UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Adventure >

Raffles

Raffles (1939)

December. 29,1939
|
6.4
|
NR
| Adventure Comedy Crime

Man about town and First Class cricketer A.J. Raffles keeps himself solvent with daring robberies. Meeting Gwen from his schooldays and falling in love all over again, he spends the weekend with her parents, Lord and Lady Melrose. A necklace presents an irresistible temptation, but also in attendance is Scotland Yard's finest, finally on the trail.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

JLRMovieReviews
1939/12/29

David Niven and Olivia de Havilland star in this 1939 scene-for- scene, word-for-word remake of a 1930 Ronald Colman/Kay Francis film, "Raffles." The reason for the similarity is that director Sam Wood had just finished what Victor Fleming started on the making of "Gone with the Wind" and wanted to make this next film as easy as possible. That's what Robert Osborne of TCM says. But this outing is still just as good with the always debonair Niven as the "amateur cracksman" – a jewel thief who robs from the filthy rich. Just why he ever started isn't explained. But no one really cares. He had decided to quit, when a good friend in need of funds due to a gambling debt asked him for the dough. He said he didn't have it but could get it. Niven comes across more personable than Colman though; Colman has a superior air about himself and David is so much more laid back and down to earth. But, this film does feel less romantic compared with more sensuous pairing of Kay and Ronald. Kay gave the former film more underlying sex appeal, then Olivia does here. Olivia is given very little to do. The primary action is David's latest theft at a swank party of the elite and how the law has been always trying to get him. "Raffles" of 1939 is a enjoyable little film showcasing the gentleman-actor David Niven at his best, entertaining you and stealing your wallet. Watch it!

More
Luis Guillermo Cardona
1939/12/30

Do not know about you but as far as I am concerned, since a child I loved that movie heroes were marginal and risky to steal from the rich and give to the poor. The bank robbers, who without firing a shot-safes to leave the applause encouraged me, and anyone who exposed their lives to bring dignity to the people, deserved a good place on the corner of my heart grateful. Robin Hood was the prototype, and then met the Crimson Pirate the Captain Blood... up to this trendy Raffles who, besides being a famous cricketer, occasionally steals in an art gallery, in an ostentatious jewelry or steals any aristocratic lady a necklace, then, does one need to return, so, so, it will pay the reward. That is, a thief returner. Steal with elegance, but pretend. And what we love about Raffles is that it is a handsome, elegant, well spoken, courteous and able to get along great even with the hound that pursues him ready to catch it as a good salmon. Meanwhile, love and ends up making her an accomplice to the same woman who, one day, also get into the heart of Hood and even the same Blood… ¿Do you can believe it? Well, I'll explain in case anyone is not up to date: David Niven ago Raffles "The thief cracksman" as he signs his messages of farewell. And Olivia de Havilland, the love with Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Captain Blood", is now Gwen, the girl who wins back the heart of the hero of the day. And that is how: beauty, sweetness, consistency and accessibility. A donut with whipped cream. The film is charming, curious tricks, sharpness of wit and some other really funny situation. The story catches without difficulty and you feel quite at ease with a handful of delightful characters. Believe me, is a detective film... and there's no bad, almost everyone is honest. No for nothing, the same story was made into a movie-in just 23 years-in four successful cases.

More
XweAponX
1939/12/31

This appears to be the third remake of "Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman" Which seems to have originally been made in 1925 - No, make that 1905... 1917... 1925, 1930, and 1975 which seems to have spawned a short 1977 TV Series based on the character.I've never seen those, I have only ever seen the Kay Francis/Ronald Coleman version, which I liked very much. So to my surprise I am watching this particular remake: Who knows why this remake was decided upon in 1939? Some of the comments here indicate that it could have been a lot better that it ended up being - And I agree.A Young Snappy David Niven and beautiful Olivia DeHavilland (When is she not beautiful, even when she got older?) spearheading a great cast including Dame May Witty and E.E. Clive.This film with the cast that was attached could have been one of the great films of the 30's but it just kind of sits there like a plate of cold tripe. I give the film credit for atmosphere but not much else. The dialog is delivered in a way in which we do not believe- Almost without enthusiasm.Instead of doing a shot-by-shot and line by line remake (Which was also done with The Prisoner of Zenda) they could have just re-released the great and fun 1930 version. I have only seen one film where Niven was able to get a handle on comedy, and that was "Bachelor Mother" (Another film that was unfortunately remade, as "Bundle of Joy") - And only then because he used very Cary Grant-ish hand and body movements for some reason.Watching this is akin to watching moss grow... Unfortunate, but true. Sometimes there is no reason to remake a film that has already been made three times, as had been the case here. I can understand the need for the 1930 remake, as that was the version that first applied that novelty we take for granted, Sound. Making this film again, so soon, and uninspired like this, I see no reason for it. Why? Nothing special jumps out, even though the performances of the actors are adequate. All of the things that made the 1930 version great are absent from this.On a final note, DeHavilland and Niven do not work as well as Coleman and Francis did: Coleman and Francis have a very "Modern" look, almost contemporary. Which is why I was attracted to it when I originally saw the 1930 version. That timelessness is absent in the appearance of Niven and DeHavilland in this film.

More
bkoganbing
1940/01/01

In order to enjoy either version of Raffles, the Ronald Colman or this one, you have to be a fan of either Colman or David Niven in this case. If you don't like either, Raffles will not be your cup of English tea. Fortunately I like both of them.David Niven probably carried more films on his personal charm than any other player I know. Even more than Ronald Colman did, because Colman had the advantage of getting better scripts.This remake that Sam Goldwyn did of his own film had little change in it from the Colman version. David Niven is the debonair cricket player who has a nice sideline as a cat burglar. He's so good, he leaves taunting notes for Scotland Yard, particularly at Inspector Dudley Digges who's in charge of trying to catch him.The last job he does is for his friend Douglas Walton who has embezzled some mess company funds to gamble with and there's an audit come due. Raffles is a pal good and true and offers to help though Walton does not know about his sideline.Olivia DeHavilland is Walton's sister who has little to do but sit around and look beautiful. She had hoped that on the strength of her performance in Gone With the Wind, Warner Brothers would giver her more substantial material. That was not to be even on a loan out to Sam Goldwyn.Despite it being lightweight stuff, Raffles is a key film for David Niven. He was at last given first billing in a film. But as soon as the film was done, he was back to Great Britain to serve in the Armed Forces. Niven made two films in uniform, Spitfire and The Way Ahead, and also saw some combat. He wouldn't see Hollywood again for many years.Raffles is nice entertainment, but it helps to be a fan of David Niven.

More