The Wrong Road (1937) Online

Wrong Road, The (1937)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A man and woman (Richard Cromwell/Helen Mack) who plan on being married are having a hard time with life so they find a get rich quick scheme. The two plan on stealing $100,000 from a bank, hide the money, turn themselves in, stay their prison term and when released, they'll have the money to live on for the rest of their lives but things never work out how you have them planned. This is a half way decent film that remains interesting throughout it's short 52-minute running time. The performances by the two leads are good and Lionel Atwill adds great support as a detective. This seems like a feature version of Buried Loot, which I watched earlier in the year. This was directed by famous silent actor James Cruze who played Jekyll & Hyde in the 1912 version.

This is a mildly entertaining crime drama about two rich spoil young 20-somethings who learn they won't inherit their parents money and they decide they can't rough it in life, they want to take a short cut by stealing money from the bank the boy worked at. They turn themselves in and figured after a few years in prison they would get the hidden money and live happily ever after. But they didn't figure for the police to like them and want to teach the two a lesson about how "crime doesn't pay". Oh they did their prison time where the boy met a guy (a cell mate) and he would get out of prison first and follow the two young adults to get his cut of the money. The insurance agent and the police follow the two as well to uncover the hidden money.

Well it's funny in the beginning where the young couple are at dinner and she say that she "can't do her own laundry because she wasn't raised up that way"... I almost turned the film off then but I had to watch this one until the end to find out how this one played out. It's funny to see the two in prison doing labor when they wanted the easy but wrong road - she had to scrub floors and he worked in a factory during their prison time.

It turned out to be an okay film - nothing outstanding by any means but it's alright, nothing to brag about. It held my interest until the very end so it wasn't all that bad. The film does have a few intense moments that kept it enjoyable.

5/10

Sent to prison for embezzlement, Richard Cromwell refuses to reveal where he's hidden the $100,000, sure he'll get an early parole and be able to go on the lamb with his lady love (Helen Mack) and live a decent life in hiding. He doesn't count on the diligent Lionel Atwill (who is hired by the bank Cromwell worked for to get the money back) following him everywhere he goes, and all the inevitable pressures that fall on him. All sorts of other crooked con-artists fall into his path during his journey until the finale where Cromwell must make the decision of where to go when Atwill pops up for one last showdown.

Short and to the point, this sometimes convoluted tale of desperation offers sympathy to the embezzler and his stalker, sort of a poor man's "You Only Live Once". The role of the girlfriend is built up from the usual long-suffering and fragile heroine to the only person who can provide a voice for Cromwell's conscience. Many familiar faces pop up in small character roles, most famously Marjorie Main as Cromwell and Mack's boarding house landlady who offers some kindness and her homemade apple pie (with cream) along with her homespun advice. Atwill, best known for playing some of Hollywood's most famous villains (mainly in horror movies but also in historical dramas as well), gives a very polished performance in that you never really know what side he is on until a surprise twist comes in at the end that will have you reeling.

Okay, we've seen flicks where the poor prove their ultimate moral worth by overcoming a period of poverty abating crime. This sort of redemption has long proved popular. Here, in a neat twist, a dreamy young couple must prove their moral worth by overcoming a lifetime of privilege that has eventually turned to crime. Disinherited from family fortunes, the couple steals big bucks they hope to luxuriate on after serving time for the theft. But, after serving their time, all kinds of complications ensue threatening to break up their love match.

It's not hard to pick apart the many stretches as the plot develops. Other reviewers have done that job, so no need to repeat it. Nonetheless, Cromwell and Mack make a winning couple whose basic innocence holds the leaky narrative together. And catch Lionel Atwill in a rare good guy role-- I kept expecting crackling arcs of light and infernal laboratories to show up. Also, I kept hoping The Wrong Road would achieve real impact by going down the same road as You Only Live Once (1937), arguably the best of the doomed young couple movies. But this is Republic Pictures and James Cruze, not Walter Wanger and Fritz Lang. Anyway, the 50-some minutes manages a few good moments but fails as a whole to rise above programmer status.

Helen Mack was a striking brunette (a poor man's Frances Dee) who began in films while still a child. "Son of Kong" (1933) should have made her a star but she always seemed to be overshadowed by more vibrant actresses - even Baby Le Roy had top billing in "The Lemon Drop Kid" (1934)!!!! "The Wrong Road" was made toward the end of her career and did feel like a feature from MGM's "Crime Does Not Pay" series.

This is an improbable story of two spoilt brats who are sick of working for peanuts ($25 a week) - they are both from once wealthy families and think that the world owes them a living!! Helen Mack, looking radiant, plays Ruth, who along with an impossibly boyish Richard Cromwell (that served him well in "Baby Face Morgan" (1942)) as Jimmy, decide to steal $100,000 from the bank where they are employed. They hope to confess, serve time in jail and when they are released the money will be theirs!!

