LeonLouisRicci This Joan Crawford Film from MGM was Straddling the Line Between Pre-Post Code. A Few Things are Sanitized and Most of the Heavier Stuff is Implied Rather than Shown. But there is Alcoholism, Street Walkers, Some Disrobing, Violence Against Women, and a Few Others that are More than Implied.Crawford is Enjoyable and Plays to Her Fan Base as a Rags-to-Riches Gal with a Moral Compass that Never Goes Fully Off Center, and is a Likable Protagonist in the Cut-Throat Depression Era.She is Supported by a Fine Film Production with Art Deco Sets and Gowns, a Very Good Supporting Cast Including Edward Arnold, Francois Tone, Jean Dixon, Leo G. Carroll (debut), and the Always Bland and Forgettable Gene Raymond.The Musical Numbers are Excellent Introducing "All I Do is Dream of You" and a Jazzy Rendition of "After You've Gone". The Other Tunes are Non Intrusive. The Heavy Soap-Opera Plot is More Engaging than Usual with Arnold's Irritating Drunk Character the Center of the Somewhat Tragic Story.The Ending is Pure Hollywood Sap and Designed to Wring the Emotions and Bring the Tears and is the Most Heavy Handed of the Piece, but What Comes Before is Engaging and Interesting. Overall a Way Above Average Movie of its Type, and a Slightly Above Average Joan Crawford from Her Early Period.

gerdeen-1 "Sadie McKee" was made just before Hollywood got serious about sanitizing its content, and the movie is set squarely in what we now call the pre-Code world. In this world, men are on the make, cops are on the take, rich people do pretty much as they please and prostitution is just another job option.But while many other pre-Code film can leave you with a bleak feeling about human nature, this one is stocked with basically decent characters. Bribe-takers are just ordinary folks trying to get by. A clever seducer can't silence his own conscience. And when an aging, drunken millionaire orders up a young girl and takes her home for the night, the relationship quickly blossoms from exploitation into an odd kind of love.Joan Crawford plays the title role, a plucky survivor whose ups and downs would have broken a lesser person. Gene Raymond, Franchot Tone and Edward Arnold play the three very different men in her life. The story is improbable at times, moving from flophouse to sleazy nightclub to mansion. But it's never gets so unrealistic that you stop caring. The ending is somewhat enigmatic, at least to me. I'm still wondering exactly where everyone stood at the end, and where things were headed. That's OK. I like a movie that leaves a little something nagging at you.If the story is improbable, there's nothing unbelievable about how Joan Crawford's character turns men's heads. A lot of people still view Crawford through a "campy" lens, remembering her long years as a fading star with a lot of personal baggage (real and reputed). Forget all that stuff. In 1934 she was young and lithe and simply gorgeous. She carries this movie, and she carries it well.

utgard14 Joan Crawford plays Sadie McKee, a maid in the household of the Alderson family. When Michael Alderson (Franchot Tone) insults her no-good boyfriend Tommy (Gene Raymond), Sadie quits. She runs off to the city with Tommy, presumably to get married, but Tommy abandons her. Instead of finally believing Tommy is a rat, Sadie still blames it all on Michael. Seeing a chance to get back at him and to become wealthy herself, Sadie marries Michael's friend Jack Brennan (Edward Arnold). Jack is an alcoholic and Michael comes to despise Sadie for marrying him, even thinking she's trying to drive him into his grave so she and Tommy can collect his money. But his mind changes when he sees Sadie help Jack overcome his alcoholism. There's a lot more plot to go from here. Sadie will take more twists and turns before the movie is through.On the surface it looks like yet another of Joan's forgettable soapers from the '30s. Franchot Tone's in the cast, as he usually was. But, surprisingly, it's actually better than those films. The thing that makes it better is that it has a different tone to it. It's treated as a serious dramatic film, not a melodramatic soap opera. Even though it deals, as most of Joan's films from this period, with characters of moral complexity I didn't find myself hating everybody. I was pretty frustrated with Joan's character here, mainly because she kept loving dirtbag Raymond despite the movie never showing us one good thing about him. But her performance was sincere enough I didn't find myself hating her even though I didn't like her always. Tone gives a great performance. One of the best of any of his films with Joan. Arnold is very good in an atypical role for him. Gene Raymond is bland as ever but inoffensive. He gets to sing the song "All I Do Is Dream of You " repeatedly in the movie. I'm not a big fan of Raymond's but he sings the song well. Anyway, it's a good movie let down some by a contrived ending and Sadie's fanatical devotion to the undeserving Tommy.

mark.waltz From the cook's daughter to employer of a cook, Sadie McKee (Joan Crawford) has a lot on her plate. Engaged to Tommy (Gene Raymond), she moves with him to New York but he leaves her for a chorus girl. Working in a nightclub chorus line herself thanks to neighbor pal Esther Ralston, Crawford marries drunken millionaire Edward Arnold on the rebound making her the scourge of New York society as well as her own kitchen. But Crawford only has noble motives and vows to make Arnold sober when his doctor tells her that his continued drinking will surely kill him! Not wanting him to suffer another "Lost Weekend", Crawford has an intense scene where she threatens to fire the staff who refuse to acknowledge her marriage to Arnold.Music plays an important part in this well-acted soap opera with Raymond's recurring singing of "All I Do Is Dream of You" and a nightclub scene where the chorus comes out of what looks like a dresser drawer underneath the orchestra. 1934 was a busy year for Crawford, and she was outstanding in all three films she made that year. I used to confuse Gene Raymond and Franchot Tone (here cast as Arnolds' attorney, ironically an old pal of Crawford's), but after seeing them here together, I never will again, even though the roles they played were basically interchangeable. Arnold gives one of his best performances as the lovable drunk who gets violently furious when anybody tries to take away his liquor. Here, he is one of those actors worthy of Supporting Acting Oscar consideration several years before that prize was given. Esther Ralston is worthy of praise as well. Brilliant art decco set design and some great photography, particularly the hospital scene where snow falls outside the enormously large windows.