I've seen a lot of reviews of this film here claiming it's a gangster drama that would've worked better as a comedy. Did you miss the laughs? Some critics argue that Robert Montgomery was doing an unintentionally comedic gangster with Silky. I disagree. It's clearly satirical, with more depth added as the character becomes more exposed to another culture and from the decency shown to him by his new acquaintances. Sure, some parts could've been expanded on, and there could've been another half an hour of exposition. For me, many of the old studio pictures suffer from an assembly line mentality and are often dated or limited by today's standards. But I find satisfaction in the individual performances, scenes and the various technical and artistic contributions. Sadly, I feel there's a shortage of even those traits in today's Hollywood tripe.
16 Reviews
Can a common mug become a first-class earl?
planktonrules27 September 2019
Silky (Robert Montgomery) is a dim crook who made his fortune selling bootleg liquor. The film begins, inexplicably, with Silky meeting Doc Ramsey (Edward Arnold) as Doc is released from prison. This is confusing because Doc was sent there thanks to Silky....and you'd think they would want nothing to do with each other. However, Silky knows Doc is actually an honest man and trusts that Doc will be an able assistant in his 'business ventures'.
Silky's life is about to take a huge turn in another direction...and it comes as quite the shock. It seems that Silky is the heir to a title and property in England...though he never knew it since he was raised in an orphanage. Not surprisingly, Silky is quite lost in his new position and Doc is counting on this so he can repay him for his former 'kindness' and plans on relieving Silky of his American holdings while Silky is busy playing an Earl. This is going to come as a shock, as Silky's English estates are not exactly flush with money. What's next? See the film to find out for yourself.
It is quite enjoyable watching Robert Montgomery playing such a coarse and dim-witted criminal...mostly because the role was so unlike most of his others. Unfortunately, this didn't last, as about 3/4 of the way through the film Silky realized what Doc was doing and the film became very, very dark. In fact, I'd give the first 3/4 an 8 (it was really very good) and the last portion a 2....as it was too dark and left me very unsatisfied.
Silky's life is about to take a huge turn in another direction...and it comes as quite the shock. It seems that Silky is the heir to a title and property in England...though he never knew it since he was raised in an orphanage. Not surprisingly, Silky is quite lost in his new position and Doc is counting on this so he can repay him for his former 'kindness' and plans on relieving Silky of his American holdings while Silky is busy playing an Earl. This is going to come as a shock, as Silky's English estates are not exactly flush with money. What's next? See the film to find out for yourself.
It is quite enjoyable watching Robert Montgomery playing such a coarse and dim-witted criminal...mostly because the role was so unlike most of his others. Unfortunately, this didn't last, as about 3/4 of the way through the film Silky realized what Doc was doing and the film became very, very dark. In fact, I'd give the first 3/4 an 8 (it was really very good) and the last portion a 2....as it was too dark and left me very unsatisfied.
Quirky and unique
SHAWFAN20 January 2009
Despite all the miscasting and other plot gaucheries complained of by everyone, and with which I agree, there remains something very quirkily unique about this movie. Certainly my wife and I couldn't take our eyes off it till it was over. Besides the wildly satirical send up of those British ceremonial upper-crust ways which so amuse us whenever the present queen and her various entourages make those occasional appearances on public television, the very undeniable miscasting of Montgomery which rubbed so many the wrong way left us with a high admiration of those acting skills of his which enabled him to portray so well a character very much against his normal type. And his last lengthy monologue from the accused's dock was positively Lear-like in its crazed insanity. Despite all its flaws the chance to see Montgomery, Arnold, and Gwenn all acting their heads off in the same movie make this a rare and worthwhile 86 minutes.
The Pedegree of the Earl of Gorlay
theowinthrop13 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It is not a great film, but THE EARL OF CHICAGO has it's moments. Although Edward Arnold is playing a character ultimately getting even with Robert Montgomery for framing him (and sending him to prison for seven years), he actualy does show some interest in educating the latter. There is a scene where he finds out that Montgomery never learned American history, so he starts lecturing him about it as they take a drive. Later, as the car arrives and they get out, Montgomery (looking dumbfounded) says, "And you mean that the guy actually plugged him in a theatre?!" Arnold nods his head and says that's how it (presumably Lincoln's assassination) happened.
I won't go into the involved plot of how Montgomery, trying to turn legitimate after prohibition ends, finds he has inherited an English title, and how Arnold uses this to destroy Montgomery - only to be killed himself by Montgomery, who ends up being tried by his peers at Westminster, and being sentenced to death. I will only add that the murder of Arnold by Montgomery seems to be based on the 1760 Ferrers Case (brought up to 1940). In 1760, Laurence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers, in a fit of either madness or anger, shot and killed his steward, a Mr. Johnson. Ferrers was tried for this at Westminster, and tried to introduce evidence of his family's eccentric behavior. He was found guilty and hanged (and was the last British peer to die a felon's death - his only benefit being that he was hung with a silken rope, not a regular hemp one). I believe this is the only film that attempted to use that particular story in it's plot.
I won't go into the involved plot of how Montgomery, trying to turn legitimate after prohibition ends, finds he has inherited an English title, and how Arnold uses this to destroy Montgomery - only to be killed himself by Montgomery, who ends up being tried by his peers at Westminster, and being sentenced to death. I will only add that the murder of Arnold by Montgomery seems to be based on the 1760 Ferrers Case (brought up to 1940). In 1760, Laurence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers, in a fit of either madness or anger, shot and killed his steward, a Mr. Johnson. Ferrers was tried for this at Westminster, and tried to introduce evidence of his family's eccentric behavior. He was found guilty and hanged (and was the last British peer to die a felon's death - his only benefit being that he was hung with a silken rope, not a regular hemp one). I believe this is the only film that attempted to use that particular story in it's plot.
