JohnHowardReid Copyright 17 February 1940 by Warner Bros Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Globe: 3 March 1940. U.S. release: 15 July 1940. Australian release: 18 April 1940 (sic). 77 minutes. Censored to 58 minutes in Australia.U.K. and Australian release title: YEARS WITHOUT DAYS.SYNOPSIS: Mobster Tommy Gordon is not worried about being sentenced to Sing Sing because he believes his political pals will get him a fast parole. He tells his girlfriend, Kay, not to worry. He makes no effort to reform in prison, and after causing a near-riot is given three months in solitary confinement by Warden Long, a dedicated prison reformer. After the ninety days in solitary, Tommy concedes that his friends have deserted him, and he joins a group of convicts planning to escape. NOTES: A re-make of 20,000 Years in Sing Sing (1932). John Garfield was extremely popular in Australia when this film was released, but close to 20 minutes of censor cuts put paid to any hopes that Warner Bros entertained for big money at Oz ticket windows. Instead the movie had to be released at flat rates as a "B"-grade support. COMMENT: It's hard to believe that Anatole Litvak had anything to do with this limp re-make, let alone direct it. Great cast too. But despite forceful playing by the charismatic Garfield and personable Sheridan, the characters never really come across. As a result, the story has little impact. Weak support playing by Pat O'Brien (especially) and Jerome Cowan doesn't help. True, part of the problem lies in the script. O'Brien's role is not built up sufficiently to make him a sympathetic figure. He's always just a minor character. This lack of audience empathy with Warden Long robs the climax of much of its drama. Of the big support cast, only Burgess Meredith really makes an impression, though Guinn Williams has some effective moments. Technical credits are smooth, but undistinguished. Like the script, the film editing tends to be flaccid, with scenes held too long and then faded out in a somewhat old-fashioned way that militates against the realism so vital to this story. Production values do not impress half as much as Twenty Thousand Years

jotix100 Tommy Gordon, a criminal seen at the start of the story, is a suave man. He is well regarded in the best places in the Manhattan of the era, where his presence is well regarded. Unfortunately, his luck runs out when he is found guilty of the robbery, he masterminded. His beautiful girlfriend, Kay, is devastated. It is hard to believe with all of Tommy's connections, he could land in Sing Sing, one of the toughest prisons in the country.The idea that he will have to give up his clothes in exchange for the prison garb, does not go well with Tommy. He does not endear himself to the guards, or Walter Long, the warden. After realizing his influence and good standing in the criminal world will not let him get anywhere, he decides to join the system in getting himself sent to the shoe factory. There he meets Steve Rockport, another con, preparing an escape. Fortunately for Tommy, the plan goes wrong for his friend, but he remains in his cell, when he could have tried to escape as well.Warden Long begins to take another look at Gordon, for he thinks he is toeing the line. When Kay, his lover has a terrible accident, Tommy appeals to Long to let him go to her. Long, who has a good heart, makes a deal with Tommy and allow him to go for a short time to Kay. Trouble follows him in the shape of his former pal Ed Crowley coming to see Kay and there is a scuffle among them. Kay, trying to protect Tommy shoots Ed. The police, summoned to the apartment, takes Tommy back to Sing Sing. Later on, he is found guilty of murder in the first degree and condemned to the electric chair.Directed by Anatole Litvak, this is another remake of Lewis Lawes' "Twenty Thousand Years in Sing Sing". The film is a good adaptation, but it has a fatal flaw: we do not believe for a moment the warden, any warden, would have allowed Tommy to leave the prison on his own word. Add to that the fact that such a high security place offered no possibility of escape in any form, although we are sure, must have been tried. John Garfield makes a wonderful Tommy Gordon full of bravado. This actor was always a welcome presence in any of the films in which appeared. He was charismatic, distilling a positive aura into anything he played. Pat O'Brien is Warden Long, the man who believe in Tommy, perhaps naively. Ann Sheridan casts a sophisticated aura on her Kay, the woman that loved Gordon. Burgess Meredith was Steve Rockport, the con man who wanted to escape. Jerome Cowan, one of the busiest character actors of the era is seen as Crowley.

Michael_Elliott Castle on the Hudson (1941)** 1/2 (out of 4) Pretty much a scene-by-scene remake of the 1932 drama 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING has gangster Tommy Gordon (John Garfield) being sentenced to prison but he's not worried because he thinks his "connections" will get him out. Soon Tommy realizes that those on the outside want him to remain in prison so he thinks about escaping but the Warden (Pat O'Brien) tries to talk some sense into him. Spencer Tracy and Bette Davis were the stars of the original film, which is slightly better than this one thanks in large part to see the two legends working together. If you've seen that version then nothing here is going to come as a shock to you because I wouldn't be surprised if Warner just dusted off the previous screenplay and used it again, just changing names this time. That original film wasn't a classic so if you haven't seen it then you'll probably be caught up in the story plus we get Garfield turning in another winning performance. His character was too large of an ego and comes off as a major jerk but Garfield could always play these characters and in the end make you care about them. That's what pretty much happens here because after Tommy takes his beatings he finally comes to except prison life and how it actually is. Garfield is so believable in the part that you can't help but want to see him succeed in what he's doing no matter what he was convicted of. O'Brien plays his character countless times before in a number of Warner pictures. That heart of gold who takes in the bad and makes them see how good they could be. O'Brien and Garfield work extremely well together and they're certainly the main reason to check this film out. Ann Sheridan plays the girlfriend and isn't too bad in the part but the character is so poorly written that she becomes quite annoying due to how stupid she is. Burgess Meredith plays a fast-talking convict who tries to talk Garfield into escaping and Guinn Williams is the lovable lug head. Warner made a ton of gangster and prison pics and while this here isn't nearly the best, there are at least enough good moments to make it worth viewing but I'd still catch the original first.

MartinHafer This film is a remake of 20,000 YEARS IN SING SING and while it is not bad at all (in fact, perhaps better than the original), the movie really has a couple lame-brained moments that you must be able to ignore in order to enjoy the movie. Without these dopey moments, the film merits a 7 or even 8 on IMDb, but come on,...these problems are pretty severe! For the first 80% of the film, the movie is pretty good fare. John Garfield is an ego-centric hood that thinks he's just too smart and important to ever go to prison. But, to his utter surprise, he gets sent to the "big house" and he has MAJOR problems adapting--after, he thinks he merits special favors and treatment. Well, all this is pretty exciting and fun to watch. BUT, the big plot twist is total cornball! When Garfield's girlfriend is almost killed, the warden feels sorry for him and lets him go for an unescorted pass--even though he was convicted of armed robbery, assault and attempted murder of a cop!!!! Talk about a hair-brained idea! Plus, at times, the girlfriend (Ann Sheridan) is pretty annoying since she seems to have absolutely no self-esteem or common sense.However, despite these serious problems, the film is indeed entertaining. Since I am a major fan of 1930s Warner Brothers films, I can overlook this. Many probably cannot and so there are certainly much better prison or gangster movies out there that are more likely to please.