Tweet FIVE STAR FINAL (31)

I caught this tonight for the first time in 35yrs. I last watched it at around age 13 or so and it stuck in my mind for some reason which became clear tonight.
That final confrontation scene when Marian Marsh asks "Why did you kill my mother?" is riveting. It's almost hard to watch - the prolonged outpouring at each of the newspapermen.
Robinson's resignation has got to be among his strongest performances.
The whole thing is pretty close to the bone in this era of illegal phone-tapping, etc. by the tabloid press.
Loved it.

Every scene is riveting. It was less than 10 yrs ago that I first saw it, & after the first 5 min., I was nailed to my chair. I loved H. B. Warner, & Karloff, but there's no one in it who didn't give a superb performance, most especially Aline MacMahon. Robinson's disgusted-with-himself editor equaled his Rico, I truly believe, & why this picture wasn't nominated, at least, for best picture amazes me.

why this picture wasn't nominated, at least, for best picture amazes me.

No need to be amazed. FIVE STAR FINAL did get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (1931-32).

Indeed an excellent film, but one rarely mentioned or revived which is strange. Certainly worth digging out if you have never seen it.

No need to be amazed. FIVE STAR FINAL did get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (1931-32).

Stupidly, I checked nominees for '31. I'd have been prepared to swear unequivocably my vote for the year would without question go to 5 Star, but upon checking nominees for '32, I find One Hour With You! An impossible dilemma!

I like the movie, but it does show its stage roots, especially in the second act, where it's almost a filmed play.

I like the movie, but it does show its stage roots, especially in the second act, where it's almost a filmed play.

Hmmmm....yes it does, but this in no way detracts, IMO.

I like the movie, but it does show its stage roots, especially in the second act, where it's almost a filmed play.

A common criticism of pictures derived from plays, but I've always failed to grasp why this constitutes a fault. Because film can achieve effects not possible on stage, must it always do so? If it's a choice between queer camera angles, & well-written & spoken dialog, I'll take the latter. And in this particular picture, camera-work that drew attention to itself would probably detract from the power of its raw, hard-hitting dialog.

A common criticism of pictures derived from plays, but I've always failed to grasp why this constitutes a fault. Because film can achieve effects not possible on stage, must it always do so? If it's a choice between queer camera angles, & well-written & spoken dialog, I'll take the latter. And in this particular picture, camera-work that drew attention to itself would probably detract from the power of its raw, hard-hitting dialog.

I saw this film again on TCM a few months ago, and remembered how much I liked it the first time...but I think it's a fair criticism to make of any film when the story gives it an organic opportunity to get outside the walls and the film 'turns down' the opportunity. Five Star Final passed up a few chances to do this, although my sense was that technical limitations were also at play here, as they were for a lot of films shot in 1931 or so. Also, when I say play-style, I mean a lot of master shots, and few close ups and reverse close ups and few tracking shots, which also point to technical issues.

There are some plays that almost demand to be filmed in a play-style like 12 Angry Men, and if they tried to bust that story out, I'd be mad for the opposite reason.