The Meaning Of Class
bkoganbing17 January 2009
One of Robert Montgomery's most amusing films which takes a very serious turn is The Earl Of Chicago. Just imagine someone like a Lucky Luciano inheriting some title in Italy and you've got the basic idea.
For those who think Montgomery was miscast I disagree completely. He certainly had an upper class background and most of his film roles were of that kind, but he did just fine as blue collar types in Yellow Jack and Here Comes Mr. Jordan and he does equally well here.
What Robert Kilmont, Chicago gangster who hasn't let up a bit even though Prohibtion is a thing of the past, has is one great deal of hubris and he's an awful bad judge of character. He's right at the prison door to meet Edward Arnold, a lawyer he framed when he couldn't buy him. He reasons like Diogenes he's found an honest man and he wants honest men working for him. What's so ironic is that the whole audience knows from the git-go that Arnold is going to pull a double-cross even though Montgomery is oblivious to it all.
The opportunity comes sooner than he thinks when some English barrister comes across with documentation that shows this man who was raised in a Detroit orphanage is indeed the new Earl of Gorley. Montgomery is used to dealing with all kinds of situations, but this one throws him. He takes his new found friend Arnold to the United Kingdom to claim his inheritance. As for Arnold, he may be a disbarred attorney, but he knows what to do with a power of attorney which he tricks Montgomery into giving him so he can watch his business interests in Chicago from Great Britain of course.
It's a dirty double-dealing trick Arnold plays, but Montgomery was such a fathead to think this guy was going to just let bygones be bygones. That's the hubris.
Montgomery is in for quite a bit of culture shock about Great Britain and its class system and the fact as a member of the landed aristocracy he has traditions and obligations to follow and meet. The only real friends he makes among the folks there are young Ronald Sinclair who would be his successor and his butler Edmund Gwenn who tries in his usual gentle manner to smooth some of the rough edges that Chicago left on Montgomery.
In fact Gwenn's is the best performance in the film. It's certainly one my favorites from this player. I like it even better than his scientist in Them or as Kris Kringle in Miracle On 34th Street for which Gwenn won an Oscar.
Arnold's double-dealing ends badly for both him and Montgomery, but I will say in the end The Earl Of Chicago went out with the class he sought all of his life. And The Earl Of Chicago courtesy of Robert Montgomery and Edward Arnold and a number of players from the British colony in Hollywood make it a film of class.
For those who think Montgomery was miscast I disagree completely. He certainly had an upper class background and most of his film roles were of that kind, but he did just fine as blue collar types in Yellow Jack and Here Comes Mr. Jordan and he does equally well here.
What Robert Kilmont, Chicago gangster who hasn't let up a bit even though Prohibtion is a thing of the past, has is one great deal of hubris and he's an awful bad judge of character. He's right at the prison door to meet Edward Arnold, a lawyer he framed when he couldn't buy him. He reasons like Diogenes he's found an honest man and he wants honest men working for him. What's so ironic is that the whole audience knows from the git-go that Arnold is going to pull a double-cross even though Montgomery is oblivious to it all.
The opportunity comes sooner than he thinks when some English barrister comes across with documentation that shows this man who was raised in a Detroit orphanage is indeed the new Earl of Gorley. Montgomery is used to dealing with all kinds of situations, but this one throws him. He takes his new found friend Arnold to the United Kingdom to claim his inheritance. As for Arnold, he may be a disbarred attorney, but he knows what to do with a power of attorney which he tricks Montgomery into giving him so he can watch his business interests in Chicago from Great Britain of course.
It's a dirty double-dealing trick Arnold plays, but Montgomery was such a fathead to think this guy was going to just let bygones be bygones. That's the hubris.
Montgomery is in for quite a bit of culture shock about Great Britain and its class system and the fact as a member of the landed aristocracy he has traditions and obligations to follow and meet. The only real friends he makes among the folks there are young Ronald Sinclair who would be his successor and his butler Edmund Gwenn who tries in his usual gentle manner to smooth some of the rough edges that Chicago left on Montgomery.
In fact Gwenn's is the best performance in the film. It's certainly one my favorites from this player. I like it even better than his scientist in Them or as Kris Kringle in Miracle On 34th Street for which Gwenn won an Oscar.
Arnold's double-dealing ends badly for both him and Montgomery, but I will say in the end The Earl Of Chicago went out with the class he sought all of his life. And The Earl Of Chicago courtesy of Robert Montgomery and Edward Arnold and a number of players from the British colony in Hollywood make it a film of class.
recommended
bderoes5 June 2015
Most of the reviews already posted recommend against this film. I thought I'd chime in with the supporters.
Of the 8 films in the Warner Archive "Robert Montgomery Collection" bundle, this is my favorite, followed closely by Faithless (1932). Overall, I've rated 18 of his films, and gave 4 sevens, 9 sixes, 4 fives and 1 four. That fits my overall rating profile pretty well, except one should have been an 8 instead of a four or five. So I'm not a special fan of Montgomery.
I agree that Montgomery's portrayal here is heavy-handed. His character, the titular Earl of Chicago, talks and behaves like a cross between Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, with an annoying giggle to guild the dandy-lion. Oh, and leave us not omit the Cagney-esque shoulder-roll.
The Earl has a twist that is interesting, if unlikely for a Chicago bootlegger: he's gun-averse, to the point of breaking out in a sweat when he sees one in some circumstances. He's volatile and sadistic, as demonstrated by his ring-slapping a man who displays his gun "for a laugh." He happily pays his thugs overtime for after-hours physical intimidation of a customer who withdrew his business during these post-Prohibition days. (We don't get a fix on the year, but it must be close to the repeal of Prohibition in 1934, because his cousin Master Gerald is about 13 during the flashback (the actor was 15), but is with his regiment in France in the present-day of the movie, late 1939.)
The Earl learns and grows during the story. He is humbled by the grandeur of the House of Lords. He discovers history, both English and American. He learns the basics of the culture of the landed gentry and their tenants, particularly about noblesse oblige. Edmund Gwenn delivers his usual pleasurable and effective performance, helping to shepherd the American Earl through his discoveries.
