Silver Queen (1942)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Absolutely Fantastic

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Silver Queen stars Priscilla Lane as Coralie Adams, a young woman from a wealthy family whose father (Eugene Palette) loses it all -- a silver man -- in a high stakes poker game played with a professional gambler, James Kincaid (George Brent). Kincaid, learning that Gerald Forsythe is engaged to Coralie, gives the deed for the mine to him. Cabot is a bad lot, despite the society trimmings, and just keeps the mine for himself.An real card shark, Coralie gambles in order to pay her father's debts.The film takes place in New York and San Francisco in the 1870s. This just isn't much of a movie. Priscilla Lane is miscast. She was a lovely woman and had a very sweet, vivacious quality, but the role called for someone a little tougher. The original star was to be Ellen Drew. The production company borrowed Brent, Cabot, and Lane from Warners. They should have borrowed perhaps Ida Lupino.Not sure if it was intended to be a B movie, though it comes off like one.

George Brent was a fine actor and I always liked Bruce Cabot as a heavy--so why is "Silver Queen" such a dull and unlikable film?! After all, it had a lot of money behind it--it was made by one of the top studios, Warner Brothers. But somehow, the film never seemed interesting and suffered from one HUGE problem problem--and quite a few small ones.The film begins around 1870. There's a huge charity party for the mega-rich and folks just toss around money like it grows on trees. The biggest spender that night is the ultra-cool professional gambler, James Kincaid (Brent). He immediately catches the eye of Coralie Adams (Priscilla Lane) and you know that according to formula by the end of the film the two will be wed. That's THE big problem, as one small unsaid conversation between the two could have easily resulted in their marrying and none of the problems that occur later. I HATE films where it all hinges on one unsaid thing--and in this case, James gives a silver mine to Coralie as a wedding present but never bothers to tell her!! Later, after YEARS have passed, he realizes she never married her no-good fiancé (Cabot) and he basically stole the mine! Why didn't he just ask her how the mine was doing? Why didn't he wonder why she never thanked him? Why did he give the mine to the fiancé to hold and not directly to her?! Frankly, I wish James had just handed the deed to Coralie and kept me from wasting my time--because what occurs between this and the end of the film is dreadfully dull and tough to believe. What else is tough to believe--that Coralie would become a top professional gambler. Priscilla Lane played very sweet ladies in film--SWEET LADIES. She was NOT the least bit convincing in a role that should have been given to an actress with more edge to her personality. Overall, the film is sluggish and rarely interesting. And, you'd think that such a prestige film would have been better.

Harry "Pop" Sherman spent most of his career producing superior B westerns and was best known for creating and running for several years the Hopalong Cassidy franchise. With this movie he made a bid for the big time and was rewarded with a couple of Oscar nominations, but the total effect, looked at from seventy years later, is an entertaining picture that is, nonetheless, a high-class B picture.This movie features several Warner Brothers people, both in front of and behind the camera, all trying for their big break, but once you get past the charity party sequence, there is little energy in the performances. Perhaps that is why the camera keeps moving constantly.

Average drama was Priscilla's only western. She was never a great actress, not to say she wasn't a good one-she was, but was never given a role that would challenge her. Of course being a Warners girl that would have been tough anyway with Bette Davis and Ida Lupino usually getting the roles that required heavy lifting. She was however a warm presence in all her films providing a pleasant center to her pictures as she does here. The picture has a strong supporting cast with Eugene Palette and Guinn Williams livening up the movie during their scenes and Bruce Cabot playing his typical conscienceless worm. The weak link, wasn't he always, is George Brent. Providing his usual stiff, bland performance he adds nothing to the film.The other weakness is the script, most of the action happens with no real sense of conflict. The running time is short so perhaps there was originally more exposition. As it stands now most of the story moves along with no real explanation or sense of struggle for the characters. The film is handsome and was Oscar nominated for it's sets which at the time included costumes since the categories had yet to be split. It certainly has a rich look and Priscilla and the other women are decked out in sumptuous gowns and head-wear and everything is played out on expensive looking ornate sets. It's nomination for musical scoring is a bit more of a surprise since there is nothing really outstanding about it.A routine film but if you are a fan of any of the stars an enjoyably brisk 80 minutes.