have been redundant, as this was the same year in which the Saint movies started (George Sanders, by the way, did his best to avoid the draft). With his easy charm and suavity, Niven is the best thing about this version. The plot is solid and - though set in a house for most of its run-time - features much of the cosily exciting wandering-around-the-house-at-night stuff that I love so much. It heads towards farce, at points, but you won't read me complaining about that, as it's all so lightly amusing and even quickens the pulse at times. Dame May Whitty (she of The Lady Vanishes - surely one of the best films in the history of moving pictures) plays the dowager-type part of Lady Melrose and there's some mild comedy to be enjoyed with her oafish aristocratic husband who is straight out of a Blandings novel.
The whole thing about giving Raffles a love-interest is non-canonical, as that never happened in the original stories by E.W. Hornung (brother-in-law of Arthur Conan Doyle). In fact, Raffles himself is softer here than he is supposed to be and Bunny's suicide pledge is only alluded to, while it was properly depicted in the story which inspired it. At this point, the character had enjoyed a renaissance of sorts in the British pulp magazine The Thriller, with stories written by Barry Perowne, in which the character was updated to the '30s. This film is also set in those times (though, confusingly, there's a scene in a Victorian hansom cab) and there's even a television, before the invention was really popular.
Unfortunately, this spirited film is marred by a hasty ending which, jarringly, tries to include a daring escape, a Golden Age of Hollywood romantic ending and the obligatory reminder that crime does not pay.
The character would again find success in a 1977 television series for ITV with Anthony Valentine in the role. A one-off adaptation, titled The Gentleman Thief, was aired in 2001 and starred Nigel Havers. It was a role he was surely also born to play but, unfortunately, was not followed up on, and hasn't even had a DVD release. Considering the original books are still in print and remain classics of the genre, it would be great to see them adapted again at some point.
Today, we're in an era of Hollywood studios remaking films which aren't yet twenty years old. Well, this one certainly kicks them to the curb. This is a remake of a nine-year old film from the same country, same studio, same director and same script. And, as David Niven replaces Ronald Colman, it could even have the same moustache too. But, this isn't a criticism. For one thing, in 1939, they didn't have DVDs (imagine!), so it had been nearly a decade since people had seen the first film. Also, this has David Niven. Also, this has David Niven. Also, this has ... well, it does.
Niven was born to play the role and it's a shame that he didn't make a bigger splash with it. This could easily have been a series, like the Universal set of Sherlock Holmes films with Basil Rathbone. Of course, the war happened and Niven, quite honourably, left Hollywood to fight. And maybe the idea would have been redundant, as this was the same year in which the Saint movies started (George Sanders, by the way, did his best to avoid the draft). With his easy charm and suavity, Niven is the best thing about this version. The plot is solid and - though set in a house for most of its run-time - features much of the cosily exciting wandering-around-the-house-at-night stuff that I love so much. It heads towards farce, at points, but you won't read me complaining about that, as it's all so lightly amusing and even quickens the pulse at times. Dame May Whitty (she of The Lady Vanishes - surely one of the best films in the history of moving pictures) plays the dowager-type part of Lady Melrose and there's some mild comedy to be enjoyed with her oafish aristocratic husband who is straight out of a Blandings novel.
The whole thing about giving Raffles a love-interest is non-canonical, as that never happened in the original stories by E.W. Hornung (brother-in-law of Arthur Conan Doyle). In fact, Raffles himself is softer here than he is supposed to be and Bunny's suicide pledge is only alluded to, while it was properly depicted in the story which inspired it. At this point, the character had enjoyed a renaissance of sorts in the British pulp magazine The Thriller, with stories written by Barry Perowne, in which the character was updated to the '30s. This film is also set in those times (though, confusingly, there's a scene in a Victorian hansom cab) and there's even a television, before the invention was really popular.
Unfortunately, this spirited film is marred by a hasty ending which, jarringly, tries to include a daring escape, a Golden Age of Hollywood romantic ending and the obligatory reminder that crime does not pay.
The character would again find success in a 1977 television series for ITV with Anthony Valentine in the role. A one-off adaptation, titled The Gentleman Thief, was aired in 2001 and starred Nigel Havers. It was a role he was surely also born to play but, unfortunately, was not followed up on, and hasn't even had a DVD release. Considering the original books are still in print and remain classics of the genre, it would be great to see them adapted again at some point.