Unless this print was politically enhanced for later re-release, this film was released in January 1940, in the middle of the Phoney War. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, and Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany 2 days later. America declared its neutrality 2 days after that. Europe languished in the Phoney War until Hitler invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in May 1940, although the Nazis began with other aggressions in March and April. (The History Place has a nice timeline, easily found by searching for "hitler's invasion of europe.")
Because the visitors to the castle in 1939 are mostly in uniform (not true during the flashback to 1934), and English troops in France are mentioned, I interpret part of the film's intent was to reduce America's isolationism, implying that it was OUR noblesse oblige to help defend Europe, especially England, against Hitler's aggression. The message is subtle, but I see it. MGM got more much overt about our noblesse oblige in 1940 with films Escape and The Mortal Storm.
The film's revenge plot line involves Edward Arnold's character (also delivered with his customary skill). One of the effective aspects of the film is that this character is written and performed to throw us off the scent. While we see his secret vengeful actions, he also interacts with the Earl and others beyond the need to disguise his intent. I wondered whether his actions were as destructive as they seemed.
MGM does its usual excellent job of providing beautifully designed and dressed sets.
I liked this movie. I only give a rating of 7+ if I recommend the film.
Of the 8 films in the Warner Archive "Robert Montgomery Collection" bundle, this is my favorite, followed closely by Faithless (1932). Overall, I've rated 18 of his films, and gave 4 sevens, 9 sixes, 4 fives and 1 four. That fits my overall rating profile pretty well, except one should have been an 8 instead of a four or five. So I'm not a special fan of Montgomery.
I agree that Montgomery's portrayal here is heavy-handed. His character, the titular Earl of Chicago, talks and behaves like a cross between Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, with an annoying giggle to guild the dandy-lion. Oh, and leave us not omit the Cagney-esque shoulder-roll.
The Earl has a twist that is interesting, if unlikely for a Chicago bootlegger: he's gun-averse, to the point of breaking out in a sweat when he sees one in some circumstances. He's volatile and sadistic, as demonstrated by his ring-slapping a man who displays his gun "for a laugh." He happily pays his thugs overtime for after-hours physical intimidation of a customer who withdrew his business during these post-Prohibition days. (We don't get a fix on the year, but it must be close to the repeal of Prohibition in 1934, because his cousin Master Gerald is about 13 during the flashback (the actor was 15), but is with his regiment in France in the present-day of the movie, late 1939.)
The Earl learns and grows during the story. He is humbled by the grandeur of the House of Lords. He discovers history, both English and American. He learns the basics of the culture of the landed gentry and their tenants, particularly about noblesse oblige. Edmund Gwenn delivers his usual pleasurable and effective performance, helping to shepherd the American Earl through his discoveries.
Unless this print was politically enhanced for later re-release, this film was released in January 1940, in the middle of the Phoney War. Hitler invaded Poland September 1, 1939, and Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany 2 days later. America declared its neutrality 2 days after that. Europe languished in the Phoney War until Hitler invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in May 1940, although the Nazis began with other aggressions in March and April. (The History Place has a nice timeline, easily found by searching for "hitler's invasion of europe.")
Because the visitors to the castle in 1939 are mostly in uniform (not true during the flashback to 1934), and English troops in France are mentioned, I interpret part of the film's intent was to reduce America's isolationism, implying that it was OUR noblesse oblige to help defend Europe, especially England, against Hitler's aggression. The message is subtle, but I see it. MGM got more much overt about our noblesse oblige in 1940 with films Escape and The Mortal Storm.
The film's revenge plot line involves Edward Arnold's character (also delivered with his customary skill). One of the effective aspects of the film is that this character is written and performed to throw us off the scent. While we see his secret vengeful actions, he also interacts with the Earl and others beyond the need to disguise his intent. I wondered whether his actions were as destructive as they seemed.
MGM does its usual excellent job of providing beautifully designed and dressed sets.
I liked this movie. I only give a rating of 7+ if I recommend the film.
A New Beginning
date1969-697-37437810 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I for one found the ending wanting for the nephews testimony. Had he been questioned Robert Kilmount aversion(phobia)towards guns would have been revealed. The act could have been deemed an irresistible impulse and He should had been acquitted of the murder charge. He could have abdicated his position in favor of his nephew. Not having a home in the States He would live on the estate as his nephew's guest for life just like the others living there. A last minute reprieve culminating into a pardon would have worked for me. Of course a remake or a sequel might work as well. Then again perhaps it was left to our imagination. We never saw the execution. Nor the after math. More lose ends left undone.
A miscast Robert Montgomery and a questionable screenplay leave very little to like in this drama.
Art-2230 January 1999
As much as I like Robert Montgomery as an actor, he doesn't cut it as a Chicago ex-bootlegger and gangster. His idea of acting tough is to jut out his lower lip and say "yeah" a hundred or so times. And when the plot also calls for him to inherit an earldom, a British title and become a member of the House of Lords, it results in utter failure for the film. A fish-out-of-water scenario doesn't work as well for drama as it does for comedy; the lengthy sequence for Montgomery's investiture into the House of Lords was painful to watch. I think I was more uncomfortable than Montgomery was, as he fumbles throughout the centuries-old pompous ceremony which includes a pledge of allegiance to the king. There were some nice moments in the film: butler Edmund Gwenn teaching Montgomery about "noblesse oblige" so that he visits an old sick man and his wife (Ben Webster and Tempe Piggot) to comfort him; how she refuses money, despite her poverty, for the cookie he takes because she says "it would deprive me of my pleasure"; when Montgomery also visits another old tenant (Zeffie Tilbury) and learns she nursed his father as an infant. But these moments were far too few, as the plot concerns itself mostly with Montgomery's greedy desire to cash in on his newfound wealth and with Edward Arnold's revenge for his serving seven years in prison because of a frame-up by Montgomery. There were too many holes in the plot: I would have thought everyone would be happy to get rid of Montgomery instead of pleading with him to stay. And surely the writers could have written a better ending.
