alexanderdavies-99382 Humphrey Bogart was tiring of playing gangsters in film after film for "Warner Bros." and sought any kind of variation in such vehicles. In "King of the Underworld," his character has a Napoleon fixation and has aspirations to become just like him. The running time helps to keep this minor movie at a reasonable pace. Kay Francis was once a fairly big star but by 1939, her popularity had gone into decline. She is hardly remembered these days but she was a very capable performer. In this movie, she plays a doctor who has no choice but to leave her city practice and set up shop in the countryside. Bogart isn't quite his usual evil, sneering self and his scenes with Francis are quite good. The film doesn't rise above being ordinary but it isn't a terrible film by any means.

theowinthrop I wonder if the screenwriter for this film had somebody in mind as a model for the criminal Humphrey Bogart plays. In the 1920s and 1930s there was a major war between Joe Masseria and Salvator Marranzano for control of New York's criminal underworld. Marranzano, on the surface, seemed more modern to the younger crowd of gangsters like Luciano, Costello, Siegel, Lansky, and Lepke, and they helped him get rid of the "Mustache Petes" or old style gangsters supporting Masseria (and eventually Masseria himself). But they found that rather than restructuring the criminal world into a model corporate structure, Marranzano had delusions of grandeur. He was intoxicated by the image and memory of Gaius Julius Caesar, and intended to make himself the Caesar of the New York Underworld. Eventually "Caesar" Marranzano was bumped off by the disgruntled young Turks who did not plan for him to be a "Capo di Capo".Interestingly enough he was stabbed to death in his office - one wonders if Luciano and the others purposely copied Caesar's demise in the forum. In this remake of an early Paul Muni film, DR. SOCRATES, Kay Francis is a female doctor who discovers that her late husband was tied to a powerful mobster (Bogart) and got killed helping him with some medical attention for one of his gang. The police and A.D.A. (Pierre Watkins) arrest and try Francis on really weak grounds as an accomplice, but the jury is deadlocked and she is released while the A.D.A. decides whether or not to retry her. Francis is determined to prove her innocence by catching Bogart.Humphrey Bogart played many gangsters in the 1930s, and most of them were quite dangerous types, like Duke Mantee in THE PETRIFIED FOREST or Baby Face Martin in DEAD END. But his gangster boss here is ridiculous. The reason is that the screenwriter created a personality point about this gangster that is never pursued properly in the film. Bogart is enamored by the career of Napoleon Bonaparte, and keeps mentioning this. Never once in the course of the film, outside an occasional reference to say Waterloo or some incident like that, do we see Bogie trying to use Napoleons aphorisms and strategies in his crimes! For example, Bonaparte once dismissed military brilliance and said something to the effect that he preferred "lucky" generals to brilliant ones. He realized that a brilliant general could get so hung up about his own brilliant schemes that he could blow a major battle, whereas a "lucky" general looks quickly at a situation and grabs the initiative. Bogart does not show any inclination to follow that particular piece of wisdom, and does not even mention it.Bogart also is never shown using any of the strategies that made Marengo or Austerlitz or Jena victories that rang down through the last two centuries in his robbery schemes or crimes. For a man who supposedly admires a great figure he doesn't seem willing to learn from him!In the plot Francis hides in a small town and Bogart shows up there to rescue two of his men from the local police (actually similar to an incident involving gangster John Dillinger). Bogart has also picked up a traveling writer (James Stephenson) who he realizes can ghost write Bogies criminal memoirs. Stephenson is arrested in the incident, but he is released into Francis' custody (she is now a doctor in the town), and subsequently kidnapped by Bogie (not quite like the unfortunate Duc de Enghien). Soon Francis is in pursuit, and notes Bogies health as a potential key to undermining his control of her fate and Stephenson's. It involves giving him a peculiar drug that has to be also given to all his men at the same time to disable them all. This part of the script is absolutely unbelievable as Bogie's gangster does not accept the simple solution of selecting one of his men as a guinea pig to test the drug on (Francis manages to browbeat him into taking the drug!).There are elements of other, better films in KING OF THE UNDERWORLD. Most notable is James Stephenson's writer/hobo who resembles Leslie Howard's in THE PETRIFIED FOREST. The acting is pretty good (best are the scenes involving the local bigwig doctor who resents the arrival of Francis in the small town, and starts making problems for her). Stephenson was a fine young actor, whose best role (the troubled barrister defending Bette Davis' "Leslie Crosby" in THE LETTER) was yet to come, and his death in the early 1940s was a true loss to movies. Francis does nicely in her role, even if her victory over Bogie is asinine. Bogie is good - wish I could say the same for his character or the script.

