Sadly Over-hyped

The acting in this movie is really good.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

If this film has a weak spot it's the story's details. Without giving anything away the whole idea of Vance's (Calhern) Svengali-like hypnotic effect on his wife (Astor) is a bit far-fetched, even for 1934. And quite frankly Robinson's disguise left a lot to be desired. And let's not forget the clue that clinched the policeman's case. I can't imagine building a case of such flimsy evidence. There's other areas of concern but I digress. Now for the good part: where the film shines is in the performances. This bevy of fine actors does a most excellent job at presenting complex characters driven by events not of their own choosing. It's a pretty talky film but I didn't mind in the least. The dialog is spirited, lively, expressive. And the performers tended to make me forget the plot's weak points. They were captivating, all of them, Robinson, Astor, Calhern, Cortez (in a rare good guy part), and last but not least, Mae Clarke, in my opinion a most underrated actor.

Man with Two Faces, The (1934) *** (out of 4) The tagline of this MGM picture promised it as the "most unusual picture since DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE" but that's a tad bit of a stretch as the film has a lot more in common with Warner's SVENGALI. Actor Damon Welles (Edward G. Robinson) is shocked to see that his sister (Mary Astor) goes into some sort of trance, which has been brought on by the arrival of her husband (Louis Calhern) who everyone thought had been killed years earlier. It turns out the husband puts the sister under a trance because he's trying to steal her money so the actor/brother decides to play a different type of part and free his sister through murder. THE MAN WITH TWO FACES certainly isn't in the same league as the Fredric March Jekyll/Hyde flick but it's still a pretty surreal little gem that really works well thanks in large part to the terrific cast. At just 72-minutes there's nothing overly ground breaking but if you're looking for a good little "B" film then this one here will get the job done. I was surprised to see how effective the story was even if we've seen it before in earlier films. I thought the pre-code elements were rather effective and the abuse that the husband puts his wife through was certainly stronger than what you'd typical see. I thought the screenplay did a good job at slowly building up the viewer's hatred of the husband because he comes onto the scene through some sinister fog and the level of evilness this guy is just gets worse from there. There's no murder that we see but the husband still comes across as a great, mean villain. Robinson shows what a terrific actor he is as he gets to play a couple parts here. One the actor/brother and the other a French man. I thought Robinson did a very good job with both parts and I really enjoyed the restraint way he played the brother. Astor's also very effective in her scenes and just check out the sequence where she first sees the husband she thought was dead. The horror in her eyes tells us everything we need to know and it's this quick scene that really sets up everything that's to follow. I also thought Astor did a good job in her scenes in a trance. Mae Clarke of FRANKENSTEIN fame has a thankless role as Robinson's girlfriend but it's always nice to see her. Ricardo Cortez is fun as well playing Astor's boyfriend who gets pushed to the side. Calhern easily steals the show as the abusive Svengali type character as he's so good as being cold-blooded that you can't help but love to hate him. I won't ruin the ending but I thought it was quite clever and effective. I'm a little surprised that this film isn't better known among fantasy fans as I personally found it to be more entertaining than the 1931 John Barrymore film. Of course there are still some problems including Robinson playing the French guy and how no one is able to tell it's the actor. Outside that, this is a rather effective movie that's certainly worth viewing.

George S. Kaufman was one of the towering figures of 20th Century American theater. He occasionally lent his enormous talent to Hollywood as in the Marx Brothers'"A Night at the Opera," but he is best known for adaptations of his theater work. Kaufman frequently worked with collaborators as varied as Moss Hart and Edna Ferber and here combined his prodigious talent with a fellow member of the renowned Algonquin Round Table, acerbic critic Alexander Woollcott. The resultant thriller with comic overtones, "The Dark Tower," reminds the viewer of "Sleuth," a great showcase for actors with a flair for theatrics and makeup. Like "Sleuth" its impact comes from the revelation rather late in the play that one actor has been playing dual roles, but "The Man with Two Faces" telegraphs that surprise because of the very nature of the film medium. Even the most casual viewer will realize quite quickly that Damon Wells and Jules Chautard are both played by Edward G. Robinson after the first close-up of the bearded Frenchman. The film's producers seem to have conceded that point with the changeover to the title "The Man with Two Faces" in order to promote contract player Robinson as a deserving successor to Lon Chaney. So what is the movie's great appeal?Although the storyline comes out of 19th Century melodramatic tradition, the actors tackle their roles with such enthusiasm, the film becomes a guilty pleasure. Mary Astor is Jessica Wells, a beautiful and talented actress returning to the stage after a three year absence due to an undisclosed mental breakdown. Although her triumphal comeback seems certain, family and friends are shocked when Vance, her long-lost husband, shows up at the family home. Louis Calhern plays this slimy character with flamboyant relish as Vance immediately exerts his influence on the usually vivacious Jessica. She is Trilby to his Svengali as she immediately reverts to a sleepwalking automaton blindly obeying his every wish.The authors never make clear what the hold Vance has on her is, but hints of a Caliostro-like hypnotic power are suggested. The avaricious and opportunistic Vance has heard that his estranged wife holds half the rights to the current play, a prospective mega-hit with her in the cast, but a sure flop with Jessica in her current somnambulist state. Calhern plays the vain, larcenous conman with obvious over-the-top élan. He feeds cheese to the pet mice he carries with him in a cage, threatens to kick in the head of an elderly housekeeper, punches his wife in the face with a pinkie ring, and orders garishly gaudy silk ties on the family's dime.Robinson plays Jessica's loyal but alcoholic brother, who goes on the wagon to lend his theatrical prestige and expertise to his sister's comeback while helping her to reclaim her talent as her on-stage acting coach. He quickly realizes that the viperous Vance must be dealt with once and for all (crunched "underfoot on the sidewalk" according to Jessica's manager, Ricardo Cortez), so he enters into an elaborate sting that will get rid of the vermin-like Vance permanently.The bravura of Calhern's enjoyably shameless overplaying is balanced by Robinson's subtle underplaying, and several of the supporting roles are extremely well done -- especially Arthur Landau as an homicide detective, Emily Fitzroy as a crusty housekeeper, and Warner favorite Mae Clarke as Robinson's low-rent girlfriend.In order to substitute for the loss of the play's original surprise revelation of the dual role, the authors have substituted a wryly ironic denouement, surprisingly satisfying for this highly enjoyable Pre-Code black comedy.

Great acting from Robinson, and a little over the top, but enjoyably so, from Calhern and Astor. Very stagey, but good setups and moving camera. Beware the plot synopsis in the TV Guide movie database. It seems to describe the ending of the play, but the movie (a censored version?), which played on TCM, has a more ambiguous ending which works better and is more interesting (to me, at least). (Not that I'm for censorship, but sometimes...) Ironically, the play had a happy ending, and that is the one described by TV Guide and Maltin. It's amusing to see when the established references contain reviews that were written by people who had not seen the entire film, and in some cases not at all.