- djfjflsflscv
- Apr 2, 2020
- Permalink
Scotland Yard inspector Dudley Digges opens up a wooden cabinet next to his desk...and turns on the television set. The cricket match is on and the star player is fan favorite A.J. Raffles.
The inspector and his colleagues have just been discussing the baffling case of "the Amateur Cracksman," a clever thief who leaves a signed note at the scene of each crime. Little do the Scotland Yard men realize that Raffles and the Amateur Cracksman are one and the same--celebrity by day, burglar by night.
David Niven is excellent as Raffles, that adventurous character who decides to hang up his secret life, finds it necessary to do one last job, and feels the pressure build as his cover is slowly chipped away. Pensive, charming, sly, quick-thinking....it's a great role for Niven.
Olivia de Havilland is fine as the socialite who loves the dashing Raffles but begins to wonder about his puzzling behavior. (However, her top billing just under Niven does not reflect her actual role in the picture; the two main roles belong to Niven and Digges.)
Dudley Digges is lots of fun as the steadfast inspector who doesn't miss much. He follows his suspects down to one of those large country houses where Dame May Whitty's jewels are a temptation to more than one would-be crook.
The plot is really nothing much but it's certainly entertaining watching these characters watch each other.
Bonus: Laurel and Hardy fans will enjoy seeing the great James Finlayson as a cab driver. And a note: Apparently the first televised cricket match was in 1938. Not sure if Scotland Yard offices really had TV yet.
The inspector and his colleagues have just been discussing the baffling case of "the Amateur Cracksman," a clever thief who leaves a signed note at the scene of each crime. Little do the Scotland Yard men realize that Raffles and the Amateur Cracksman are one and the same--celebrity by day, burglar by night.
David Niven is excellent as Raffles, that adventurous character who decides to hang up his secret life, finds it necessary to do one last job, and feels the pressure build as his cover is slowly chipped away. Pensive, charming, sly, quick-thinking....it's a great role for Niven.
Olivia de Havilland is fine as the socialite who loves the dashing Raffles but begins to wonder about his puzzling behavior. (However, her top billing just under Niven does not reflect her actual role in the picture; the two main roles belong to Niven and Digges.)
Dudley Digges is lots of fun as the steadfast inspector who doesn't miss much. He follows his suspects down to one of those large country houses where Dame May Whitty's jewels are a temptation to more than one would-be crook.
The plot is really nothing much but it's certainly entertaining watching these characters watch each other.
Bonus: Laurel and Hardy fans will enjoy seeing the great James Finlayson as a cab driver. And a note: Apparently the first televised cricket match was in 1938. Not sure if Scotland Yard offices really had TV yet.
David Niven stars as Raffles, debonair society gent, top cricketer and 'The Amateur Cracksman' forever foiling Scotland Yard's attempts to catch him. Raffles friend Bunny introduces Raffles to his sister Gwen (Olivia de Havailland) who he had always adored and they begin a relationship. Invited to Lord and Lady Melrose's house for the weekend, Raffles plans to steal some of Lady Melrose's jewellery to help out suicidal Bunny with his gambling debt, but all doesn't go as planned as Scotland Yard are at the weekend soirée as well.
Fun and sometimes quite tense piece of well staged stiff upper lip society fluff with Niven perfect as the suave thief with a silver tongue and a heart of gold. As is often the case with these films, it's the supporting cast that are the most fun and Raffles' butler Barraclough, played by E. E. Clive steals every scene he's in as do Lionel Pape and the great Dame May Whitty as Lord and Lady Melrose. Definitely one of those 'they don't make 'em like that anymore' films.
Nice to see James Finlayson, Laurel and Harry's frequent stooge appear briefly as a handsome cab driver.
Fun and sometimes quite tense piece of well staged stiff upper lip society fluff with Niven perfect as the suave thief with a silver tongue and a heart of gold. As is often the case with these films, it's the supporting cast that are the most fun and Raffles' butler Barraclough, played by E. E. Clive steals every scene he's in as do Lionel Pape and the great Dame May Whitty as Lord and Lady Melrose. Definitely one of those 'they don't make 'em like that anymore' films.