bkoganbing Although Humphrey Bogart got star billing in King Of The Underworld, I'm willing to bet he didn't thank Jack Warner for it. In fact this film was one hollow crown.King of the Underworld was supposedly a remake of the Paul Muni film, Dr. Socrates, but given Humphrey Bogart was in the cast, the character is written more like Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. He even has an English writer along in the person of James Stephenson.Kay Francis and John Eldredge are a pair of married doctors and Eldredge pulls off a tricky bit of surgery on one of Bogart's henchmen. Bogey's a man who appreciates good work done on his behalf and gives Eldredge $500.00 and there's more where that came from if he plays his cards right. Eldredge who has a gambling problem sees a good way to get some undeclared income. But when he's killed in a raid on the gang's hideout, Francis is also thought to be involved by the law and the American Medical Association no matter how much she protests her innocence. It's no good and she and her aunt Jessie Busley move to a small town to get away from the notoriety.Of course the notoriety and Bogart and an itinerant Leslie Howard like writer in Stephenson all meet up with her again. But Kay is plucky and resourceful to say the least.Bogart's character was ridiculous, no wonder the poor guy was screaming for better parts. He's a gangster who both shoots down people without mercy and gives his henchmen hotfoots just for laughs. He's concerned about his image and therefore kidnaps writer Stephenson to ghost write his autobiography and of course confesses enough to burn him in all 48 states. And then let's Kay Francis completely outsmart him, hard to believe he was king of anything.Definitely one of the lesser works for either of the stars.

MartinHafer This film is a very limp remake of an earlier Warner Brothers film, DR. SOCRATES. While this original film was pretty good, the changes made in the script did NOT improve the story at all and there were so many logical errors that the film is pretty skip-able unless you are a huge fan of Humphrey Bogart and gangster films (like me).For some odd reason, instead of the original story idea of a doctor being forced to do medical treatment for the mob and being thought by outsiders to be a member of the gang, this time it's been altered a bit. Instead, the man who chooses to be a mob doctor is soon killed and his wife (Kay Francis--who was totally innocent but also a doctor) is unfairly blamed for helping the gang. Although there is no evidence at all that she was involved, the licensing board threatens to take away her license unless she can prove her innocence! This just doesn't make any logical sense--and using a flawed and illogical situation as the basis for the film is a serious problem! Plus what idiots would suggest that she needs to prove her innocence and resort to risking her life!? Now the logical errors don't stop here. For example, when the same gang later comes to Francis and forces her to help them, she doesn't immediately run to the police or FBI but plans on proving her innocence all alone and at a very leisurely pace! Duh! It is only after working with them for some time does she consider telling the authorities and she comes up with a COMPLETELY FAR-FETCHED plan to capture the gang and hand them over to the law! She convinces Bogart that infection in his arm has spread to his eyes (which it had) and he would be blind unless he allowed her to give him a miracle eye medication. This is tough to believe, but plausible. But, when she also says she needs to give it to all the gang members AND they must all keep their eyes tightly shut during the process, this is just stupid. Of course, she gave them something that temporarily blinded them all and they were soon apprehended, but believing these guys all did what she told them was just pushing credibility into the toilet (though I must admit, it was kind of funny to watch).Now apart from the bad script problems, the film was still pretty watchable for fans of old Warner Brothers gangster films. In particular, Bogart was funny as the dumb gang leader who fancied himself to be the next Napoleon. Plus, he thought he was A LOT smarter than he really was and he thought when the doctor called him "moronic" that it was a complement! Sure, realism was not the trademark of this performance, but it was enjoyable and made me laugh a few times. Also, the very end of the film had a cute ending (after the blindness bit) and was a good wrap-up to the movie. So from a comedic point of view, this was a pretty good drama!