I couldn't get over the feeling that Edward G. Robinson would have been so much better in the role that Montgomery played. Curiously, David O. Selznick bought the rights to the novel with Robinson in mind, but then sold those rights to MGM. What a shame!
I couldn't get over the feeling that Edward G. Robinson would have been so much better in the role that Montgomery played. Curiously, David O. Selznick bought the rights to the novel with Robinson in mind, but then sold those rights to MGM. What a shame!
I wonder who thought it would be a good idea...
AlsExGal4 September 2015
to have Robert Montgomery's gangster character, Silky, talk like a cross between Bugs Bunny and somebody on helium? Other than that one eyebrow raising observation though, I really liked this weird little film.
Silky was a bootlegger in prohibition days, and now he uses that knowledge to legitimately manufacture and sell his own liquor. His car is waiting the day Doc Ramsey (Edward Arnold), his former attorney, gets out of prison. Ramsey was framed for the crime he served seven years for, and he presumes that framing was done by Silky, his former client. Doc wants Silky to make a statement to the D.A. admitting guilt because the statute of limitations has long run out on the crime, and by admitting what was really done, Doc will be cleared and can regain membership to the bar. Silky says he knows nothing about it in a way that says he knows everything about it but intends to do nothing. Then he asks Doc to be general manager of his liquor business - he thinks Doc is an honest man which is just about as close as an admission of guilt as you are going to get out of Silky. Doc agrees to take the job.
Now "The Godfather" always said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but for this to work you need to be smart enough to know the difference between the two, and Silky just does not seem that bright. Plus Silky is afraid of guns, even the sight of them. This makes you wonder why he is still alive and kicking as a gangster with his right hand man in jail all of these years.
Then something from left field appears. Silky's uncle has just died, he had no children, and Silky is the sole heir to the uncle's earldom in England. Doc sees his chance for some revenge. Silky isn't interested in this at first, but Doc tells him about all of the land and money that comes with the title, getting Silky to leave for England. Doc goes along, but gets Silky to sign power of attorney to him since Silky will be busy grabbing what he can in England. Honestly, how did Silky not win the Darwin award before the age of 12? Well the rest of the film just illustrates what we have known all along - that Silky has no redeeming qualities as a human being whatsoever. Yet as Earl he is expected to display "noblesse oblige". Edmund Gwenn is perfectly cast as Munsey, Silky's butler in England, who explains the term as "The earl's subjects never let him down, but likewise the earl is expected to never let his subjects down." It is quite a job for someone like Silky to shoehorn himself into such a role that he didn't want in the first place. Meanwhile, Doc is out using Silky's power of attorney to bankrupt Silky and his American businesses, knowing that because of taxes and the laws of the land, it would be years before Silky could get one farthing out of the estate.
It all boils down to a big showdown between Silky and Doc where Silky gets an education in business - which is where a man with money (Silky) meets a man with experience (Doc). The man with the experience gets the money, and the man with the money gets the experience. How will somebody with Silky's violent temper react when he realizes he has so stupidly misjudged somebody? Especially when he is afraid of guns? Well, let's just say that Munsey has succeeded in teaching Silky that he is more than he thinks he is and he shows this trait at two unexpected points in the film, the second point being the very end of the film.
Most people think that "Night Must Fall" was Robert Montgomery's best performance, but I have to say I think he acted exactly the way you'd think a serial killer would act straight down the line in that film. This one really shows that Montgomery can surprise you. You think he's going to react one way, because everything he's done has set you up to believe he is a certain kind of person, and then he does something that is a polar opposite of that expectation, yet it is entirely believable. Highly recommended.
Silky was a bootlegger in prohibition days, and now he uses that knowledge to legitimately manufacture and sell his own liquor. His car is waiting the day Doc Ramsey (Edward Arnold), his former attorney, gets out of prison. Ramsey was framed for the crime he served seven years for, and he presumes that framing was done by Silky, his former client. Doc wants Silky to make a statement to the D.A. admitting guilt because the statute of limitations has long run out on the crime, and by admitting what was really done, Doc will be cleared and can regain membership to the bar. Silky says he knows nothing about it in a way that says he knows everything about it but intends to do nothing. Then he asks Doc to be general manager of his liquor business - he thinks Doc is an honest man which is just about as close as an admission of guilt as you are going to get out of Silky. Doc agrees to take the job.
Now "The Godfather" always said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but for this to work you need to be smart enough to know the difference between the two, and Silky just does not seem that bright. Plus Silky is afraid of guns, even the sight of them. This makes you wonder why he is still alive and kicking as a gangster with his right hand man in jail all of these years.
Then something from left field appears. Silky's uncle has just died, he had no children, and Silky is the sole heir to the uncle's earldom in England. Doc sees his chance for some revenge. Silky isn't interested in this at first, but Doc tells him about all of the land and money that comes with the title, getting Silky to leave for England. Doc goes along, but gets Silky to sign power of attorney to him since Silky will be busy grabbing what he can in England. Honestly, how did Silky not win the Darwin award before the age of 12? Well the rest of the film just illustrates what we have known all along - that Silky has no redeeming qualities as a human being whatsoever. Yet as Earl he is expected to display "noblesse oblige". Edmund Gwenn is perfectly cast as Munsey, Silky's butler in England, who explains the term as "The earl's subjects never let him down, but likewise the earl is expected to never let his subjects down." It is quite a job for someone like Silky to shoehorn himself into such a role that he didn't want in the first place. Meanwhile, Doc is out using Silky's power of attorney to bankrupt Silky and his American businesses, knowing that because of taxes and the laws of the land, it would be years before Silky could get one farthing out of the estate.