Nice to see James Finlayson, Laurel and Harry's frequent stooge appear briefly as a handsome cab driver.
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.
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.
David Niven is a gentleman thief who gets caught in a bind when a Scotland Yard inspector catches up with him. Olivia deHavilland costars as his romantic interest. Interesting premise, deeply flawed execution.
David Niven is perfectly cast in the role, but the pacing of the moving is painfully slow, and it just drags on and feels so much longer than its 75-ish minute length. I think the big problem is that Niven's character next to no reason for actually being a thief, so we're dragged along on escapades that don't really seem to have much point.
And then there is Olivia deHavilland, who was criminally underused in this film, to the point that she could have been completely written out and you wouldn't miss her. This movie had so much promise, and it just fell flat. I still prefer the 1930 film with Ronald Colman in the title role. It was a very fluid early talkie.
David Niven is perfectly cast in the role, but the pacing of the moving is painfully slow, and it just drags on and feels so much longer than its 75-ish minute length. I think the big problem is that Niven's character next to no reason for actually being a thief, so we're dragged along on escapades that don't really seem to have much point.
And then there is Olivia deHavilland, who was criminally underused in this film, to the point that she could have been completely written out and you wouldn't miss her. This movie had so much promise, and it just fell flat. I still prefer the 1930 film with Ronald Colman in the title role. It was a very fluid early talkie.
Do not know about you but as far as I am concerned, since a child I loved that movie heroes were marginal and risky to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The bank robbers, who without firing a shot-safes to leave the applause encouraged me, and anyone who exposed their lives to bring dignity to the people, deserved a good place on the corner of my heart grateful. Robin Hood was the prototype, and then met the Crimson Pirate the Captain Blood... up to this trendy Raffles who, besides being a famous cricketer, occasionally steals in an art gallery, in an ostentatious jewelry or steals any aristocratic lady a necklace, then, does one need to return, so, so, it will pay the reward. That is, a thief returner. Steal with elegance, but pretend.
And what we love about Raffles is that it is a handsome, elegant, well spoken, courteous and able to get along great even with the hound that pursues him ready to catch it as a good salmon. Meanwhile, love and ends up making her an accomplice to the same woman who, one day, also get into the heart of Hood and even the same Blood ¿Do you can believe it? Well, I'll explain in case anyone is not up to date: David Niven ago Raffles "The thief cracksman" as he signs his messages of farewell. And Olivia de Havilland, the love with Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Captain Blood", is now Gwen, the girl who wins back the heart of the hero of the day. And that is how: beauty, sweetness, consistency and accessibility. A donut with whipped cream.
The film is charming, curious tricks, sharpness of wit and some other really funny situation. The story catches without difficulty and you feel quite at ease with a handful of delightful characters. Believe me, is a detective film... and there's no bad, almost everyone is honest. No for nothing, the same story was made into a movie-in just 23 years-in four successful cases.
And what we love about Raffles is that it is a handsome, elegant, well spoken, courteous and able to get along great even with the hound that pursues him ready to catch it as a good salmon. Meanwhile, love and ends up making her an accomplice to the same woman who, one day, also get into the heart of Hood and even the same Blood ¿Do you can believe it? Well, I'll explain in case anyone is not up to date: David Niven ago Raffles "The thief cracksman" as he signs his messages of farewell. And Olivia de Havilland, the love with Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Captain Blood", is now Gwen, the girl who wins back the heart of the hero of the day. And that is how: beauty, sweetness, consistency and accessibility. A donut with whipped cream.
The film is charming, curious tricks, sharpness of wit and some other really funny situation. The story catches without difficulty and you feel quite at ease with a handful of delightful characters. Believe me, is a detective film... and there's no bad, almost everyone is honest. No for nothing, the same story was made into a movie-in just 23 years-in four successful cases.
- luisguillermoc3
- May 10, 2010
- Permalink
- mark.waltz
- Jan 11, 2019
- Permalink
- JohnHowardReid
- Mar 5, 2018
- Permalink
Cricketer A.J. Raffles is really a jewel thief nicknamed "The Amateur Cracksman" by the press. While staying at the country house of Lord and Lady Melrose, he plans to steal her jewels to pay off his friend Bunny's gambling debts. However, he encounters problems from another crooks trying to steal the jewels and Scotland Yard inspector McKenzie.
