Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Konterr Brilliant and touching

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

SimonJack This is the first sound picture made about the gentleman thief, A.J. Raffles, created by English author E.W. Hornung. It's also among the first movies made of a caper comedy. It was only natural that this story would be remade so soon (and more versions made later), so it's also natural to compare this film with the 1939 movie. First, I think all the actors did well in both films. But some of the roles are quite different between the films. I don't know to what extent either film stayed close to the novel, or improvised. This 1930 "Raffles" suffers some in its production. It has at least two plot holes. One is left guessing why something happened a certain way. In the 1939 film, the plot spells it out. I suspect that was a difference in the screenplay and the directing or editing. So, the 1939 film is a notch better than this one, for its continuity and fluidity – the smoothness of the story. One thing about Hornung's "amateur cracksman" seems obvious. He really is an amateur. Both of these films show how easily Scotland Yard is able to get onto him. Both actors who play the inspector are quite good. In this film, David Torrence is Inspector McKenzie. In the 1939 film, Dudley Digges plays an inspector whose name is spelled MacKenzie. Torrence is very funny in his role, as the modestly egotistical Scotland Yard man. In the second film, Digges has more of a role that shows his cunning. I think Ronald Colman is the better A.J. Raffles, especially with his spritely movements. He gives one a sense that this guy could easily climb terraces, hang from ropes, or do other acrobatic feats to gain entry for nighttime robberies. David Niven doesn't give the same sense, yet his character is very likable and affable with his butler and people of a lower class. Kay Francis is OK in this film as Gwen, a doting woman in love with Raffles. But her part is not very big, and there's little more to it than that. Olivia de Havilland's Gwen in the 1939 film is much more vibrant. And, she has a meatier role that gives one much more of a sense of love between she and Raffles. The supporting casts are good, but also have quite different roles to perform. E.E. Clive in the 1939 film is far superior as Barraclough, the butler to Raffles. Wilson Benge is almost unnoticed in that role in this 1930 film. But, again, Clive is given a much meatier part, especially with one scene with some substantial dialog. Both Lord Melrose and Lady Kitty Melrose are superior in this 1930 film, as played by Frederick Kerr and Allison Skipworth, respectively. Although Dame May Witty had the Lady Melrose in the 1939 film, I suspect she and Lionel Pape (as Lord Melrose) had their parts tuned down some, for more attention to be given to Gwen, Inspector MacKenzie and Barraclough. If one could mix and match between the two films, I would like to have seen a film with the second screenplay, but some role and character changes. Ronald Colman would play Raffles opposite de Havilland as Gwen. Allison Skipworth and Frederick Kerr from this film would be the Lady and Lord Melrose, with their lines from this film. David Torrence would move Into the inspector role, taking his one scene about his expertise with him to the role in the 1939 film. And Barraclough would stay as he is in the 1939 film, with E.E. Clive in the role. Both actors who played Bunny were very good, but I think Bramwell Fletcher from this 1930 film portrayed more a sense of worry and seriousness of his financial problem E.W. Hornung's stories about AJ. Raffles, a gentleman thief, were set in late 19th century London. This first sound production of Raffles, departs considerably in that it has automobiles and airplanes. Inspector McKenzie hurries back to London by airplane. It is obviously set around 1930. Horning introduced Raffles in his first story in 1898, "The Ides of March," which was printed in the June issue of Cassell's Magazine. The titles of subsequent stories were all tagged with the label, "Adventures of the Amateur Cracksman." Seven were published in Scribner's Magazine during 1901. In 1899, a short story collection, "The Amateur Cracksman" was published. Another short story collection followed in 1906 – "Raffles, The Amateur Cracksman."In 1903, Hornung wrote a play "Raffles, The Amateur Cracksman" that was first performed Oct. 27, 1903, at the Princess Theatre in New York. In 1909 he wrote another play, "A Visit From Raffles," that was first performed at the Brixton Empress Theatre in London. In 1909, Hornung published a novel, "Mr. Justice Raffles."Here are some favorite funny lines from this film. For more humorous dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb Web page for the movie. Lord Melrose, "Well, like a lamb to the slaughter I go." Lady Kitty Melrose, "Did you say lamb, Harry dear?" Lord Melrose, "Well, mutton, if you like, darling." Inspector McKenzie, "Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Raffles. I have a high opinion of myself. You see, uh… I'm a criminologist… and a Scotsman. Heh. The Scots enjoy feelin' they're cleverer than other people, and they are cleverer. My own cleverness often amazes me." Lady Melrose, "Are we all to be murdered in our beds?" Inspector McKenzie, opening a door to another room, "Library, eh?" A.J. Raffles, "Yes… for books."Inspector McKenzie, looking through a door into another room, "This is the bath, eh?" Raffles, "Yes. Uh, go straight in. I'm not bathing now."

