Wem gehört die Stadt?

The ridiculous title aside, this is an OK gangster film with more gab then guns, although there is an edge to the execution and display.

The script is interesting in a behind the scenes kind of way that lets us in on the money machines and political corruption that is Warners trademark of message movies. The attraction here is the two stars and the modern fascination with these actors and their tough guy personas and they don't disappoint.

This film is more sanitized and sterile then the best of the gangster films (as the newly defined Hays Code forced tricky gymnastic presentations of the seedy and the sultry). But the studio professionals were up to the task and a "new" type of underworld uncovering emerged on the screen. For better or worse.

Edward G. Robinson stars in yet another classic gangster film from the folks who did them best at Warner Brothers. This time his character of John Blake is based on real life NYPD detective John Broderick.

Back in the day you would not have given much chance for Broderick to grow old and die in bed. Yet in 1966 that's what he did do. Back in the day too many of New York's noted underworld figures felt his knuckles in various parts of the anatomy.

Broderick was independent, fearless, and honest, the last being a rather rare commodity in the days of and just after Prohibition. Good thing he retired before the Miranda decision. He didn't think that hoodlums had any civil rights.

Because Broderick was so open and known to all undercover work was impossible. But in Bullets or Ballots Robinson is kicked off the force for excessive brutality and joins the hoods he's been beating on.

But it's all an act. It's a deal worked out by Broderick and the Police Commissioner so he can go undercover and get the goods on the numbers racket. The ostensible heads, Barton MacLane and Humphrey Bogart and the respectable types they're fronting for.

Though the ending is melodramatic, Bullets or Ballots holds up pretty well today. And who knows, Broderick's real life might yet rate a good biographical picture today.

Bogart, Blondell, and Robinson! and comedian Frank McHugh. all star cast! it's 1936, and mobster Al Kruger is running the local rackets, dark activities, many illegal. when the leader of the crime fighting task force is knocked off, Johnny Blake thinks he ought to get involved and try to fix things. but it's complicated. when the cops nose around, the muckity mucks in the syndicate lean on Kruger. to counter the stepped up crime activity, the cops also step up their crime fighting. interesting turn... in this one, Joan Blondell is also running some numbers game. unusual role for her. and some "twists", which aren't really surprises at all. we've seen some of these tricks so often, that we've come to expect them. Some of the story is actually based on the history of rackets in the various sections of NYC, as you will see in the Trivia section. it's pretty good. directed by william keighley, who had directed some great films: Man who Came to Dinner, Bride Came COD, Robin Hood.

This is one of the few gangster classics from that genre's golden era and featuring its iconic stars which was never available in my neck of the woods until it surfaced on DVD. It was also the first of five films teaming (or rather pitting one against the other) Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart; the former was the real star and he was already starting to branch out from gangster roles – the latter was still a supporting actor (having just had his big break with THE PETRIFIED FOREST [1936]) and five more years would pass till he achieved his long-deserved stardom (nevertheless, in spite of the lack of range offered by the scripts for these type of roles, Bogie always made an impression at it).

By this time, the Hays Code had come down on Hollywood for their glorification of the gangster; Warners had pulled a clever switch with "G" MEN (1935), where these same crimes were presented from the viewpoint of law enforcement officers (that film had also been helmed by this film's director, William Keighley, and starred another of the great genre actors, James Cagney). In this case, the narrative allowed Robinson as an undercover cop to still be involved in the criminal activity, and rise through the ranks as always, without taking active part in them: however, censorship of the time still dictated that his character had to die at the end (unless it was a way of showing the risk inherent in such police work). Interestingly, Keighley would return to a similar situation – this time revolving around the F.B.I. – many years later with the noir THE STREET WITH NO NAME (1948), which I've just watched as part of my ongoing tribute to Richard Widmark; having mentioned the noir, while I admire the vitality and raw power of the gangster films, their limited plot lines rather prevents them from having the same pull of the fatalistic thrillers often involving tortuous plots and where the protagonists – apart from the dark city streets – could be as much a private detective as the next man, but always gullible and at the mercy of a femme fatale...

To go back to BULLETS OR BALLOTS, the film is typically fast-moving – it's not just the action that crackles but the dialogue as well – and, while some of the edge of the very earliest gangster pictures, has been lost by way of repetition (and the standards of the Code), it's still a satisfactory and highly entertaining entry. For the record, two of the very best efforts in this influential genre were still a couple of years away – namely ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES (1938) and THE ROARING TWENTIES (1939), both with Cagney as an anti-hero and Bogie ever the irredeemable and duplicitous mobster. Here, alongside the two stars, are Joan Blondell as Robinson's on-off girl on whom Bogart has his eyes as well (interestingly, she's got her own particular racket going!), Barton MacLane as the big boss whom Bogart is forever trying to oust (again, a role he would often play) and Frank McHugh providing the comic relief (ditto).

Edward G. Robinson, always a fine actor, was my main reason for seeing 'Bullets or Ballots'. Well the cast in general actually were the main reason, on top of Robinson there is also another screen icon Humphrey Bogart (pre-stardom and in his first of five collaborations with Robinson) and the always emminently watchable Joan Blondell. The story also sounded interesting, as one can guess good casts and concepts always attract me into seeing a film and tend to be my main reasons for watching (completest quests being another common reason).

While not a personal favourite, a masterpiece or career-highs for all involved, 'Bullets or Ballots' is still an entertaining, taut and well executed film. It does the cast justice on the most part, most in roles playing to their strengths, and makes the most of its premise and makes an interesting story out of it. A relief on both counts, as cast and concept wastes are pet peeves of mine and have come across both numerous times in my recent film viewings, some films managing to waste both. So there has always been a bit of nervousness before watching a film that sounds good on paper as a result.

'Bullets or Ballots' doesn't really do an awful lot wrong. It may not do anything new as such and may lack the surprise factor. Would have liked the length to have been longer, with the film veering on being too short.

Although Blondell gives her role feistiness and charm, she is given little to do and the character came over as underwritten. Frank McHugh is the comic relief, and while he does his best with what he has this aspect was not completely successful, not always coming over as very funny and it doesn't always add much.

However, Robinson is terrific and his role suits him perfectly with the intensity and authority nailed. The other cast standout is oily Barton MacLane and Bogart looms ominously. The characters are generally well handled, with a tough rootable lead and villains that pose a genuine threat. William Keighley's direction is not exceptional but it does do more than just getting the job done, showing someone in control.

Visually, 'Bullets or Ballots' is slick and stylish, while the pace is tight with little if any extraneous fat which does help make the story continually absorbing. The script crackles in tautness and is lean in content, provoking thought. The action crackles even more with some exciting moments, especially a climax that is the very meaning of scintillating.

Overall, good. 7/10 Bethany Cox