An almost scene-by-scene remake of the 1930 Ronald Colman version, this is inferior to the previous film but is still entertaining. David Niven, while not as good as Colman, is still good, while Olivia de Havilland looks lovely as his love interest. Dudley Digges is good as the policeman, May Whitty appears as a dowager and E.E. Clive plays Raffles' butler. The Victor Young score is lovely as well.
There's also a rather startling scene where the policemen start watching a cricket match on a TV!
An almost scene-by-scene remake of the 1930 Ronald Colman version, this is inferior to the previous film but is still entertaining. David Niven, while not as good as Colman, is still good, while Olivia de Havilland looks lovely as his love interest. Dudley Digges is good as the policeman, May Whitty appears as a dowager and E.E. Clive plays Raffles' butler. The Victor Young score is lovely as well.
There's also a rather startling scene where the policemen start watching a cricket match on a TV!
- guswhovian
- Aug 21, 2020
- Permalink
This one's an oddity. It feels as if it had some potential, with a sound start and development, but then the finale feels so rushed, it's almost as if they could see that the war was about to start and they needed to get the shoot finished before everything went crazy. Niven has never been more charming and De Havilland never more luminously beautiful, but it doesn't make the film entertaining enough, except as a historical document. Definitely only for students of film history.
- Phil_Chester
- Dec 18, 2020
- Permalink
A. J. Raffles is a successful cricketer and popular man about town. What his high society friends don't realise is that he finances his lifestyle by burglary and safecracking. Thanks to cards left at the scenes of his crimes people know him as the Amateur Cracksman. One day Raffles old friend Bunny Manders reintroduces him to his sister Gwen, whom he has been infatuated with since they first met. When Bunny tells him he has large gambling debts Raffles comes up with a plan to steal some jewels; it won't be easy though Inspector MacKenzie has started to suspect Raffles and is determined to catch the man who has been making a fool of the police.
I thought this film was rather fun. It is enjoyably light-hearted and David Niven is in fine form in the title role; a role not that dissimilar to that he played in 'The Pink Panther' many years later. At only seventy two minutes in length there isn't time for any major twists just the question of just how will he get away from those determined to catch him an how will he get his hands on the goods. The rest of the cast is solid too; Olivia de Havilland is a delight as Gwen. There was a decent amount of tension towards the end... would Raffles get away or would the period's sense of morality demand the thief gets caught? Watch to find out. Overall a fun film for fans of older movies.
I thought this film was rather fun. It is enjoyably light-hearted and David Niven is in fine form in the title role; a role not that dissimilar to that he played in 'The Pink Panther' many years later. At only seventy two minutes in length there isn't time for any major twists just the question of just how will he get away from those determined to catch him an how will he get his hands on the goods. The rest of the cast is solid too; Olivia de Havilland is a delight as Gwen. There was a decent amount of tension towards the end... would Raffles get away or would the period's sense of morality demand the thief gets caught? Watch to find out. Overall a fun film for fans of older movies.
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.
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.
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!
- JLRMovieReviews
- Aug 1, 2016
- Permalink
"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.
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.
- Handlinghandel
- Jul 13, 2006
- Permalink
Wow, I was really underwhelmed by this film. Despite starring David Niven and Olivia de Havilland, this was an amazingly uninspired film. After all, the story is about a rich society thief who is a champion cricket player--you'd think there'd be more action and exotic or fashionable locales. But, instead, the film is very, very stagnant and the majority of the action (such as it is) takes place in a manor home where Raffles is staying along with a few other rich swells. It was so turgid, that at times I found myself falling asleep. I kept waiting and hoping for a fist fight or SOMETHING, but instead the film was very talky and all so well-mannered. A very uninspired script with an abrupt and senseless ending as well as lackluster direction conspired to keep this film in the category of 'mediocre', but it's still watchable due to the screen presence of its stars--especially the always lovely Miss de Havilland.