Mr Roberts (Lionel Atwill), a private investigator, who is more like a very kind uncle, tries to get them to see the error of their ways - but no go!!! They go to prison but Roberts works with the board of governors to get them released early - on the provision that they don't marry!! He hopes not only to create friction between them but that they will quickly lead him to the money. While in prison Jimmy tells a cellmate, Blackie, where he has hidden the money. They have hidden the money in a music box and sent it to an uncle who has an antique shop. When they get out of prison they find "Uncle Billy" has died and his effects are being auctioned. They lose a bidding battle for the music box and before they can catch up with it, it is on it's way to Sunnydale. Blackie is also out and always one step ahead of them.

Jimmy and Ruth's relationship has changed. Prison has hardened them and they are constantly fighting. Jimmy's main obsession is the money but Ruth now wants a normal law abiding life. They get to Sunnydale and find the people that have the music box are the policeman and his wife (Marjorie Main). They both do a lot of soul searching and after the dramatic climax vow to Roberts that from now on they will earn their happiness.

Recommended.

Well now, here's a crackerjack idea - let's rob the bank where I work, turn ourselves in the next day, do the time, and when we get out, get the money and live happily ever after. This might have worked if a little more thought was put into it, but instead what you have is a pretty lame story that fails on just about every level. Not that I would consider it a 'Worst Movie Ever' candidate, my own personal Top Ten Worst List is already filled. What I have to do here is come up with a new category, maybe under the heading of 'Good Grief Movies' of all time. Yeah, that sounds about right, something Good Old Charlie Brown would really get a kick out of.

Oddly, the bank robbing couple in question (Richard Cromwell and Helen Mack) seemed like a charming enough pair, but they really didn't fit the Bonnie and Clyde stereotype. They were just too, well nice, I guess you could say. And what's with the insurance company detective hot on their trail while on parole? Did you ever see Lionel Atwill in a more thankless role? I was waiting for him to turn into this sinister boogie man as he closes in on the hundred large stash, but he remains just a peach of a guy right till the end. About the only character who had any credibility was Blackie Clayton (Horace McMahon), Jimmy's (Cromwell) cell mate in the Big House. But even he proved to be rather inept when push came to shove.

The best thing to do I guess, is watch this picture while suspending all manner of disbelief. If you sit there analyzing how nonsensical the elements of the story are you'll never get past the first ten minutes. On the plus side, it breezes by in a scant fifty three minutes (Mill Creek Entertainment version), not that long to get bored, but long enough to realize that this just ain't ever gonna happen.

I believe a film ought to have at least a modicum of credibility. This is preposterous. It has a pair of spoiled, previously rich kids, stealing a hundred thousand dollars from a bank where the young man works. First of all, how could people running such a business be so stupid. Secondly, they pull the whole thing off and then turn themselves in. You see, they are going to do their time and then return for the money at a later time. Of course, they put the money in a music box which is shipped to Chicago. Why didn't they just hide it somewhere nearby. Since they weren't going to turn themselves in for a while, why not find a good hiding place. It couldn't be that hard. They do a couple of quick years in the joint, then are paroled because of the intervention of a police detective who is chasing the money. He is willing to pardon them if they return the money (more stupidity) because they seem like nice kids. I wonder what he would have done for some poor sap on the street. Anyway, it gets hokier and hokier. An acquaintance of the young man from prison gets into the act. Despite repeated offers to get off the hook, the young man flights to the bloody end to keep the money. It's too much to even respond to. It's like a training film for idiots.

Everybody in this movie is "nice". The cops are nice, the criminals are nice, heck, even Lionel Atwill is nice! How can you describe this one, it's in a class by itself. The film is basically a "crime does not pay" lesson, typical of the era, with a twist. The twist is that the authorities inexplicably go out of their way to give the perpetrators of a one hundred thousand dollar bank robbery every opportunity to get off with a slap on the wrist.

But to analyze the plot of this one is really a waste of time, since there is very little sense to it. Really, the main premise has to rank among the most preposterous of all time, in a class with 'Reefer Madness' and Ed Wood's 'Jail Bait'.

But if you don't take it seriously (how could you?) you might get some enjoyment out of this one, at least a few laughs. The acting is actually not all that bad, and includes an intriguing early performance by Horace McMahon as a hardened criminal (actually, the one character in the whole movie who is not really "nice"). Lionel Atwill is interesting to see in an uncharacteristic role as a merciful investigator. And Marjorie Main, too, as a pleasant middle-aged lady.

For all the criticism I am throwing at it, I must admit it entertained me, and I definitely recommend it to those who enjoy unintended humor.

