Convict's Code

B-movies in the 1930s and 40s were inexpensively made and relatively short films that were shown as part of a double-feature. Many were made by "poverty row" studios--tiny independent companies that often rented space on the major studio lots at night. For the most part, Bs are entertaining enough, but also tend to have lesser actors, writers and directors--sort of like the minor leagues for movie people. Because of this, most B-films are not the quality or entertainment level of an A-picture--though there are many, many exceptions. As For me, I often prefer the Bs--they can be fun, entertaining and usually very fast-moving--as a typical B is about 60 minutes (more or less).

The film starts with a relatively dumb ex-college football star getting out of prison after serving three years for a robbery. Dave continues to deny that he did anything wrong and vows to look up all the witnesses who testified against him and make them tell the truth. However, he needs to be careful, as he is on parole--one slip and he's back in the can. Interestingly, all but one of the witnesses against him are either dead, have moved or are killed as the ex-con talks with him. And, most importantly, they all were known criminal-types. You'd think if the guy could show that all six turned out to have such questionable backgrounds that there'd be reason for the police to re-open the case, but he tells no one--remember, he IS kind of dumb. What else is dumb is that later he does a lot of things that would violate his parole in order to try to prove his innocence. Having a gun, involvement in a NEW robbery, not returning home at night, etc. all further prove the guy is a moron. Then, when he DOES learn who the guy behind the frame-up is, he doesn't go to the police--as he's fallen in love with that man's sister. Just how stupid can a guy be?!

"Convict's Code" is a pretty good B and might have earned a 4 despite its no-name cast--mostly because the story is pretty interesting-even if Dave is a certifiable idiot. However, the ending of the film is sort of like a "scene missing here" film--one where important action takes place off camera and it seems like this is dealt with in a slap-dash manner. It's a shame, but the ending is clearly an example of scene missing here film making--as the guy who REALLY committed the crime admits it but apparently says all this off camera!! Cheesy, clearly at the end and probably not a film to watch unless you are a B-movie fan, too.

By the way, the best thing about the film is a bit role played by Maude Eburne. She plays the most amazingly ambivalent landlady I've ever seen and she is pretty funny. Eburne played in a lot of films over the years and was always fun--including her stint as Dr. Christian's housekeeper in the RKO series.

Former football star Dave " Whizz " Tyler is convicted of a robbery and spends three years in jail . Given parole he faces completing the remaining six years if he breaks his parole but vows that he's innocent of the crime and will do everything to prove it

You don't need to be a jailbird to know the convicts code - you don't snitch . If a tunnel suddenly appears in the next cell and you suddenly find a pneumatic drill in your own cell then you invoke the Nuremberg defence of " I didn't hear anything , I didn't see anything , this has got nothing to do with me " and you'll probably live long enough to complete your sentence

With a title like CONVICT'S CODE you could be forgiven for thinking you're going to be watching the similar sounding premise of EACH DAWN I DIE where an innocent man who has been framed trying to clear his name surrounded by hardened criminals . This isn't how the film works out . Instead we get Whizz Tyler walking about from one cheap studio set to another with not very good actors who are marginally just less wooden than the sets

There's also something that puzzled me and that is Whizz continually claims to be innocent to everyone including the prison Warden and his parole officer and I kept wondering how the parole board works in America . In Scottish and English law someone is only eligible for parole if they admit to the crime and are genuinely sorry they did the crime . Someone claiming they are innocent wouldn't in theory qualify . Of course the practise is entirely different and we've been treated to some truly hideous sights like Johnathan King calling a press conference on his day of release saying his victims were lying and he can prove it . Needless to say we're still waiting for this evidence to surface . I was under the impression that America does tend to be a lot stricter about parole and its granting of it

Convict's Code is a surprisingly engaging little film noir about Dave Tyler, a man on parole who tries to clear his name while trying not to get thrown back in the slammer. While the reasoning why Dave is hired by a man who wants him thrown back into prison is highly ridiculous, as is the totally melodramatic conclusion, the in-betweens are great, with Robert Kent doing a fine job as the tormented parolee, and Anne Nagel equally fine as his (of course!) blonde haired girlfriend, who mustn't know that he's a parolee, because of course, they have to get permission from his parole officer! (Oh, and she's also the heavy's sister). Actually, this film carefully describes parole life back in 1939, and seems to be more of a burden on a person then it is now. Quite interesting and entertaining!

A former football star named Dave "Whizz" Tyler (Robert Kent) is released from prison on parole and gets a good job, partly due to the head of the sports department at the newspaper having written that Tyler will need a job on release. Tyler swears he was framed and spends his time trying to find out who sent him up the river, even risking parole violations to do it. Along the way, he falls for the sister of his new employer, and that's its own trouble on multiple fronts.

This was a fairly standard story, but enjoyable, with an interesting ending involving Tyler's boss. Kent was likeable and played it cool, never going over the top, where others might have. I liked how the sports writer, played by Ben Alexander, played into things. Victor Kilian as the parole officer and Maude Eburne as the whiny landlady were good too.

I wouldn't say rush out and see this one, but it is a decent way to spend an hour.

P.S. The poster here is for the wrong movie. Perhaps for the 1930 movie of the same name? No idea who that kid is.

Former college football star Dave Tyler (Robert Kent) maintains his innocence even after three years in prison. He gets released on parole and sets about finding the real culprits. His new bosses are actually the criminals who had set him up and he falls for the bosses' sister.

This is a B-movie crime drama. The filmmaking is simple without much style. The acting isn't any better. The writing is the most problematic. One would think that the perpetrators would keep their distance from Tyler especially since he seems clueless to their scheme. It is solidly stuck in B-movie territory and can't rise above it.