- planktonrules
- Jan 1, 2007
- Permalink
The answer is neither - they're both pretty lousy films. The story might have been original in 1899 but it's so mind-numbingly predictable now, it's barely watchable. Mr Colman however makes a more believable Mr Raffles than Mr Niven.
The 1939 version is virtually a scene by scene replica of the older one so seems a pretty pointless exercise. It was made for for three reasons: the technology had improved, Goldwyn wanted to push his new star and Goldwyn wanted to make a lot of money - which he did.
In terms of using the better technology, the '39 version doesn't look or sound particularly much better. The 1930 version was for 1930 made really well. Joint directors George Fitzmaurice and especially the very talented Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast created a very atmospheric and authentic old London feel and the acting was surprisingly natural. The cinematography was by two absolute maters of the thirties: Greg Toland and George Barnes so it would take someone very special to improve on that. The man with the camera in 1939 is.... Greg Toland again but he seems to approach this with the attitude of: I was brilliant nine years ago so I'll just do the same again. For Toland, this is disappointingly unimaginative.
Sam Wood's newer picture lacked that gothic mood (and fog) of the previous film. He seemingly just mechanically re-filming the same script. He offered nothing new. It's the cinematic equivalent to some crappy boy band doing a cover version of a Cat Stevens song. Additionally, being a newer production you expect something better but it's not - it's just the same so you end up very disappointed.
The end line: 'One can't help liking him' refers to Mr Raffles and likeability of the characters is all which makes these films marginally entertaining. Since the story is so dull, which version you prefer depends simply whether you think Ronald Colman or David Niven is more likeable. Colman, in my opinion is ten times more charming than Niven. Young Mr Niven just doesn't have the gravitas to pull this character off. At that stage in his career, he's a little too insipid and shallow for such a mature and charismatic role.
Raffles' fiancée Gwen is a particularly one dimensional non-entity. Kay Francis was in her just smile and look pretty phase of her career so consequently plays the ornamental accessory as well as anyone. Olivia de Havilland however was a superb actresses but watching her essentially play Kay Francis is embarrassing. She was a proper actress for goodness sake, she shouldn't be degrading herself by doing this rubbish.
Because Ronald Colman is Mr suave, it's got the fabulous Frederick Kerr in it and the fact that the remake should be better but isn't, the 1930 version wins my vote.
The 1939 version is virtually a scene by scene replica of the older one so seems a pretty pointless exercise. It was made for for three reasons: the technology had improved, Goldwyn wanted to push his new star and Goldwyn wanted to make a lot of money - which he did.
In terms of using the better technology, the '39 version doesn't look or sound particularly much better. The 1930 version was for 1930 made really well. Joint directors George Fitzmaurice and especially the very talented Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast created a very atmospheric and authentic old London feel and the acting was surprisingly natural. The cinematography was by two absolute maters of the thirties: Greg Toland and George Barnes so it would take someone very special to improve on that. The man with the camera in 1939 is.... Greg Toland again but he seems to approach this with the attitude of: I was brilliant nine years ago so I'll just do the same again. For Toland, this is disappointingly unimaginative.
Sam Wood's newer picture lacked that gothic mood (and fog) of the previous film. He seemingly just mechanically re-filming the same script. He offered nothing new. It's the cinematic equivalent to some crappy boy band doing a cover version of a Cat Stevens song. Additionally, being a newer production you expect something better but it's not - it's just the same so you end up very disappointed.
The end line: 'One can't help liking him' refers to Mr Raffles and likeability of the characters is all which makes these films marginally entertaining. Since the story is so dull, which version you prefer depends simply whether you think Ronald Colman or David Niven is more likeable. Colman, in my opinion is ten times more charming than Niven. Young Mr Niven just doesn't have the gravitas to pull this character off. At that stage in his career, he's a little too insipid and shallow for such a mature and charismatic role.
Raffles' fiancée Gwen is a particularly one dimensional non-entity. Kay Francis was in her just smile and look pretty phase of her career so consequently plays the ornamental accessory as well as anyone. Olivia de Havilland however was a superb actresses but watching her essentially play Kay Francis is embarrassing. She was a proper actress for goodness sake, she shouldn't be degrading herself by doing this rubbish.
