Three on a Match (1932)

I'll tell you why so serious

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Excellent but underrated film

Captivating movie !

Copyright 25 October 1932 by First National Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Warners' Strand: 28 October 1932. 7 reels. 64 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Ten years after graduating from public school, three girls meet again. Mary, the tomboy, has been through reform school and is now on the stage. Vivian, the snob, is married to Henry Kirkwood, a rich lawyer. Ruth, the honor student, is a business girl. Reminiscing, the girls light their cigarettes from a single match and laugh off the superstition that bad luck will befall the third person (Vivian) to use the said match. Vivian, suddenly bored with her life, decides to take her son, Junior, on an ocean cruise, and invites her girl friends to her bon voyage party. Mary arrives with a gambler, Mike Loftus, to whom Vivian is immediately attracted, and instead of sailing, she runs off with him.NOTES: Re-made in 1938 as Broadway Musketeers. COMMENT: Is this the only teaming of Bogart and Davis? Both, alas, have very small roles. But this fact is the movie's only disappointing aspect. It's a fast-moving gangster yarn, superbly photographed, with a great music score and admirably lively direction from Mervyn LeRoy. I loved the montage cuts of newspapers and events which not only give the proceedings a realistic topicality but add to the marvellous rapidity of the pace. It is Dvorak who walks away with the acting honors, but what a great cast! Curiosity-value plus. The story obviously inspired The Group and later similar studies, but the original Match is far more entertaining. No padding, no boring marking-time, but solid, believable drama all the way.

The tragic consequences following a young woman (Ann Dvorak, sensational) who impulsively leaves her rich, successful lawyer husband (Warren William) for a no-good gambler (Lyle Talbot) who owe thousands to a menacing loan shark (Edward Arnold, very bullish). When Talbot fears for his life he first approaches William for the dough, threatening to expose his wife's provocative activities to the newspapers, turning so desperate he kidnaps his and Dvorak's child. Arnold enlists his hoods (led by a thuggish Humphrey Bogart in one of his standard issue Warner Bros gangster parts, bullying and intimidating) to hold sway over Talbot and Dvorak, demanding a far greater ransom than what was first asked for. Dvorak makes a startling decision only a mother could do for a child, the ultimate sacrifice in a potent, shocking finale, produced during the Pre-Code era of the 30s. Joan Blondell (who seems to have star treatment—and she is quite beautiful—but has the less interesting part opposite Dvorak) is one of Dvorak's childhood friends, along with Bette Davis (who has an underwritten part as a secretary). Watching Dvorak's life unravel and diminish is haunting and sad, as Blondell (who would marry the betrayed William after Dvorak divorces him), once in prison for grand larceny, rises from a difficult predicament to secure a better life. Dvorak, unhappy with William, despite the luxury and comfortable trappings of wealth and family, finds excitement and worldly pleasure with Talbot, missing from the married life, selfish in her own desires, not thinking about the repercussions of her behavior, particularly in regards to her son, who Blondell cares deeply for. The film, directed by Mervyn LeRoy (The Bad Seed; Mister Roberts), establishes time and place and how the city is affected by what was going on at the time, such as the Depression and rise in gangster activity. Very quickly paced and doesn't have a lot of fat, "Three on a Match" is mostly melodrama, using images just as importantly as dialogue and performance, with plenty of subtlety. The film does a fine job of making us aware of Dvorak's plight, as each scene she reappears after time away from the screen, she looks more and more worse for wear, such as the fidgeting while waiting on a street corner for Blondell (by this time married to her ex-husband) for some money or the dark circles under her eyes--the worsening state reminds us of those who fall under the spell of meth or crack.

Though I'm a big fan of movies of the 30s and 40s, I was unaware of Ann Dvorak prior to seeing this one. I thought she gave a very realistic performance (for the time), and it's a shame she didn't have a longer career.Others have synopsized the plot in prior reviews, so I won't rehash it. However, I am surprised that no one else has made the connection to the Lindbergh kidnapping that seemed so obvious to me.On March 1, 1932, the young son of America's hero of the day, Charles Lindbergh, was kidnapped. Google the kidnapping and take a look at pictures of the child...the resemblance to the child in "Three On A Match" is striking. And certainly, the audiences of the day would have been well aware of the connection, as the kidnapping was the top news story in the country for months.A fascinating film!

Didn't like this picture as much as I thought I would. It had a great cast of future and contemporary Hollywood stars, some who are not credited or listed in the credits. It was directed by Mervyn Leroy so there was no argument there.Maybe I just don't like soapers as much as other viewers. This one had some melodramatic moments, true, but it was too stagnant and the story line lacked energy. It is basically a woman's picture, a "chick-flick" as they like to say, and, speaking for myself, I have a hard time sitting through these. Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep specialize in this type of movie nowadays and they make lots of money, so I guess I'm out-voted. I almost forgot to mention that this picture belonged to Ann Dvorak and she was excellent. She added weight and substance to the picture which I felt needed some. She was especially effective at the climax of the picture.Always enjoy Joan Blondell, thought Ann Dvorak is very close to plain and didn't know Bette Davis was a thunder-thighs, as she appeared in a bathing suit towards the end of the picture.I would certainly recommend it to fans of the Golden Age of Hollywood and to those who would disagree with my jaundiced view of motion picture entertainment.