It all boils down to a big showdown between Silky and Doc where Silky gets an education in business - which is where a man with money (Silky) meets a man with experience (Doc). The man with the experience gets the money, and the man with the money gets the experience. How will somebody with Silky's violent temper react when he realizes he has so stupidly misjudged somebody? Especially when he is afraid of guns? Well, let's just say that Munsey has succeeded in teaching Silky that he is more than he thinks he is and he shows this trait at two unexpected points in the film, the second point being the very end of the film.
Most people think that "Night Must Fall" was Robert Montgomery's best performance, but I have to say I think he acted exactly the way you'd think a serial killer would act straight down the line in that film. This one really shows that Montgomery can surprise you. You think he's going to react one way, because everything he's done has set you up to believe he is a certain kind of person, and then he does something that is a polar opposite of that expectation, yet it is entirely believable. Highly recommended.
"England to them, dough to me."
utgard1410 July 2014
Robert Montgomery plays a gangster named Silky who framed his lawyer Doc Ramsey (Edward Arnold) seven years earlier. When Doc is released from prison he finds he is disbarred and can't work as an attorney, so he has to go back to work for Silky as his general manager. But Doc is bitter and waiting for a chance to get his revenge. A chance that comes when Silky is discovered to be the heir to an English title.
Uneven blend of comedy and drama. The comedy works well. The drama not so much. Montgomery's hammy gangster persona just doesn't jive with Arnold's angry man hell-bent on revenge. Edmund Gwenn is good as Silky's butler. The ending is pretty bad and makes you wonder what the point of the whole movie was. Still, top stars make it worth watching.
Uneven blend of comedy and drama. The comedy works well. The drama not so much. Montgomery's hammy gangster persona just doesn't jive with Arnold's angry man hell-bent on revenge. Edmund Gwenn is good as Silky's butler. The ending is pretty bad and makes you wonder what the point of the whole movie was. Still, top stars make it worth watching.
Eighty-six Minutes Too Long
Patriotlad@aol.com21 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
One of the guilty pleasures of a day off during the week, is the chance to catch some of the truly rare movies offered by TCM -- Turner Classic Movies -- on the cable. And so there was a chance to watch "The Earl Of Chicago" with one of my favorite true-life characters, Robert Montgomery. Having recently enjoyed the excellent Great War submarine drama, "Hell Below" with Montgomery and Walter Huston, I was hopeful about "The Earl". After all, Montgomery was outstanding as the charming rapscallion and jewel thief in "The Mystery Of Mister X", so it seemed that this film about a bootlegger gone legitimate might be equally promising.
It wasn't. "The Earl Of Chicago" begins as a wise-cracking 1930's style screwball comedy ( released January 5, 1940 ), complete with one of those wholly improbable plot lines that made screwball comedies so endearing. Robert Kinmount is a former bootlegger who owns a distillery making "The Pride Of Scotland" and using the same bully-boy tactics of the Prohibition Era. Seven years earlier he had "put the frame" on an attorney named QuentinRamsey, who was convicted for some criminal mischief and disbarred. So when Kinmount goes to meet Ramsey on the day he's released from prison in Illinois, right there the classic screwball-type comedy premise is created, as he hires him as manager.
"The Earl Of Chicago" was raised in an orphanage in Detroit. He is, however, the legitimate son of a British nobleman and the screwball comedy turns into a role-reversal drama when a British barrister shows up with the news that Kinmount has inherited a title and an estate in England. From this point on, the clever and essentially unscrupulous ex-bootlegger becomes a complete idiot, seemingly incapable of understanding anything that is happening to him.
Ramsey, played with much huffing and puffing by Edward Arnold ( an otherwise distinguished actor of the first order ), manages to "soft-soap" the reformed bootlegger into taking a trip to Britain to see the estate, and to claim the title of Earl of Gorley. And so most of the film plays out not in Chicago, but inside of various English settings, including the magnificent castle.
What happens next is that Ramsey, having a power of attorney from the Ex-Bootlegger "Silky", contrives to bankrupt his distillery by purchasing large quantities of fine English whiskey and having it shipped to Chicago. He also conceals certain key facts about the inheritance and the assumption of the title of Earl, from Kinmount, like the important fact that the "inheritance tax" on such an estate will take seven years' worth of revenue to retire !!
Robert "Silky" Kinmount thinks he can sell off parts of the estate, not understanding that the lands are "entailed", or held in stewardship by the Earl of Gorley as a permanent gift of King Henry the VIII. They cannot therefore be sold or divided up for partial sale. Even tho' the Kinmount property includes a mine and some other houses which ought to be salable, this obvious factor is never explored in this dreadful non-comedic screwball comedy.
The whole thing ends in tragedy. The last sixty-plus minutes of "The Earl Of Chicago" hasn't more than one good laugh in it, which means that the director set out to make a great screwball comedy and then quit halfway through it. As a tragedy it fails utterly, too, for there is no redemption for the rakish Silky Kinmount and there's no real revenge for the badly-wronged Ramsey.
What there is, is a lot of blather about English tradition and "noblesse oblige", parroted in a most unseemly fashion by the great character actor Edmund Gwenn. Every single character of consequence in this abomination is miscast. Edward Arnold would have been excellent as the orphaned Kinmount, and Montgomery's devilish good looks and natural energy on screen would have been perfect for the wronged-man seeking his revenge. Gwenn is a great actor and wholly wasted in this flop-doodle. Worse yet, an interesting sub-plot with the English cousin that "Silky" Kinmount never knew he had -- played by fifteen-year old Ronald Sinclair -- begins and then goes absolutely nowhere.
Every possible opportunity for success was missed in this moving picture. The ex-bootlegger with the street-smarts and business acumen is deaf and dumb to the business situation he finds in Great Britain. The British character actors who play the legal advisors to the new Earl are all starch and no shirts ... little more than well-dressed mannequins.
