The Wrong Road

Wrong Road, The (1937)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A man and woman (Richard Cromwell/Helen Mack) who plan on being married are having a hard time with life so they find a get rich quick scheme. The two plan on stealing $100,000 from a bank, hide the money, turn themselves in, stay their prison term and when released, they'll have the money to live on for the rest of their lives but things never work out how you have them planned. This is a half way decent film that remains interesting throughout it's short 52-minute running time. The performances by the two leads are good and Lionel Atwill adds great support as a detective. This seems like a feature version of Buried Loot, which I watched earlier in the year. This was directed by famous silent actor James Cruze who played Jekyll & Hyde in the 1912 version.

Okay, we've seen flicks where the poor prove their ultimate moral worth by overcoming a period of poverty abating crime. This sort of redemption has long proved popular. Here, in a neat twist, a dreamy young couple must prove their moral worth by overcoming a lifetime of privilege that has eventually turned to crime. Disinherited from family fortunes, the couple steals big bucks they hope to luxuriate on after serving time for the theft. But, after serving their time, all kinds of complications ensue threatening to break up their love match.

It's not hard to pick apart the many stretches as the plot develops. Other reviewers have done that job, so no need to repeat it. Nonetheless, Cromwell and Mack make a winning couple whose basic innocence holds the leaky narrative together. And catch Lionel Atwill in a rare good guy role-- I kept expecting crackling arcs of light and infernal laboratories to show up. Also, I kept hoping The Wrong Road would achieve real impact by going down the same road as You Only Live Once (1937), arguably the best of the doomed young couple movies. But this is Republic Pictures and James Cruze, not Walter Wanger and Fritz Lang. Anyway, the 50-some minutes manages a few good moments but fails as a whole to rise above programmer status.

When they graduated from college, they had high hopes, but now Richard Cromwell and Helen Mack are disillusioned. He's just been fired from his teller's position, so he stole $100,000. The two of them figure they'll spend some time in jail, then collect the money. Kindly insurance investigator Lionel Atwill tries to talk them into returning the money, but they're stubborn. Two years later, at the urging of Atwill, they're granted parole and go for the money.... with Atwill and bad man Horace MacMahon after them.

It's a well-meaning story with a strong moral component, and Atwill is excellent, as is Miss Mack. Cromwell's line readings are a bit droning. Director James Cruze does a competent job here, with some fine performances in the supporting cast. He was near the end of his rope, though. He had been a leading director in the 1910s and 1920s, but had stumbled at the coming of sound. His brief renaissance of a few years earlier had dribbled away. The following year, he would direct three more movies, all of them Bs verging on exploitation, then nothing. He would die in 1942.

The picture during the cast and credits tells the whole story: look out ,kids, don't take the wrong way, follow the straight and narrow ,the shortcuts lead to ruin; in a nutshell ,it's an edifying preachy movie probably made to be shown in Sunday schools .

Both heroes are immature ,naive and gullible :how could they believe that they would retrieve their money (which they earned ,insists the boy),that they would not be followed ?

The heroes' naiveté has something endearing ;they are like big children still believing in Santa Claus ;the girl seems more sensible but the boy hangs up to his dream;Richard Cromwell 's boyish look in a tailor made part: he who called Mary Dressler 'Beauty " in "Emma "(1932) and was the rookie who was doublecrossed by a temptress and "so satisfyingly tortured in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer".(Gore Vidal). He epitomizes the impulsive mindless young man and he does it with panache.

The scene of the auction sale where the lovers try to get back the music box is certainly the best.

I believe a film ought to have at least a modicum of credibility. This is preposterous. It has a pair of spoiled, previously rich kids, stealing a hundred thousand dollars from a bank where the young man works. First of all, how could people running such a business be so stupid. Secondly, they pull the whole thing off and then turn themselves in. You see, they are going to do their time and then return for the money at a later time. Of course, they put the money in a music box which is shipped to Chicago. Why didn't they just hide it somewhere nearby. Since they weren't going to turn themselves in for a while, why not find a good hiding place. It couldn't be that hard. They do a couple of quick years in the joint, then are paroled because of the intervention of a police detective who is chasing the money. He is willing to pardon them if they return the money (more stupidity) because they seem like nice kids. I wonder what he would have done for some poor sap on the street. Anyway, it gets hokier and hokier. An acquaintance of the young man from prison gets into the act. Despite repeated offers to get off the hook, the young man flights to the bloody end to keep the money. It's too much to even respond to. It's like a training film for idiots.