The Hole in the Wall

The Hole in the Wall (1929)

** (out of 4)

Edward G. RObinson plays a man known as The Fox, the leader of a group of thieves. They get away with so many crimes due to help from a psychic but when she is killed the leader fears their criminal days are over. That's until they meet Jean Oliver (Claudette Colbert) who agrees to help them as long as they help her kidnap a child from a woman who caused her to go to jail.

THE HOLE IN THE WALL is a pretty ridiculous drama story that should have been re-written a few times before it was actually filmed. THe film has pretty much been forgotten today except to those who want to see two future legends in their talkie debuts. While the film is pretty stupid all around, the appeal of the two stars makes it worth watching.

As I said, the screenplay here is certainly the worst thing about the picture as the entire thing is just way too dumb to make you actually care about anything going on. The entire thing with the psychic just doesn't work and at times it becomes rather laughable. I'm guess since this was an early talkie the screenwriters just through everyone would be caught up in the dialogue that they wouldn't pay attention to how silly the story was.

The one good thing about the film is that it clocks in at just 63- minutes so it's certainly over before you know it. Both Robinson and Colbert are decent enough in their roles but I'm not sure anyone watching this in 1929 would have guessed that they'd go on to become legends.

It's incredible to see how they managed to get every single aspect of filmmaking so wrong. Even the featured train wreck is a complete train wreck. It's so atrocious that you just keep watching to see if it can get worse - and boy, does it!

Just because this was made in 1928 is no excuse for how virtually unwatchable this picture is. 1928/29 productions from the likes of Von Sternberg, deMille, Arzner, Mamoulian and a few others are still watchable and entertaining today but this - this is so embarrassing you wouldn't want anyone to know you've actually seen it. People in 1929 can only have gone to experience this because of the novelty of seeing a talkie (even though much better alternatives were available). People today should simply avoid this.

The story, dialogue, direction, acting, photography, special effects are all as bad as bad can be. It's hard to which is worst but the story must be number one contender. Amazingly this is actually based on a real play which people actually paid money to see - apparently not a children's play either. It has to be one of the most stupid plots I've ever seen. I know that the police back then didn't have the highest of reputations but even my dog could have figured out what was going on with this bunch of con artists - the thickest bunch of criminals you'll ever see involved in the most unrealistic stupid, stupid racket ever.

If the plot isn't bad enough to make you wonder if you've been given LSD, wait until you've witnessed what Robert Florey considered acting. Yes that really is Edward G and Claudette Colbert but like the great Walter Huston in the equally awful GENTLEMEN OF THE PRESS, this demonstrates that without a director who knew what he was doing, the most talented of actors can appear like five year olds in a school nativity play.

It's also shocking to witness that era's sensitive and caring attitude towards mental health issues. For reasons completely and utterly unexplained, the gang keep "a lunatic" in their basement. Other than screaming like an animal every now and then, he doesn't seem to have any purpose whatsoever in the story. To deal with this inconvenience, someone suggests: Why don't you send him back to the carnival where he belongs? Incredible!

As awful as this is, you can't tear yourself away from this nonsense.

Poorly lit and poorly written but interesting from a historical perspective.You can watch on You Tube under The Charlatan. Colbert is young and not as confident as in her later films Robinson only shows glimpses of his gangsta persona but it is still interesting to watch The plot is very simple and unbelievable.

The plot for "The Hole in the Wall" is utterly ridiculous and I am pretty sure that audiences back in 1929 must have thought so as well. Sometimes you can still enjoy a ridiculous film...but this strains anyone's ability to suspend disbelief!

When the film begins, a gang of thieves is stuck. Their fake psychic partner is dead and unless they can find a new one, they'll have to disband or get real jobs. When Jean (Claudette Colbert) arrives on the scene, the boss (Edward G. Robinson) thinks perhaps she has the talent to be their next 'Spiritual Adviser'. She agrees with one condition--that they also kidnap Mrs. Ramsey's young daughter. It seems that Ramsey had sent Jean to prison when she was innocent and now Jean wants revenge. But instead of selling back the kid, she plans on raising the kid to be a little crook in order to get her revenge!!! Talk about complicated and wildly improbable!! Even more improbably, Jean writes a letter to Ramsey telling her of her plan!!! Who would be that stupid?!?!

So is this any good? Not really, but for fans of classic Hollywood, it does give them a chance to see Robinson and Colbert in their first talking picture. Neither were famous at this point and it was only Robinson's third film and Colbert's second and she looks far different than she would in the 1930s-40s. Still, Colbert is pretty natural on screen, but unfortunately Robinson is rather flat. His usual bluster and bigger than life persona is absent and the character is a bit dull despite being the gang's leader. In fact, the whole film is very flat and lacks excitement where it should be.

I was so excited to see Edward G. Robinson's first movie! He plays the ringleader in a gang of thieves, fronted by a psychic "madam". Together with Donald Meek, Alan Brooks, and Nellie Savage, they extort information out of wealthy clients and then rob them. Everything changes when Nellie is killed in a train accident and they go in search of a new madam. Enter Claudette Colbert, in only her second picture. It was before her Harlequin eyebrows, but she's still very beautiful. Her acting is very modern for its time. There are parts of the film that feel like a silent picture, but Claudette propels the audiences into the future with her different style. There are no grand gestures, no facial expressions intended to reach the back row, and no over-exaggeration of her words. I was very impressed; no wonder she became a star!

Eddie G, as much as I love him, wasn't much different in this picture than he was in Little Caesar. Watching this movie will be fun because it was his first, but it won't showcase his greatest performance. In fact, he sometimes takes the back seat (which he rarely did in his later movies) to the storyline, Claudette, or the creepiness of Donald and Alan.

There are some very eerie parts to this movie, and it might not be for everyone. I'd have a comedy on hand for later in the evening, to get you in a better mood. And try to remember the movie is 95 years old. Yes, there are silent passages where no sound was recorded, and yes, women didn't shave under their arms, but that was just the time period.