There's no bonding between the new Earl and the upper-class English cousin, the one good soul in the fiction, the one who might have saved Silky Kinmount or at least given him a chance at redemption in the sense of a classical tragedy. There's no love interest in a movie about a rakish ex-gangster who loves having a beautiful woman around.
There was a great reason to see this movie once, and that is the fact that Henry Montgomery, Junior, known in Hollywood as Robert, was easily one of the most personable and able acting talents of the 1930s and early '40s. Having been raised in a very well-to-do family, he was completely at ease in the tuxedo and black-tie social set, and having had to work at odd jobs after his family fortune vanished in The Great Depression, he was entirely believable as "the well-schooled working stiff." He had the easy manner and good looks of Ronald Reagan with a sharper kind of wit and his own style. He had the intensity of a Robert Taylor but was more seemingly self-assured. None of that shows up here in this spotted dog of a movie.
"The Earl Of Chicago" is listed as running eighty-seven minutes: that's eighty-six minutes too long, and the film got a vote of 1 simply because negative numbers are not allowed. I want those minutes back.
It wasn't. "The Earl Of Chicago" begins as a wise-cracking 1930's style screwball comedy ( released January 5, 1940 ), complete with one of those wholly improbable plot lines that made screwball comedies so endearing. Robert Kinmount is a former bootlegger who owns a distillery making "The Pride Of Scotland" and using the same bully-boy tactics of the Prohibition Era. Seven years earlier he had "put the frame" on an attorney named QuentinRamsey, who was convicted for some criminal mischief and disbarred. So when Kinmount goes to meet Ramsey on the day he's released from prison in Illinois, right there the classic screwball-type comedy premise is created, as he hires him as manager.
"The Earl Of Chicago" was raised in an orphanage in Detroit. He is, however, the legitimate son of a British nobleman and the screwball comedy turns into a role-reversal drama when a British barrister shows up with the news that Kinmount has inherited a title and an estate in England. From this point on, the clever and essentially unscrupulous ex-bootlegger becomes a complete idiot, seemingly incapable of understanding anything that is happening to him.
Ramsey, played with much huffing and puffing by Edward Arnold ( an otherwise distinguished actor of the first order ), manages to "soft-soap" the reformed bootlegger into taking a trip to Britain to see the estate, and to claim the title of Earl of Gorley. And so most of the film plays out not in Chicago, but inside of various English settings, including the magnificent castle.
What happens next is that Ramsey, having a power of attorney from the Ex-Bootlegger "Silky", contrives to bankrupt his distillery by purchasing large quantities of fine English whiskey and having it shipped to Chicago. He also conceals certain key facts about the inheritance and the assumption of the title of Earl, from Kinmount, like the important fact that the "inheritance tax" on such an estate will take seven years' worth of revenue to retire !!
Robert "Silky" Kinmount thinks he can sell off parts of the estate, not understanding that the lands are "entailed", or held in stewardship by the Earl of Gorley as a permanent gift of King Henry the VIII. They cannot therefore be sold or divided up for partial sale. Even tho' the Kinmount property includes a mine and some other houses which ought to be salable, this obvious factor is never explored in this dreadful non-comedic screwball comedy.
The whole thing ends in tragedy. The last sixty-plus minutes of "The Earl Of Chicago" hasn't more than one good laugh in it, which means that the director set out to make a great screwball comedy and then quit halfway through it. As a tragedy it fails utterly, too, for there is no redemption for the rakish Silky Kinmount and there's no real revenge for the badly-wronged Ramsey.
What there is, is a lot of blather about English tradition and "noblesse oblige", parroted in a most unseemly fashion by the great character actor Edmund Gwenn. Every single character of consequence in this abomination is miscast. Edward Arnold would have been excellent as the orphaned Kinmount, and Montgomery's devilish good looks and natural energy on screen would have been perfect for the wronged-man seeking his revenge. Gwenn is a great actor and wholly wasted in this flop-doodle. Worse yet, an interesting sub-plot with the English cousin that "Silky" Kinmount never knew he had -- played by fifteen-year old Ronald Sinclair -- begins and then goes absolutely nowhere.
Every possible opportunity for success was missed in this moving picture. The ex-bootlegger with the street-smarts and business acumen is deaf and dumb to the business situation he finds in Great Britain. The British character actors who play the legal advisors to the new Earl are all starch and no shirts ... little more than well-dressed mannequins.
There's no bonding between the new Earl and the upper-class English cousin, the one good soul in the fiction, the one who might have saved Silky Kinmount or at least given him a chance at redemption in the sense of a classical tragedy. There's no love interest in a movie about a rakish ex-gangster who loves having a beautiful woman around.
There was a great reason to see this movie once, and that is the fact that Henry Montgomery, Junior, known in Hollywood as Robert, was easily one of the most personable and able acting talents of the 1930s and early '40s. Having been raised in a very well-to-do family, he was completely at ease in the tuxedo and black-tie social set, and having had to work at odd jobs after his family fortune vanished in The Great Depression, he was entirely believable as "the well-schooled working stiff." He had the easy manner and good looks of Ronald Reagan with a sharper kind of wit and his own style. He had the intensity of a Robert Taylor but was more seemingly self-assured. None of that shows up here in this spotted dog of a movie.
"The Earl Of Chicago" is listed as running eighty-seven minutes: that's eighty-six minutes too long, and the film got a vote of 1 simply because negative numbers are not allowed. I want those minutes back.