Five wrongs don't make a right: (1). The script. As a comedy, the impossible plot with its catalog of potentially amusing errors may have worked fairly well in the hands of a director even a trifle less lead-footed than James Cruze; but presented as here, in the guise of a dramatic vehicle, it only comes to life in the brief moments when the menacing McMahon is on-screen. (2). The leads. Richard Cromwell does not radiate either the cleverness or deviousness the script demands, while Helen Mack struggles vainly to look pretty and mildly alluring under the cameraman's harsh lighting. Lionel Atwill is miscast as a good guy. We keep expecting him to do something nasty like chuckling with glee when the larcenous youngsters are returned to prison after recovering the loot. But he doesn't. Once a nice guy, always a nice guy. (3). After the colossal failure of the multi-million dollar Sutter's Gold (1936), director Cruze was offered a four-picture contract at Republic. This was his first assignment. Maybe Herbert J. Yates figured that Cruze's talents would be invigorated by the challenge of a minuscule budget. If so, he was wrong. If anything, Cruze seems considerably less inspired. (4). Poor production values. True, a lot of capable actors flit by in the support cast, but neither the script nor the director allow them to make much of an impression. The photography, as mentioned, is unattractive, the sets reek of Poverty Row and even the music score is inappropriate. (5). The Mill Creek DVD under review is the cutdown-to-53-minutes TV version (which is probably a blessing). Unfortunately, it is a less-than-cinema-quality print.

When they graduated from college, they had high hopes, but now Richard Cromwell and Helen Mack are disillusioned. He's just been fired from his teller's position, so he stole $100,000. The two of them figure they'll spend some time in jail, then collect the money. Kindly insurance investigator Lionel Atwill tries to talk them into returning the money, but they're stubborn. Two years later, at the urging of Atwill, they're granted parole and go for the money.... with Atwill and bad man Horace MacMahon after them.

It's a well-meaning story with a strong moral component, and Atwill is excellent, as is Miss Mack. Cromwell's line readings are a bit droning. Director James Cruze does a competent job here, with some fine performances in the supporting cast. He was near the end of his rope, though. He had been a leading director in the 1910s and 1920s, but had stumbled at the coming of sound. His brief renaissance of a few years earlier had dribbled away. The following year, he would direct three more movies, all of them Bs verging on exploitation, then nothing. He would die in 1942.

***SPOILERS*** This almost feels like the kind of movie shown to kids in school so that they don't grow up to be criminals. Everything is fairly cut and dry. Perhaps Bonnie and Clyde inspired the studio to make this as a public service. Oh well whatever the source Lionel Atwill strolls through from time to time to drive home the point in case anyone has a short attention span.

The stars of this film (or Public Service Announcement perhaps) decide that life is too tough and they are owed certain things. Those "things" being a lot of easy cash accompanied by no work. Clever people that they are they decide to rob the bank the man works at and stash the money. They will then confess all, serve their time, retrieve their loot and live happily ever after. Two guesses as to how well that all works.

This film starts off poorly---betraying its poor writing. Instead of learning about the characters and their back story gradually like you would do in a normal film, this starts off with the two leads sitting around talking about their lives and past. This is sloppy, as no one really talks this way and you assume they do this to speed up this B-movie and keep it well under one hour.

The plot doesn't appear to make much sense. The young man and woman at the beginning of the film have a bizarre scheme. They plan on stealing $100,000 from the bank and hide it. When they are later caught, the don't bother denying their actions. They admit they took it and won't say where it is. Their plan is to do the prison time and spend the money when they are released! Now why did BOTH of them have to admit to the crime?! Why not just one? Regardless, they plan on holding tight for 10 years—they spending the cash.

At the same time, a private detective (Lionel Atwill) representing the bank wants to try something—push the parole board to release them early and follow them to the loot. However, the money isn't where they expected it—as the guy's uncle has died and his belongings are being auctioned—including the music box in which the money is hidden (though isn't the box way too small to be holding that much money?!). And, in addition, the guy's old prison cell-mate shows up and demands a cut or else—a cut of something they don't have.

As for Atwill, his character is very unusual. Instead of the usual tough-as-nails cop type, he plays a rather avuncular guy who tries to appeal to the couple's consciences. He also tells the parole board that he doesn't think they are bad people—but what part of 'they stole $100,000' doesn't he seem to understand? So is the film worth seeing? Well, despite a weird plot and very low production values, the film is somehow interesting and tolerable if you like old B-movies. Otherwise, it's probably not a film that would appeal to the average viewer--mostly because it has absolutely no sense of realism about it.

By the way, if you see this film, don't you think it would have been great if in the end Atwill took the money for himself?!

The Wrong Road is an outlandish film which lacks a shred of realism. The leads are attractive and do their best - Helen Mack is appealing and Richard Cromwell does his stalwart best (even though those of us who saw "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" remember him as the jerk who got Gary Cooper killed). And, playing against type, Lionel Atwill's character is cheerful and avuncular, which is a jolt.

But the plot itself is chock-full of holes and non-sequiturs and takes turns that rail against logic. Try as you might to give it a chance it defies you to suspend your disbelief. For instance, they get sent away to ADJOINING PRISONS and meet each other? After a while, another question arises; did they hire 10 year old screenwriters in Hollywood during the 30's?