Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Edgar Allan Pooh . . . with 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING, Warner Bros. again warns America that inept cops, venal prosecutors, lazy judges, and disinterested jurors are corruptly cooperating to guarantee that the more innocent a "Capital Murder" defendant, the more likely he or she is to be murdered at taxpayer expense by what passes for the "government" of the USA. FRONT PAGE WOMAN documents a jury in cahoots with a soup-slurping judge, having no qualms about frying an innocent ethnic citizen as long as their breakfast bacon sizzles on time. All right-thinking Americans know that the so-called U.S. "Justice System" is a total farce, as depicted in FRONT PAGE WOMAN. If you can swindle your way to Big Bucks by laundering boat loads of stolen wealth for the Red Commie KGB, you can Lord it over everyone else from the White House Oval Office while breaking every "law" on the books. Meanwhile, the Little People get the Juice, Warner Bros. warns us in FRONT PAGE WOMAN. Criminal trials are even easier to rig than Presidential Elections, this flick reveals.

vincentlynch-moonoi Memo to Michael Curtiz (director): Before you begin filming, decide whether your story is a drama or a comedy.From my perspective, that's the main problem that kept this good film from being great. I see it more as a drama, yet others see it more as a comedy. And that confusion is often a problem for a film. Yes, you can have moments of drama in a comedy. And, yes, you can have levity in a drama. But movies with split personalities don't often work, or at least (as in this case) don't work as well as they could. And just for the record, this would have been best as a straight drama.On the other hand, the screen pairing of Bette Davis and George Brent was beginning to mature here. In 1934 -- just a year earlier -- they were paired in "Housewife". There, they were just two actors in the same film. Here, just one year later, they are developing that on-screen rapport that was magic in so many movies. Oh, it's not quite there yet, but in this film you begin to think that you'd like to see them together more.In terms of supporting cast, I found Roscoe Karns as the wise-cracking photographer a bit annoying. One out of every ten wisecracks were actually funny. The other supporting actors do their jobs, but none stand out. However, you will recognize quite a few faces.Overall, a pretty good movie, though not one of the classic Davis - Brent efforts.

MartinHafer Bette Davis plays a plucky female reporter who just got the chance to do lead stories--those traditionally done exclusively by men. A rival reporter, George Brent, is in love with her but also has little respect for her "trying to make it in a man's world"--so naturally she refuses to marry a man who doesn't respect her. In the midst of their arguments, Brent proposes a contest to see which can get the biggest scoop during a murder investigation and the subsequent trial. Now this all could have been very predictable or sexist, but somehow both pitfalls were avoided.Sure, this isn't the deepest or best film that Bette Davis made in her long and distinguished career, but for the mid-1930s it's pretty good stuff. Although Warner Brothers employed one of the finest actresses of all time in the form of Miss Davis, up until the late 30s, they bounced her around from bad to mediocre to top of the line films and back again! So inconsistent were these roles that even after being Oscar nominated (OF HUMAN BONDAGE) and receiving the Oscar (DANGEROUS), Miss Davis STILL bounced around the studio in predictable programmers, B-movies AND A-films as well. As a result, she walked out of her contract (briefly).Despite all this, FRONT PAGE WOMAN was a good film for her career--as it was quite enjoyable, gave her a chance to appear with her favorite leading man (George Brent) and gave her a decent (though not always believable) leading role. The film is a typical battle of the sexes film which weren't especially uncommon during Hollywood's Golden Age and like many of these films (such as PAT AND MIKE and WOMAN OF THE YEAR), it was a lot of fun. Plus, the chemistry between Davis and Brent was wonderful and I wish their films together got more attention--they are always enjoyable even when the writing isn't up to snuff (as in a few of their films together).

Arthur Hausner Bette Davis seems miscast as a hard-working dynamic reporter in a rivalry with star reporter, George Brent, who works for a different newspaper. The role is more suited to wise-cracking, fast-talking stars such as Glenda Farrell (who made a similar film, Blondes at Work (1938)), or Joan Blondell (who also made a similar film, Back in Circulation (1937)). Her make-up, too, belied her profession. With perfectly tweezed eyebrows and immaculately applied lipstick, she looked like, as well as sounded like, a Hollywood star rather than a reporter. Still, Bette Davis is always a pleasure to watch even if not perfect. She and Brent are supposedly in love, but she won't marry him until he admits she is just as good a reporter as he is. You would think he wouldn't place any obstacles in her path towards reporting equality, but his vanity won't allow that conclusion, so he does. After a jury comes to a "guilty" verdict in the trial both are covering, and the jurors leave the jury room, Brent sneaks in to examine the ballots so he can get an extra on the street as quickly as possible. But sensing Davis is following him, he replaces the ballots with ones that read "not guilty." With friends like that, who needs enemies? Davis does report the wrong verdict to her editor, leading to the two rival newspapers coming out at the same time with opposite verdicts. Davis gets fired because of this hostile and vicious act, but, of course, it's not the end of the story, and she does get the last laugh in the matter.