MartinHafer Wow, was this version of THE RACKETEER tough to watch! While none of the other reviews have mentioned this, the public domain version I watched was seriously flawed. The sound track was off by about 10 seconds--meaning the dialog and action never came close to matching. So, you'd hear something occur well before you saw it--a very confusing proposition! The worst is where you hear a gun shot and only later doe the guy get hit and slump to his death in a taxi.While this seriously marred the film, it also made concentrating on the dialog easier--and showed the serious shortcomings of it as well. The dialog was simply awful--often delivered with almost no inflection or feeling. As one review said, it was like watching a high school play. Part of this is understandable, as sound was a new medium, but this film's dialog was bad even compared to other 1929 films--really bad. And, like many of these early sound films, the film was just too talky--with sappy and overly melodramatic language and just not much action. And you'd THINK with a title like "The Racketeer" that there would be some action!! However, it's really a sappy romance--with very little action.The film finds Carol Lombard straddled with an alcoholic musician. She herself ends up stealing to try to take care of him--and the crook, Robert Armstrong, comes to her assistance. When Armstrong catches her cheating at cards, he covers for her and then helps the drunk brother to get on his feet--and naturally he falls for her in the process. The problem is that once the drunk sobers up, he, too, wants Lombard and she needs to choose between them. Wow...a recovering drunk or a mobster...talk about a couple great prospects! Overall, it's a bit hard to rate considering the lousy print I saw. However, even if you ignore this, the film has a lot of problems due to its poor use of dialog and excessively talky nature. And...it was sappy too boot.

dbborroughs Time has not been kind to this film from the transition days of sound from silent. The plot has a gangster falling for a socialite who wants to help the down on his luck violinist she loves. There are of course complications. The problem with the film for me is that it hasn't aged well. Performances are all over the place with some emotional scenes seeming so over the top as to be laughable. One late exchange where Carol Lombard throws someone out of her room had me howling with its sing song delivery. There are other times when the film becomes static, a sign of the limitations of the microphones. Its not a bad film, its just that the technical limitations of the film get in the way of real enjoyment. Normally I'm forgiving, but this time out I just couldn't go with the flow (Then again the copy I saw was absolutely horrible). Worth a shot in a forgiving mood (and to be reminded that Robert Armstrong actually did more than play Carl Denham in King Kong)

classicsoncall While watching the movie, it struck me that this might be the closest I've seen to a silent film actually put to dialog, the execution of which seems like actors from a high school play who simply studied their lines and recited them from memory. We know that the principal players were much better than that from their later work, so take it as part of the learning curve in going from silents to talkies. Add to that a bit of overacting, a prime example being the conversation between Mal (Robert Armstrong), Gus (Kit Guard) and Squid (Al Hill) when discussing Weber's murder. Armstrong does such a quick double take that it's comical, I caught myself in a knee jerk reaction laughing over the way the trio handled that scene.The story itself takes a while to unfold, and you don't get a sense of where things are going until well into the picture. Once you get there though, it turns out to be a fairly interesting ride, as Rhoda Philbrooke (Carol Lombard) finds her affections torn between gangster Mahlon Keane (Armstrong) and alcoholic musician Tony Vaughan (Roland Drew). I thought the poker scene in which Mal covers for Rhoda's dishonesty was cleverly done, initiating the relationship between the two.So let's see, a cab ride in New York City in 1929 for sixty five cents - not a bad bargain. Combine that with a letter that could be simply addressed using a person's name and the town in which he lives (Mahlon Keane, Roslyn, Long Island), and I find myself longing for those good old days. Rhoda's fox fur was a bit much though, don't you think? All in all, not a bad little entry on the sixteen disc "Mobsters" DVD set from Platinum Disc, this being one of the earliest of the films chronologically. Perhaps better viewed as a curiosity piece than for it's story, it's a fine example of an early talkie that gives one a good idea how the transition from silents was accomplished.

elginbrod2000 I enjoyed this 66 minute film despite the overly theatrical delivery of almost every line. One gets the impression that this film was directed by an eighth grade home economics teacher. Despite this annoying drawback, the story is sweet and there is a genuine chemistry between the leading lady, Carole Lombard, and the head gangster played by Robert Armstrong.Carole Lombard is attractively photographed and has a large amount of quality screen time here. She is pulled in two directions by two men who genuinely care for her. One is a concert violinist who we are introduced to early on in the picture as a man who has been reduced to nothing more than a bum in the gutter. The other is the suave gangster who for the first time has found something in this life greater than himself. The question is: who needs her most and who truly loves her? And in what direction will fate allow her to go.The dramatic ending will tug at your heart-strings. This was Carole's last picture for Pathe studios.