Jimmy il gentiluomo

A delightful example of 1930's comedy, with James Cagney on fire as a tough and uncultured geneologist-scam artist who matches wits with an assortment of shady types in pursuit of a dead rich woman's fortune.

The dialogue is snappy and frequently laugh-out loud, the supporting cast led by Bette Davis is fine, and James Cagney is particularly hilarious in his portrayal.

One of the subplots involves Cagney's attempts to learn a little class with which to impress his love/nemesis Davis, and there is a sustained scene of hijinks concerning this that will have you laughing and commending Cagney's acting at the same time. All I can say is that I will never look at tea the same way again!

Finally, this movie is worth seeing just because it was directed by the great Michael Curtiz. This was the first time Curtiz was entrusted with a really major film project, and he makes the most of it. Of course, Curtiz would later direct Cagney in arguably his greatest role, that of Rocky in Angels With Dirty Faces (1938). Curtiz also directed such classics as Casablanca (1942), Captain Blood (1935), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Sea Wolf (1941), The Sea Hawk (1940), Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942 - which won James Cagney an Oscar) and many many other great films.

Between Curtiz, Cagney, Davis, and the rest, there is a lot to like about this movie. It's not Heavy Drama, but if you like the kinds of witty and lighthearted comedies that flourished in Hollywood during the 1930's, you will enjoy this example.

Have always had a thing for seeing films that have great casts or actors/actresses etc. that do a lot for me. That is yet another case of too many to count and list with 'Jimmy the Gent'. Love Bette Davis (i.e. 'All About Eve'), even when she featured in films that were not worthy of her, and James Cagney was great in 'White Heat' and 'Yankee Doodle Dandy'. Michael Curtiz directed two of my favourite films 'Casablanca' and 'The Adventures of Robin Hood'.

'Jimmy the Gent' is certainly worth the watch and definitely recommended, it is entertaining, well made and played with professionalism by people that clearly knew what they were doing and cared. Davis and Cagney did both do better though, in terms of both films and performances, and the same goes for Curtiz and his direction, particularly the above cited films on all counts. So to me it is not one of those must-see films. A longer length would have helped and if it tried to do a little bit less.

While not lavish, not that it needed to be, 'Jimmy the Gent' is well photographed with the right amount of gritty yet never cheap atmosphere. The music may not stay embedded in the brain a long time after, but it is a good match for the story's tone and at least appeals to the ears. It is breezily directed by Curtiz, while the script crackles amusingly and at its best hilariously.

The story has some fun twists and turns, is taut enough and is never dull. Cagney is in a role that plays to his strengths and gives a performance full of energy and that is entertainingly larger than life. Davis' character is not as interesting but she is charming and sassy, making the most of her role. The supporting cast are fine too, Allen Jenkins contrasting endearingly with Cagney.

On the other hand, there are times where the pace was a little hectic and the story over-stuffed. A longer length again would have helped.

Just over an hour felt far too short and with little time to go into more depth. Something that was missing here, giving the film a little emotional blandness.

Concluding, fun film if not great. 7/10

This pre-code film starring James Cagney has him playing Jimmy Corrigan who is a private detective specializing in finding heirs to large fortunes. He's in competition with Alan Dinehart who calls himself a "geneologist" and has just about the same set of ethics Cagney has. The only difference is Cagney lacks the polish of Dinehart and is less a hypocrite.

Now no one ever confused James Cagney with Ronald Colman on the screen and I daresay they probably were never up for the same parts, but Cagney dumbs it down to Leo Gorcey levels in order to contrast himself with Dinehart. It's effective though.

What makes this film special is that the leading lady is Bette Davis who was a year away from finally getting Jack Warner to give her a role with substance in Of Human Bondage. Speaking of class, you can see that Ms. Davis has it in abundance and that she wasn't going to be held down with supportive leading lady roles. Later on Cagney and Davis were given The Bride Came COD when both were big box office names.

Cagney is quite the operator here and I won't tell you exactly what he does, he does bend our legal system over backwards though. And if he's not exactly reformed, he does learn the difference between class and manners.

Jimmy the Gent (1934)

As an old-film lover, I'm going to have to disagree with the majority of reviewers here and say this film is too flawed and formulaic to rise above its peers. Even its star, James Cagney, is a bit rote and predictable, taking on a harsh edge that prevents any depth to his supposedly complicated character. The other star is in retrospect—this is an early Bette Davis appearance, and she's wonderful to see so unformed, but she, too, is playing a common role.

All is not disaster here, for sure. The pace is terrific, and turns of plot, which are a problem overall in their quick succession, keep you on your toes. There are stock characters in secondary roles who will be familiar to early Warner Bros. fans, and the filming is generally solid, if bright and a bit dull, too.

Yes, there are hesitations at every turn. Director Michael Curtiz has been cranking out films by the dozen for Hollywood by now, after emigrating from Europe, and many of those are frankly better and worth seeking out. But he's a long way from the mastery of "Casablanca" or "Mildred Pierce," as a director above all.

The story here seems workable—Cagney and Davis play characters who scheme a complicated scam involving a huge inheritance. The twists are basically a farce because there are so many and they happen without warning. In fact, I think the style of the film is to have everything just "happen" in a madcap way, and the audience is to be dazzled and impressed by the audacity of the writers. But there is a little sense of involvement that would help very much, a wanting the characters to win or lose at their efforts. One example is how two court cases are reduced to a single sentence each: the judges reading their conclusion.

That seems dandy in a way, a hugely streamlined plot. But it defines superficial, too. In these two cases, there is time spent watching the courtroom crowd reacting to the news, but we don't really care about that. We aren't made to care.

Not that this should be a drama, of course. It's a comedy plain and simple. And a slip of romance sneaks in as our two leads brush past each other now and then. All of it is interesting, and it's never quite boring. But for a fast pre-Code or early Code era movie, there are many examples that are fast, funny, and engrossing and inventive, too. Expect only the effects here.

Cagney was tired of playing mugs by this point in his career, but he played this one comically.(Humor is a Cagney trait in any of his roles.) He intentionally had the studio barber put bottle scars on his head just to annoy Hal B. Wallis!!! Ya gotta love that. His attitude towards Warner's was getting worse,understand? He could play a thug like DaVinci could draw a dame named Mona. But in spite of his frustrations with the studio,I personally view this as one of his most memorable performances of the 30s!!