Fascinating to see the three different versions, and how the dialogue and the whole style changes from one to the other, while the story remains essentially the same.Thoroughly recommended

Quick - as a young, energetic, inexperienced director you must make a final decision. As this director, one must either decide to show the audience the famed jeweled bird that has nearly taken up an hour and forty minutes of time, or transform a rather talking ending into a glorified public service announcement. The decision is a difficult one, but one must remember to reward the audience for their patience and time. Alas, that is not the case with this director in his first film "The Maltese Falcon". We are speaking of John Huston and his directorial debut with this live-action version of Dashiell Hammett's famed voice. It is a caper of sorts, a classic "who-done-it" which forces the audience to listen for clues and make their own judgment upon a vast array of cinematic icons. There is the first time introduction to the cultish detective Sam Spade, an early view of Chiklis' Vic Makey from "The Shield", in which Spade is held by no bonds and answers to nobody higher. There is the dame, Brigid O'Shaughnessy, who is the quintessential wild-card of the group, holding nothing but betting all, she sparks where there should be a flame. Peter Lorre's classic Joel Cairo leaves plenty for parody for the next several decades, while Sidney Greenstreet plays the cliché British crime lord willing to believe he is the smartest in the bunch. So we have a beginning - Huston inventing a formula that will be copies, used, abused, and overplayed throughout Hollywood for the rest of days - so ... why doesn't this original feel original?

With our players in place, Hammett's voice spoken with ease, and Huston behind the wheel - this should have felt like a country drive with tension building at the right parts, the take arriving sooner than expected, and Spade proving himself the victor unconditionally. Yet, this wasn't the track "The Maltese Falcon" took. Instead, we begin with a jumbled jigsaw puzzle of facts, relics, and the unknown that makes you feel that you have 5000 pieces and only an hour to complete. Huston begins our story with grace, giving us early indication of our characters and brute honesty that seemed unexplored for the time, but just as we believe we understand the overall plot, he throws in more, on top of more, on top of more to thicken the plot, when in fact he is fully pulling us away from the illustrious "Falcon". This movie is about a bird. It is a rare statuette that promises wealth and power to whoever holds it. It is this bird that scatters our characters all over the place, but ultimately takes them nowhere. Without giving any overbearing plot points away, Spade early on looses his partner uncaringly. Spade, a womanizer with his partner's wife, seems to care less about the death and is literally scraping his name away from the window the next day. I understood Spade to be a loner, a troubled detective whose brains foiled his heart, but this seemed a bit too cold for a character that we were to care about. Huston gives us nothing with Spade - any history that is begun is immediately dropped as a new plot devise is introduced. Bogart lisps his way through the performance, proving that he is just as cold as the criminals, but never quite connects with the audience. Huston will not give us the bird, so instead he detracts our focus away from the statue to Spade, which again, doesn't have enough to build on.

My point is that our characters give us nothing. They may be enjoyable to view on screen, but they are as bland and thin as the paper I write this on. Over the years, they have been unjustly transformed into iconic characters, but I needed to know more about Spade - what made him tick and a bit more detail on his slight idiosyncrasies. While I may have enjoyed watching Lorre's portrayal of Cairo, his usefulness became obsolete by the end. These characters were there, but why? This is a question the inexperienced Huston forgot to include, but Hammett does in detail throughout his book. This is a talking caper, one that doesn't use fancy car chases or large shoot-outs to make their connections, but instead it uses words to guide our characters from A to B. With this said, the words were in place to tell a great story - but Huston could not get his characters to give varied emotions to give us characters. Am I too needy when it comes to early films of this nature? How could "The Thin Man" successfully do this, and entertainingly make me laugh, while as the time moved I cared less and less about this falcon that was supposed to carry this film? Huston just seemed to be missing a big element that should have connected our characters to this bird - we needed something to keep our motives in motion.

Finally, without giving anything dynamic away, the ending was pitiful and unexciting. Finally, we have exactly what we need, the chess pieces are ready to be victorious, but then nothing happens. Huston builds tension, but provides no conclusion. Instead of being an "Indiana Jones" our heroines become sputterer's of life lessons. One doesn't need a lesson, we need a conclusion. The final image of the bird in the light sent shivers down my spine because of the time devoted to this slap-happy mystery. There was no mystery, only a warning about greed. Even with the non-caring Spade, this film didn't mind that it sucked the suspense dry, from both Hammett and the viewers.

Overall, I must credit this film for being an original. Sam Spade's likeness has been used in nearly every detective film both symbolically and overtly. But, just because an icon rests here - it doesn't mean that the film itself is worthy of praise. Hammett's words were not voiced properly in this film, and the dedication towards nothing was outstanding. This was a film about a statue of a bird, but instead we spend more time talking about it than actually finding the bird. Our characters are paper thin, and by the end we care nothing for whomever ends up with it - either good or bad. It was as if Huston had taken all the pieces of a puzzle, bunched them together, randomly hammered them together, and then provided us with a sloppy finished product. I wanted to like this film - it is a dark classic that is honestly overplayed - but I cared nothing for what was happening. Thirty minutes in I was bored. What would Spade think of that? "The Maltese Falcon" is worth one viewing, but any more would be disastrous. The verbose ending ruined my image of Spade - how about you?

Grade: *** out of *****

The three-disc special edition of the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon contains some very interesting bonus features: the two previous adaptations of Dashiell Hammett's novel, the first also called The Maltese Falcon (though it was renamed Dangerous Female for TV in the '50s to avoid confusion), and the second titled Satan Met a Lady.

