The Beast of the City (1932)

This is a classic example of those pre-Hays Code movies of the 30s, gritty and violent steeped in a general sort of sleazy atmosphere. Harlow is terrific, especially in her first scene with Wallace Ford; sexy, funny, tough. The movie is fast-paced and has a certain style and an engaging toughness.Entertaining most of the way through, it begins to run out of energy towards the end, and also out of intelligence. While the other comments here laud the stylish, incredibly violent ending, it's really dumb, contrived and completely unconvincing. For some reason people here are so taken with its visceral effect that they ignore its utter ridiculousness. But overall this movie holds up very well for something from the 30s, and is well worth watching.

A 1932 crime drama that Leonard Maltin said is sort of like Dirty Harry. Walter Huston plays a detective who is willing to do almost anything to bust the gangsters but he is given a desk job in a small town instead. A lot of people are upset about it and Huston is made Chief of Police. Huston has a brother in the vice squad who has gotten involved with Jean Harlow and she is friends with several gangsters. The brother is upset about being passed over for promotion and winds up helping out the gangsters in a robbery. Mickey Rooney plays Huston's son but he's only in a few scenes and Jean Harlow isn't in here very much. Walter Huston played a role just like this in Howard Hawks the criminal code in 1931.

MGM tried to go for the hard edged style of Warner Brothers gangster films with this drama about a strict DA (Walter Huston making an amazing turn as a tough guy) looking to clean up the city. The film is stolen by Jean Harlow, as a loose woman luring Huston's rookie cop brother (Wallace Ford) down the highway to sin. Her `koochie-dance' she performs for Ford is quite the eyeful! And dig that vicious, mind bending ending!

This is one of the grittiest of the pre-Production Code features. It is important to realize that just two years later, with the implementation of the rewritten Production Code in 1934, this film could not have been made.As with any piece of popular entertainment that is nearly 70 years old, there are going to be dated elements. What is more important is how relatively modern this film feels, especially compared to the films made under the Production Code after 1934. The story is a hard slice of life, and it will not suit all tastes. This is especially true for those who have been too conditioned by Production Code features and television.The ending has been compared to Sam Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH and Don Siegel's DIRTY HARRY, and not without cause. However, try to imagine yourself as a member of the original theatrical release audience in 1932. There would have been very little to prepare you for it, apart from DOORWAY TO HELL, LITTLE CAESAR, PUBLIC ENEMY, and SCARFACE. The difference here is that the story is told from the point of view of the men in law enforcement. It focuses on something that was common knowledge at the time, that prohibition had corrupted law enforcement far beyond the scope of anything the public had ever known.The remedy for corruption that this film prescribes is very strong medicine indeed. You may not like it, but I defy you not to think about it for a long time after you've seen it.