This movie falls securely into the beat-it-you-mugs style of lovable gangster films, fairly common in the '30s. The dialog is rife with all that faux street-tough lingo (ex., "Say, when do we tie on the feedbag?" for When do we eat?), made famous by the Dead End Kids and countless others. I happen to think it's pretty hilarious, but that's just me.
This is also a "screwball comedy." Now if you'eve ever wondered about what makes a comedy "screwball," well, the key might be a storyline that disdains all the pedestrian limits imposed by a too rigid attention to the realistic and believable. In other words, to borrow a famous example, Laurel and Hardy, say, are carrying a piano across a rope bridge over a raging river. Half way across, they meet a gorilla. You get the idea.
Anyway, I saw this movie when I was a teenager and thought it was one of the best of its era. Seeing it now, I still like it a lot, although it's perhaps not top-shelf. If Frank Capra had made this, the secondary storyline (gangster's daughter wants to marry a policeman!) would have been primary, and the primary storyline (gangster bootlegger, now that Prohibition is over, decides to try to be a "legit" businessman) would have been secondary, and it would have been a better movie (provided of course you had Jean Arthur and James Stewart in the roles of the young lovers). But really, there's a lot to like here.
This is also a "screwball comedy." Now if you'eve ever wondered about what makes a comedy "screwball," well, the key might be a storyline that disdains all the pedestrian limits imposed by a too rigid attention to the realistic and believable. In other words, to borrow a famous example, Laurel and Hardy, say, are carrying a piano across a rope bridge over a raging river. Half way across, they meet a gorilla. You get the idea.
Anyway, I saw this movie when I was a teenager and thought it was one of the best of its era. Seeing it now, I still like it a lot, although it's perhaps not top-shelf. If Frank Capra had made this, the secondary storyline (gangster's daughter wants to marry a policeman!) would have been primary, and the primary storyline (gangster bootlegger, now that Prohibition is over, decides to try to be a "legit" businessman) would have been secondary, and it would have been a better movie (provided of course you had Jean Arthur and James Stewart in the roles of the young lovers). But really, there's a lot to like here.