Jon Corelis A. J. Raffles, "the amateur cracksman," was a fictional English gentleman safecracker invented by E. W. Hornung in a series of stories beginning in 1898 as a sort of mirror image of Sherlock Holmes. Like Holmes, Raffles is a suave, upper-class intellectual involved with the underworld, but Raffles's involvement is on the wrong side of the law: he supports his upper-class lifestyle by his career as a jewellry thief.The Raffles stories were extremely popular and have been the subject of many film, theater, and television treatments. One of the best of these is this 1930, very early talkie starring cinema's quintessential English gentleman, Ronald Coleman. It's really quite a good film for its time, with an intelligent script, generally good acting (especially by Coleman and character actor Frederick Kerr, better known as Baron Frankenstein in James Whale's famous 1931 treatment of the monster story, who steals every scene he is in as a grouchy English lord.) Co-cinematographer Gregg Toland, who later worked on many Hollywood classics, is presumably responsible for the film's noirish, atmospheric lighting effects.All in all, I'd say this entertaining film will still be enjoyed by today's audiences, and is a must see for fans of Coleman.

Spondonman The early Goldwyn Colman films had a lovely atmosphere all of their own. Just learning to cope with sound they exhibit an echoey creaky staginess which in turns is charming and irritating when watching a romantic adventure/mystery. Every action was pointed and often laboured with the handed down techniques from silent days, meaning once seen you seldom forget it. It's the same with Raffles, a ridiculous script if there was one (heavily mucked about with from the book) but if you don't see it for 20 years you'd probably remember every act and scene.Raffles has been a reformed ex-Cracksman for a few hours but finds he suddenly has to help his limp friend Bunny repay £1000 within 2 days and he only knows one way to get it. An invite to Lady Melrose's country house for cricket and a garden party of hundreds provides him with the chance – and also a gang of six ineffectual Cockney burglars who skulk around in the dark loudly laying their plans. The scene where the burglar is caught and venomously points out Raffles on the stairs is pivotal to the film but it never recovers from the clumsy handling of it – did Colman know what to say at that point? Colman was great in the role, his clipped accent and perfect diction usually used to good effect. Good support was from Kay Francis who played his understanding girlfriend although she didn't get to say Divine, and David Torrence the chunky and heavily cloaked Scotland Yard Inspector. Favourite bit: the torchlit confrontation between Raffles and Crawshay in the bedroom at midnight.Simple old fashioned entertainment - I stick it on every few years without fail because with all its faults I like this one.

stryker-5 "Raffles" was produced by Sam Goldwyn and photographed by Greg Toland, the genius who was to help create "Citizen Kane" eleven years after this.Raffles the English gentleman has a discreet sideline as a burglar and jewel thief. The press has dubbed him 'The Amateur Cracksman', and as such he has become a household name. Now that he has fallen in love with the sophisticated Gwen (Kay Francis) and proposed marriage to her, Raffles has decided to retire from crime. However, his old pal Bunny is in a spot of bother. Bunny has been playing cards again, and has run up a gambling debt of £1,000. If Bunny is to be rescued from his predicament, Raffles will have to take on the Melrose 'job' ...Ronald Coleman gives us his trademark suave Englishman in the title role. We see him burgling a jeweller's shop wearing a top hat (note the excellent Toland touch of the policeman silhouetted against the window drape). Our first real glimpse of the hero comes on the dance floor as he sweeps Gwen around in a romantic waltz. On the cricket field at Lord Melrose's place, Raffles is of course dashing, and wins the game (even though he was not supposed to be playing - he invited himself along for the weekend at the last minute). Even when Inspector Mackenzie has him on the ropes, Raffles remains the epitome of poise and wit."All bubbles and froth - no taste," says Lord Melrose, giving his verdict on champagne. It is a reasonable comment on the film itself, which for all its pretensions to style is basically an inelaborate crime flick. We have the 'two Englands' crudely juxtaposed - one urban and ugly (the cloth-capped burglars from the pub, the 'pea soup' fog in London) and the other bucolic and 'refayned' (Lady Melrose's soiree). The film takes it for granted that the lower classes are unpleasant.However, there are good things in this movie. The cricket match is fun, and tolerably well done, though Raffles' bowling action is highly dubious and the umpire's position would make lbw decisions interesting to say the least. The skylight scene on Raffles' apartment roof is an arresting image.There is also a large portion of baloney. Does Scotland Yard protect country houses against burglary? Is this best done by surrounding them with a dozen detectives throughout the night? Why don't these detectives catch the various burglars who enter the premises? If closing the sash window is enough to stop the burglar alarm from ringing, then it isn't much of a burglar alarm. The 'common' burglars crouch in the shrubbery and talk aloud, spelling out their plans in pedantic detail, conveniently allowing Raffles to overhear. Is it not slightly more probable that they would have worked out what to do before entering the property?The film ends in a flurry of increasingly silly activity. Blatant undercranking of the camera makes Raffles' escape dash look ridiculous, and his place of concealment is laughable.Verdict - An enjoyable crime caper with absurd elements.