User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.