hyped garbage

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Criminal kingpin Joe Krozac (Edward G. Robinson) returns from Europe with a new bride. Before long she's pregnant. But no sooner does she find out than Joe is arrested for income tax evasion. Before their son is born, Joe goes to prison. While he's in stir, his wife falls in love with a reporter (Jimmy Stewart) and divorces Joe. When Joe gets out, he plans to get his son back. But his old gang have plans of their own for Joe.Robinson is the main attraction and shines in a role he could do in his sleep. But he's got able support from the likes of Lionel Stander, John Carradine, Edward Brophy, and Sidney Blackmer. Jimmy Stewart is fine but nothing special in an early role. This is a gangster flick with MGM polish. It was great entertainment any time Eddie G. was in a movie like this. Give it a shot and I'm sure you'll love it.

This is an excellent gangster film from the 1930s and the only major surprised is that this film was NOT made by Warner Brothers--a studio that held Edward G. Robinson's contract AND made a habit of making LOTS of gangster films. However, in this case, he was loaned out to MGM and it's one of the few gangster films from this glossier and slightly more prestigious studio. Well, the end result is difficult to distinguish from the Warner product--except that the supporting characters differ (Frank McHugh, Alan Jenkins, Humphrey Bogart and Barton MacLane are nowhere to be seen). And, saying that it resembled a Warner film is NOT a criticism--as Warner had perfected this style of film and always entertained.Edward G. is the head of a crime syndicate--much like Al Capone. And, like Capone, he is eventually sent to prison for tax evasion. His foreign-born and raised wife is pregnant and Edward's son is born a short time later. At first, the wife believes all of Robinson's claims that it "was all a setup--I ain't done nuthin' wrong". But, later when she meets reporter Jimmy Stewart, she realizes her hubby is pond scum and decides to leave him and start a brand new life for herself and her baby.Ten years pass and Edward is STILL a blow-hard who plans on leaving prison and picking up with his family as if nothing had occurred. However, they are in hiding and Robinson is in for a few other surprises. The film's final ten minutes or so do an excellent job of tying it all together.

I saw "The Last Gangster" (1937) for the first time last night (7/18/2006) and found it to be a fairly entertaining film. Edward G. Robinson's acting,as per usual in gangster movies of this type, carried the film. It had its weak moments (like Rose Stander's acting) and its unlikely moments(like the final shooting scene), but it remained fairly entertaining just the same. There was one rather strange item about the film. One of the 1930s more identifiable "bad guy" actors (Edward Pawley) appeared only briefly in this film (in the scene where the mob tortures Robinson's character)and didn't have a single line of dialog! I found this rather odd after having seen Edward Pawley play featured roles such as: Public Enemy Number One in "G-Men", the head of a gangster mob in "King Solomon of Broadway", a crazed and rebellious convict in "Each Dawn I Die", a prominent gangster in "Smashing The Rackets" and in "Eyes of the Underworld", Bogart's bad-guy partner in "The Oklahoma Kid, et cetera. Perhaps this lends some additional credence to what some critics have claimed to be poor directing of this movie. Perhaps, also, the fact that there was no love lost between Robinson and Pawley had something to do with it. Interestingly, Pawley went on to replace Robinson as "Steve Wilson" in the long-running and highly popular radio drama series, Big Town, in the 1940s.

The movies have always relied on clear-cut heroes and villains to either engage the sympathy or incur the animosity of members of the audience: simplistic, and far removed from real life. Much more thought-provoking are the occasional characters such as the lead in this film, an egotistical, tough-as-nails crime kingpin and killer, who nevertheless emerges convincingly as a man capable of sympathy and single-minded devotion. The scenario is to be commended for making the complexities and seeming contradictions in this character altogether believable. Of course it is the performer who must make this come alive on the screen, and here Edward G. Robinson succeeds brilliantly. In a gallery of great performances by such a fine actor, this one deserves to be much better known.