Because Ronald Colman is Mr suave, it's got the fabulous Frederick Kerr in it and the fact that the remake should be better but isn't, the 1930 version wins my vote.
- 1930s_Time_Machine
- Mar 26, 2025
- Permalink
This 1939 "Raffles" remake, specifically following in the footsteps of the 1930 early talkie, but also based on the character from literature and theatre, as well as still earlier film versions in 1917 and 1925, is a slight scenario, but it's affable enough. Suave, soft-spoken Englishman Ronald Colman from 1930 iteration is swapped out for the suave, soft-spoken Englishman David Niven this time around. The plot is developed a bit more here and the ending is slightly altered, probably to submit to the Hays Code, but, for the most part, the 1930 and 1939 films are barely distinguishable outside of the former's creaky early synchronized-sound recording. Gregg Toland even worked as cinematographer on both pictures and seemed to have tried to replicate some of the same shots, including of the amateur cracksman's first jewelry heist. I think the 1930 scene is actually the better, which might be because the all-time-great art director William Cameron Menzies also worked on that production. Visually, the most notable thing the 1939 one adds is the early television, which detectives at Scotland Yard use to watch a cricket match featuring Raffles.
A first theft from a museum of a painting is also added. With the amateur cracksman leaving his own mark with his card and, then, sending the painting to a retired actress to help her financially, as she may now collect reward money for the painting's return--the conflation seems to be that his thievery is an art form. As in the 1930 film, too, the amateurism of the heists and the cricket are paralleled. That's why he returns the stolen goods instead of profiting off of them; it's a sport to him. Moreover, there's the romantic interest, with Olivia de Havilland in the supporting role this outing, who seems to become attracted not only to the man, but also the excitement of his criminal activities. The spectator may be expected to similarly swoon.
A first theft from a museum of a painting is also added. With the amateur cracksman leaving his own mark with his card and, then, sending the painting to a retired actress to help her financially, as she may now collect reward money for the painting's return--the conflation seems to be that his thievery is an art form. As in the 1930 film, too, the amateurism of the heists and the cricket are paralleled. That's why he returns the stolen goods instead of profiting off of them; it's a sport to him. Moreover, there's the romantic interest, with Olivia de Havilland in the supporting role this outing, who seems to become attracted not only to the man, but also the excitement of his criminal activities. The spectator may be expected to similarly swoon.
- Cineanalyst
- Mar 6, 2020
- Permalink
The film was originally titled Colonel Rowan of Scotland Yard and Inspector MacKenzie played by Dudley Digges has the most interesting role as the wily detective as if he was modelled somewhat on Sherlock Holmes.
David Niven is the dashing cricket player who also has a sideline as a gentleman thief. We actually see footage of Raffles playing cricket on a television screen.
Raffles needs to pull a job for his friend Bunny who has money troubles. He has also fallen in love with Bunny's sister, Gwen (Olivia de Havilland) who figures out that Raffles might be a part time burglar. Raffles is spending a weekend with as a guest of Lord and Lady Melrose. A valuable necklace is the tempting prize but Scotland Yard also thinks the same and turn up to the mansion.
I have read the Raffles book and saw the wonderful ITV adaptation in the 1970s. This is a poor version of Raffles. It is almost a pedestrian country house whodunit. As the film goes on, everyone seems to have suspected Raffles as the gentleman thief, there is no suspense. This is just an example of a film stifled by the Hays Code.
David Niven is the dashing cricket player who also has a sideline as a gentleman thief. We actually see footage of Raffles playing cricket on a television screen.
Raffles needs to pull a job for his friend Bunny who has money troubles. He has also fallen in love with Bunny's sister, Gwen (Olivia de Havilland) who figures out that Raffles might be a part time burglar. Raffles is spending a weekend with as a guest of Lord and Lady Melrose. A valuable necklace is the tempting prize but Scotland Yard also thinks the same and turn up to the mansion.
I have read the Raffles book and saw the wonderful ITV adaptation in the 1970s. This is a poor version of Raffles. It is almost a pedestrian country house whodunit. As the film goes on, everyone seems to have suspected Raffles as the gentleman thief, there is no suspense. This is just an example of a film stifled by the Hays Code.
- Prismark10
- Mar 5, 2017
- Permalink