Since the 1941 version (directed by John Huston and starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre) is the one considered "definitive," it's not surprising that relatively few viewers realize that was actually Hollywood's third adaptation of Hammett's classic detective novel.

Satan Met a Lady (directed by William Dieterle and starring Bette Davis and Warren William), is by all accounts a disaster (a very loose adaptation by screenwriter Brown Holmes, who co-wrote this version), but the first Maltese Falcon, filmed in 1931 by director Roy del Ruth, is a terrific alternative for viewers who love the story and would just like to watch a different take on it. (Both films are faithful to the source, with few changes.)

The main difference in tone comes from Ricardo Cortez's portrayal of Sam Spade. Cortez's Spade is much more of a ladies man than Bogart's. In fact, the opening scene of the movie shows a woman leaving Spade's office, adjusting her stockings (later, he is shown picking up sofa cushions from the floor). His roving eye (and hand) also includes his secretary, Effie. Una Merkel plays Effie as if she's not only a willing participant in these shenanigans, but is also quite aware of Spade's other dalliances -- including partner Miles Archer's wife Iva (Thelma Todd) -- and thinks it's funny.

That lightness extends to Cortez, as well. He goes throughout The Maltese Falcon with a huge smirk on his face, as if everything going on around him is endlessly entertaining. And I can imagine why. When Ruth Wonderly (Bebe Daniels) comes into his office, he probably already knows she'll end up naked in his bath, in his bed, and in his kitchen. Cortez displays just the right mix of sleaze and charm.

But the only other actor who gives anything close to as interesting a performance is Dudley Digges as Kasper Gutman. Digges gives the role real grease, making him a truly unlikeable antagonist (Greenstreet always charmed even in his most villainous roles, much like Claude Rains, his costar in Casablanca). And I was very pleasantly surprised to find that Dwight Frye (Renfield in the Lugosi Dracula) shows up briefly as Wilmer Cook. He doesn't say much, but just try to look away when he flashes those psychotic eyes.

This Maltese Falcon was made three years before the enforcement of the Production Code that would whitewash movies for the next thirty years. Thus, there are instances like those mentioned above that did not make it into the "cleaner" 1941 version. One major effect this had is when Mary Astor's Brigid O'Shaughnessy proclaims to Bogart's Spade, "I thought you loved me," it doesn't make a whole lot of sense based on what preceded. Here, when Wonderly (who never reveals herself to be O'Shaughnessy, a plot point I always thought was unnecessarily confusing anyway) says the same words, they hold real meaning.

Though quite entertaining in its own right, the 1931 Maltese Falcon is undoubtedly destined to remain forgotten in the shadow of its later remake. I recommend it, however, due to its lighter and sexier tone, handsomer leading man, and almost completely different approach to the same source material. Fans of pre-Code cinema will especially enjoy it, even if they generally prefer a little more noir in their detective stories.

Like a true classic should this movie seems to improve with each successive viewing. The acting is great and so is the directing leaving me unsurprised that it's ranked among the top quarter of the American Film Institute's 100 Greatest American Films list. The only problem I have is with the quality of the DVD; the picture quality isn't very good and the sound quality although Dolby Digital is in Mono. Perhaps with the advent of Blu-Ray, a newer, better restored version will surface with good quality surround sound options perhaps DTS with THX for instance.

Overall, this a a great movie but I'd recommend waiting for a better quality DVD version to come out. Hope it's soon!

This movie is inimitable.

Terse, convoluted, gritty, and satirical. The scenes of this movie pack a visceral punch rarely matched in classic Hollywood movies.

The plot is confusing, if not incomprehensible at times. However, the basics are pretty straightforward. Sam Spade is a private eye working in San Fransisco with his partner. One afternoon a beautiful, malevolent women walks into Spade's office, paying him and his partner (Miles Archer) to find her sister. She claims her sister is in grave danger. She is, of course, lying. Her real goals are hidden, but slowly revealed as the movie progresses. Unfortunately her little ruse ends up getting Spade's partner killed. Thus is unleashed a complex series of events.
The plot focuses on Spade's attempt to keep up with the criminal elements around him. It seems every one is machiavellian, and the underworld Spade belongs to is byzantine in its betrayals, double-crossings, and machinations. The people he talks to are inveterate liars. One gets vertigo trying to make sense of it all. This makes us all the more amazed that Spade can keep his cool. Oddly, it turns out all the fuss in the movie has to do with the statue of a Maltese Falcon. An object worth killing and dying for.
Spade plays crooked, but deep down inside he is a Kantian. His ethical nature, stoic exterior, and masculine facade, make him irresistable as a protaganist. This is the movie that marked the rise of Bogart the superhuman-and rightfully so.

The Maltese Falcon is a rich movie, with myriad meanings. One of the major themes is the quest for an unattainable object and the havoc such a quest can cause. After all, the dead bodies in this movie accumulated over nothing more than the silly statue of a bird! It is interesting to compare the Maltese Falcon with Don Quixote. Both works contain the mythological heroic quest. However, in Quixote, the quest is needed to sustain life. Without it, Quixote dies. In the Maltese Falcon the quest causes death. When the quest is over, sanity is restored. This is an interesting contrast, and one well worth pondering.

Is the quest worth while? Or, should we stay sane and firmly planted on the sinful streets of the world?

In the end, it is hard to find any flaws in this movie. There are no superfluous scenes, nor is there any hint of condescending directing. Just straight to the point, action and dialogue packed delivery.


Brilliant!