20,000 Years in Sing Sing
December. 24,1932 NRBrash hoodlum Tom Connors enters Sing Sing cocksure of himself and disrespectful toward authority, but his tough but compassionate warden changes him.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
One of the biggest draws of this movie is that it features a couple of legends, Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis, a little bit before they hit it big. Tracy plays a big-time criminal who is imprisoned, and Davis is his girlfriend waiting for him on the outside. Both turn in good performances, with Tracy in particular playing the scenes in which he's called upon to be aggressive well. Partially filmed on location in Sing Sing, director Michael Curtiz does a good job of making use of the setting and varying his camera angles. I loved how he superimposed the number of years the convicts had served while they were walking around at the beginning and end of the film. As for the story, I have to say, it goes beyond plausibility at times relative to how respectfully the inmates are treated. Real life Sing Sing warden Lewis E. Lawes had creative control over the movie, and that may have played a role in that. I liked how there is a sense of honor from both the screen warden (Arthur Byron) and Tracy's character, even though they are on different sides of the law. I also liked the touching simplicity of some of the scenes on death row towards the end. It's not a great film, but it's certainly watchable, and good stuff.
I watched this movie for the first time last night. I was blown away by the acting of Tracy and Arthur Byron (who plays the warden at Sing Sing). Byron has a commanding voice (he was a famous stage actor) and it is well used here. Director Curtiz obviously liked him because Byron gets a lot of screen time. There are a lot of reaction shots from Byron and Curtiz lets the camera linger on him - his thoughtful face fills the screen. Bette Davis is surprisingly feminine and very sexy. Her characters got edgier later in her career. Here she is very attractive and interesting to watch. The acting from the other supporting actors is not very good and the script is bad. The script simply does not make sense in places. Rockcliffe Fellowes plays Tracy's friend near the end of the picture. Fellowes was the excellent star of 1915's Regeneration (Raoul Walsh dir.)but his career nosedived in talkies. He is worth seeing. If you like pre-Code drama this is definitely worth a look.
Another great gangster / prison drama from early 30s Hollywood. Tracy is great in a part which almost out - Cagneys Cagney, one moment chewing out the prison guards in defiance, the next playing a tender love with his girl, a ridiculously young and surprisingly alluring Bette Davis. Get a load of her outfits too, one a monochrome two piece suit and another with her wearing a tie of all things. There's a genuine electricity in their clinches, necessary to justify the sacrifices each is willing to make for the other. The other main character, the honourable warden, winningly played by Arthur Byron, forms the other side of the triangle with Tracy and Davis, his faith in Tracy keeping his word to turn himself in vindicated against even his own expectations. The dialogue rings true, only occasionally lapsing into front-on speechifying, the settings, while obviously toned down in terms of prison squalor and unruliness, also convince plus there's a great no-holds - barred fight scene between Tracy and Louis Calhern, which gives the lie to Tracy's later "statesman" - like static acting method - he really throws himself into his scenes and electrifies the screen throughout. A rollicking cinematic experience - contrast and compare with the equally superb "I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang", its near contemporary.
This movie is a tame, toothless wannabe prison/crime drama that doesn't hold a candle to its pre-Code siblings such as Scarface, Little Caesar, and Public Enemy, to name a few. I was quite disappointed.The movie starts out promising enough, with Spencer Tracy as a hardened tough guy being hauled off to Sing Sing. The problem with this movie is that is was really all over the map -- it didn't pick one genre and stick to it. At times it was a crime flick (or was pretending to be), at other times a light-hearted comedy, at other times a buddy flick (with the prison warden and Tracy being the buddies, no less!). The actors did well with their individual roles (including a very young and beautiful Bette Davis) and the story moved fairly apace, but in the end it added up to a whole lot of nothing for me.To top it off, there were some inconsistencies and/or hard-to-follow plot developments that bothered me: 1 - During a psychological test session to determine which manual labor to place the prisoners in, Tracy and Lyle Talbot do good enough on their puzzle to earn the "shoe shop" (top of the line job at the prison, according to the story), but dolt Hype can't fit the square piece into the square slot even after 5 minutes, so he is assigned lavatory duty. However, minutes later when we see the boys toiling away in the shoe shop, there's Hype too! 2 - While on his honor leave, Tracy decides he needs to get out of town rather than returning to prison. He talks to one of his buddies to make arrangements to leave on a train, and even hands over $5,000 to help grease the wheels and make the escape happen. Then, a scene or two later, we see Tracy showing back up at prison. What gives? 3 - The whole business with Tracy's lawyer and his girlfriend and the $5,000, I just didn't understand it. The movie tried to explain it but either they did a really bad job of it, or there were things going on in 1932 that you just had to be there to understand it (and hence my 2005 mind didn't quite catch), or I'm as big of a dolt as Hype. (I prefer not to think it's the latter!) Overall, it was fun to watch Tracy and Davis early in their careers, but honestly wasn't really worth having to sit through this movie in order to do so.