American bootlegger goes to London
ksf-21 October 2019
The awesome, suave Robert Montgomery is "Silky" Kilmount, former booze maker during prohibition. Now that it's all legal and above-board, he's raking it in the legal way. Eddy Arnold is "Doc Ramsey", just getting released from prison, after getting framed by Silky years back, according to Doc. Montgomery's accent keeps changing, as he tries to speak in a blue collar, uneducated accent, a major departure for him. So when Silky inherits a title and a whole lotta land in the UK, Doc offers to look after things back home. but it doesn't go so well. This one is pretty light, fluffy material. some funny scenes, as Silky goes on the tour of his own castle, and corrects the tour guide who is leading the group. co-stars Reginald Owen (disney star) and Ed Gwenn (Kris Kringle!). it's pretty good. typical role for Arnold; always played the lawyer, the mafia boss, or some such. Montgomery usually played the well educated businessman, or the fiance, who was usually rich, or sometimes the common man marrying up. and keep an eye out for Norma Varden; was Lady Beekman in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". here, she's the mother of the young Kilmount lad, who is getting cheated out of his inheritance. Some ups and downs. according to the NOTES section on TCM.com, actual scenery of London was shot by producer Saville, and was later used in the film. Novel by Brock Williams. Directed by Richard Thorpe, who did many silents and many talkies, from the 1920s right into the 1960s. this one would have been right in the middle of his career.
Horrible Waste of Time
LadyJaneGrey11 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I kept waiting for this movie to be better. I love Robert Montgomery, and the supporting players here (Edmund Gwenn, Edward Arnold) are stellar. But Montgomery is painfully miscast as Silky Kinmount, the Chicago tough guy who runs a distillery and inherits a British title and thinks only of the ten million dollars the land will get him. He then goes to England with his manager, Ramsey (Arnold) whom he has coaxed into being such without realizing Ramsey intends to get even for landing in the poky for seven years through Kinmount's machinations. He sees the chance when he gets power of attorney for Kinmont and goes with him to England, where he proceeds to destroy Kinmount's business and keeps him in the dark about his English lands, which are entailed by inheritance and cannot be broken up or sold.
This movie seems to have been made a decade too late for this type of character. Montgomery's attempt at a tough-guy accent is painful and unintentionally funny, better suited to a skit on "The Carol Burnett Show," than an MGM movie. Not a screwball comedy, not a gangster picture, not an English drawing room movie, it's all bits and pieces with no style or substance. Montgomery's charm and style and distinctive flair are utterly absent in this movie. He simply does not have the grit to pull off a true Chicago-style crass gangster.
As a woman, I must object to the fact that the only love interest in this movie is seen from the shapely legs down. Surely a guy like Silky would have a beautiful woman hanging around, doncha think? Like other reviewers have said, this movie had so many opportunities to turn into a good movie, like exploring the relationship between Silky and his British teenage cousin or between Silky and the people who live on his land just for the honor of sharing space with a Lord, thereby redeeming this unlikable character. It does not do any of that, and instead ends as Silky is hung for the murder of Ramsey, after being helped on with his peer's robes by the kindly butler (Gwenn) and a bizarre courtroom scene where Kimnount seems to have gone completely nuts and probably could have qualified for an insanity defense.
Other reviewers also pointed out that the Silky part would have been right for Edward G. Robinson or that the parts of Arnold and Montgomery should have been reversed, and I agree entirely. Some parts simply require an inner quality that lacks even through the best of acting, as is the case here. Montgomery was truly from the upper class and then had to go to work when his father died, so he knew both worlds and could play both, but not this gritty, nearly illiterate, semi-bootlegger type. He could play a cad and a heel, a tuxedo-wearing playboy, or a harried husband with equal ease. This just wasn't his role. Do yourself a favor and skip this Montgomery performance.
This movie seems to have been made a decade too late for this type of character. Montgomery's attempt at a tough-guy accent is painful and unintentionally funny, better suited to a skit on "The Carol Burnett Show," than an MGM movie. Not a screwball comedy, not a gangster picture, not an English drawing room movie, it's all bits and pieces with no style or substance. Montgomery's charm and style and distinctive flair are utterly absent in this movie. He simply does not have the grit to pull off a true Chicago-style crass gangster.
As a woman, I must object to the fact that the only love interest in this movie is seen from the shapely legs down. Surely a guy like Silky would have a beautiful woman hanging around, doncha think? Like other reviewers have said, this movie had so many opportunities to turn into a good movie, like exploring the relationship between Silky and his British teenage cousin or between Silky and the people who live on his land just for the honor of sharing space with a Lord, thereby redeeming this unlikable character. It does not do any of that, and instead ends as Silky is hung for the murder of Ramsey, after being helped on with his peer's robes by the kindly butler (Gwenn) and a bizarre courtroom scene where Kimnount seems to have gone completely nuts and probably could have qualified for an insanity defense.
Other reviewers also pointed out that the Silky part would have been right for Edward G. Robinson or that the parts of Arnold and Montgomery should have been reversed, and I agree entirely. Some parts simply require an inner quality that lacks even through the best of acting, as is the case here. Montgomery was truly from the upper class and then had to go to work when his father died, so he knew both worlds and could play both, but not this gritty, nearly illiterate, semi-bootlegger type. He could play a cad and a heel, a tuxedo-wearing playboy, or a harried husband with equal ease. This just wasn't his role. Do yourself a favor and skip this Montgomery performance.
**** Misfire
GManfred6 February 2020
I really enjoy Robert Montgomery and his suave, sophisticated onscreen persona. I've tried to watch all of his films over the years and have enjoyed most - until I saw "The Earl Of Chicago". He was miscast here as a gangster who inherits an Earldom in England. The plot line was lame and not believable, but he tried too hard to be crude and unpolished and was clearly out of his element. In his pictures he is the personification of sophistication and the reversal just doesn't work here.
Too bad, because he was surrounded by A list character actors, such as Edward Arnold, Edmund Gween, Reginald Owen and several others. It must have sounded better in the planning stage as there were some plot holes apart from the absurd plot, which does not work for Montgomery. Perhaps they needed a different actor because this was not his cup of tea. Can't recommend it.
**** 4 stars. Website no longer prints my star rating.
Too bad, because he was surrounded by A list character actors, such as Edward Arnold, Edmund Gween, Reginald Owen and several others. It must have sounded better in the planning stage as there were some plot holes apart from the absurd plot, which does not work for Montgomery. Perhaps they needed a different actor because this was not his cup of tea. Can't recommend it.
