7/10
Surprised this film isn't better known
18 January 2008
First off: this is not the stuff of classics. We're not talking CASABLANCA or CITIZEN KANE (and especially not the 1941 MALTESE FALCON) here. And, yes, perhaps it IS the least successful version of Hammett's story (although the 1931 film really drags these days…). But an off-the-wall take on a classic story can still be funny and stand on its own without being compared to more traditional versions. That's the way you should approach Satan MET A LADY and that is why I'm surprised I haven't heard more about this film.

What I like most is that no one is taking anything too seriously. In THE MALTESE FALCON, Gutman and Wonderly/O'Shaughnessy say they never know what's going to come out of Spade's mouth next. That's certainly true here: from gender bending (the Gutman character is a woman) to different takes on characters (the "gunsel" is a wimpy mama's boy) to off-the-wall dialogue, you never know what's going to happen next. Without over-the-top "winking" at the audience, the actors tell us not to take things too seriously either and just have fun. If you know either of the other versions, it's fun wondering what they're going to pull out of the hat next. (For example, it's not a statue of a falcon that everyone is after, but rather the so-called (and equally fictitious) "Horn of Roland" stuffed with jewels and supposedly handed down from the days of Charlemagne.) To be sure, not everything works. When you try to play off-the-wall, you're bound to make some mistakes, and even fall flat. The secretary for Shayne (Spade), now re-named Miss Murgatroyd (instead of Effie), is far too ditsy, even for this material; her romance scenes make Shayne/Spade play more like he's toying with jail bait. But even so, the worst you can say about the movie as a whole is that it's "uneven".

Sure, the 1941 version is far better, both as a film and as a rendering of Hammett's story. However, the filmmakers weren't trying to be faithful to the source material here. Brown Holmes wrote the screenplay for the 1931 version and yet they hired him again for this one and didn't care that he ran roughshod over the original story.

I'm no apologist: this is not a great film. But it does have its own charms and it's certainly better than much of the drivel that came out of the 1930s. Give it a try: the unpredictability factor alone makes it worth the ride.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed