Ronald Colman is way too charming in Raffles (1930)

If you have a spare hour and want to see a guy look incredibly good in a tuxedo while stealing diamonds, Raffles is your movie. It is perfect for a lazy afternoon when you want something light but not totally brainless. People who hate 'stagey' old movies where everyone talks very clearly will probably find it annoying, though. 😴

Ronald Colman plays A.J. Raffles. He is a huge cricket star, which the movie makes a big deal out of early on. I don't really understand cricket, so those parts felt a bit long to me, but Colman makes it work just by being... well, Ronald Colman.

He has this voice that sounds like warm honey. It’s hard to be mad at him for being a criminal when he’s so polite about it. He’s the 'Amateur Cracksman,' a thief the papers are obsessed with, and he’s never been caught.

The movie gets going when he falls for Gwen, played by Kay Francis. She’s great, even if her role is mostly just looking concerned in very expensive-looking dresses. Their chemistry is actually pretty sweet and feels less forced than some other romances from back then, like maybe Smilin' Through.

Raffles decides to quit the crime life for her. But then his friend Bunny shows up. Bunny is a bit of a mess and owes a lot of money, so Raffles decides to do one last job at a big house party. Classic trope, right? The 'one last job' thing was already a thing in 1930.

There is this great bit where Raffles is trying to hide his identity from a detective while also being the life of the party. The tension is actually decent. It isn't like a modern thriller, but you can feel the sweat on his brow even when he’s smiling. 💎

The Little Things I Noticed

• The way Colman holds a cigarette is basically an art form.
• The Inspector, MacKenzie, isn't a total idiot. I liked that. Usually, movie cops in the 30s are just there to fall over chairs.
• There's a scene with a grandfather clock that is supposed to be super tense, but the ticking sound they used is so loud it's almost funny.
• The sets look a bit like a play, but the lighting is actually pretty moody in the dark scenes.

The movie is quite short, which I appreciated. It doesn't overstay its welcome like some other dramas from the era, such as Three Women. It just gets in, does the heist, and gets out.

One thing that felt a bit off was the ending. It happens so fast! One second they are trapped, and the next, well... I won't spoil it, but it felt like they ran out of film or the director had a dinner appointment. It’s very abrupt. 🏃‍♂️

Also, the sound quality is a bit hit-or-miss. It’s an early 'talkie,' so sometimes people stand very still while talking because they are clearly trying to speak directly into a hidden microphone. It gives it a weird, stiff energy sometimes.

I did love the dialogue, though. It’s snappy. Not quite as fast as a screwball comedy, but it has that pre-code bite where people are allowed to be a little bit more 'real' before the censors ruined everything a few years later.

Is it a masterpiece? No. But it's very watchable. It’s the kind of movie that makes you want to buy a magnifying glass and a velvet bag for stolen pearls. If you enjoyed The Impersonation, you’ll probably find this right up your alley.

It’s just a cozy, slightly criminal good time. Sometimes that is all you really need from a movie. Just don't expect a lot of action shots or high-speed chases. It’s a gentleman's heist, after all. 🕵️‍♂️