**** 4 stars. Website no longer prints my star rating.
This film is a mess that goes nowhere
wetcircuit7 November 2019
Too many things wrong with this film to list them all. Multiple tropes are introduced but go nowhere; themes are dropped without resolution, and characters are announced to have "mortal flaws" up until *whoops* they conveniently don't.
It's unclear who the protagonist is meant to be, or what morality we're suppose to surmise. A few sympathetic but 1-dimensional caricatures of servants serve as scenery, but no one is better for it. The humorless plot drags on.
Probably the worst performance by Robert Montgomery ever. He spends half the film affecting a bad accent, and the other half staring like a deer into headlights.
It's unclear who the protagonist is meant to be, or what morality we're suppose to surmise. A few sympathetic but 1-dimensional caricatures of servants serve as scenery, but no one is better for it. The humorless plot drags on.
Probably the worst performance by Robert Montgomery ever. He spends half the film affecting a bad accent, and the other half staring like a deer into headlights.
Cartoonish character soon grates and pulls this film down
SimonJack27 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
"The Earl of Chicago" is billed as a drama, but not as a crime story. It's definitely a crime film, and somewhat of a mystery. At least for those who will enjoy it the most. And that comes from the opening scene when Edward Arnold's character, Doc Ramsey, swears that Silky Kilmount is a crook and betrayer. Robert Montgomery plays Silky, who comes to greet Doc and hire him as Doc gets released from prison. From then on, true mystery buffs are kept interested in wondering and watching for when and how Doc will get his revenge.
The plot takes a hilarious turn - although this isn't comedy, it has some absurdly funny aspects. That Silky would be the heir to a landed title and estate in England gives the film a touch of farce. And that's only because of who the character of Silky is - as played by Montgomery. His high-pitched, almost squeaky voice, is far out. One wonders at the actor's and possibly the director's decision to go with such a persona. Maybe it was to lure the audience away from the usual image of Montgomery and the characters he played. But, it seems to me that his typical cad-ish persona would have fit perfectly here - perhaps with just a little more meanness. Because, as it is, it's hard to believe that Silky is a serious crook and not some impish little kid. His cartoonish character soon grates and pulls this film down. It's so outlandish that his complete turn at the end is just as far out and unbelievable.
Silky's speech and pitch also become grating after a while. And, his level of "dumbness" in not even knowing about Abe Lincoln, is another piece of the story that's out in left field. The drama, I suppose, is supposed to be in Silky's having been raised in an orphanage. Well, what I know from people who have such a background, is that kids don't come out of orphanages so densely dumb as this character.
Edward Arnold, Edmund Gwenn, and Reginald Owen give very good performances, and save this otherwise boorish film. Without them, it wouldn't rate even five stars. Robert Montgomery was a talented, if somewhat cast often in stereo-type roles. If he was trying to impress anyone with his acting ability in the persona he has in this film, I doubt that many in any audience would be impressed.
This is definitely a quirky, weird film, and very goofy at times. The overplaying of his snippy voice by Montgomery, I think, sets this film way back. Otherwise, it would have been much more appealing and interesting.
Here are the best three lines in the film.
Doc Ramsey, "Silky, you're positively Machiavellian." Silky Kilmount, "Yeah, sure. Heh, heh, heh! But only with you, Doc. Heh, heh, heh!"
Silky Kilmount, "I get it! I get it! I pull a few strings and I get my dough anytime I wanna, huh? Maybe get a couple of judges on the telephone. That's no different from the 69th Ward Democratic Club. That's not a bad idea."
Silky Kilmount, "Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the nomination. And if I'm elected, I promise you free beer and no jobs for Republicans. How's that?
The plot takes a hilarious turn - although this isn't comedy, it has some absurdly funny aspects. That Silky would be the heir to a landed title and estate in England gives the film a touch of farce. And that's only because of who the character of Silky is - as played by Montgomery. His high-pitched, almost squeaky voice, is far out. One wonders at the actor's and possibly the director's decision to go with such a persona. Maybe it was to lure the audience away from the usual image of Montgomery and the characters he played. But, it seems to me that his typical cad-ish persona would have fit perfectly here - perhaps with just a little more meanness. Because, as it is, it's hard to believe that Silky is a serious crook and not some impish little kid. His cartoonish character soon grates and pulls this film down. It's so outlandish that his complete turn at the end is just as far out and unbelievable.
Silky's speech and pitch also become grating after a while. And, his level of "dumbness" in not even knowing about Abe Lincoln, is another piece of the story that's out in left field. The drama, I suppose, is supposed to be in Silky's having been raised in an orphanage. Well, what I know from people who have such a background, is that kids don't come out of orphanages so densely dumb as this character.
Edward Arnold, Edmund Gwenn, and Reginald Owen give very good performances, and save this otherwise boorish film. Without them, it wouldn't rate even five stars. Robert Montgomery was a talented, if somewhat cast often in stereo-type roles. If he was trying to impress anyone with his acting ability in the persona he has in this film, I doubt that many in any audience would be impressed.
This is definitely a quirky, weird film, and very goofy at times. The overplaying of his snippy voice by Montgomery, I think, sets this film way back. Otherwise, it would have been much more appealing and interesting.
Here are the best three lines in the film.
Doc Ramsey, "Silky, you're positively Machiavellian." Silky Kilmount, "Yeah, sure. Heh, heh, heh! But only with you, Doc. Heh, heh, heh!"
Silky Kilmount, "I get it! I get it! I pull a few strings and I get my dough anytime I wanna, huh? Maybe get a couple of judges on the telephone. That's no different from the 69th Ward Democratic Club. That's not a bad idea."
Silky Kilmount, "Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the nomination. And if I'm elected, I promise you free beer and no jobs for Republicans. How's that?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
