Just what I expected

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The central role in this low-budget crime melodrama really belongs to KAY FRANCIS, and she makes her lady doctor pretty believable. But it's HUMPHREY BOGART who walks off with the show, which is no more than a programmer made on the cheap, by playing up the comic elements of his character.Bogart is an illiterate man who wants his "genius" to be known. He kidnaps a man (James Stephenson) with a reputation as a writer in order to tell him his life story and make him the "king of the underworld." But Kay Francis spoils all his plans when she has to prove herself innocent of criminal charges pending against her due to a prior event. She fools the hoods into believing they will go blind if they don't let her help them.The story has several implausible script problems and never really comes off as credible. Interesting only to see that Bogart was far more worthy of his early material than the studio realized. And Kay Francis has one of her more believable roles in this crime melodrama.

"King Of The Underworld" is, without exaggeration, the worst Bogart film I have seen. He plays an impossibly-dim, impossibly-evil gangster with no motivation whatsoever. The screenplay calls for his character to torture Kay Francis and take interest in a hobo/writer he discovers at the side of the road, so that's what he does. Little is explained, and even less makes sense. (Was the character of Carole's mother there only for PURE exposition?) Warner Bros. made legendary crime films in the 30's and 40's, so there is no excuse for this graceless disaster. I love Bogie but he must have been incredibly discouraged by the script: he gives the worst performance of his career and often looks like he just wants the damn film to END. You will too.Bogart's kingpin character Joe Gurney should logically want to murder Dr. Carole Nelson. She's a potential witness who might turn him over to the police in order to clear her name and save her medical practice. And although Bogie had no problem shooting a potential snitch in the back- in cold blood- in the film's opening minutes, the thought of harming Carole apparently never enters his mind, even when he's got her alone with his cronies. Caution: Open Plot-Holes Ahead. Next we have the barely-literate Joe obsessed with Napoleon- kinda. He sees himself as some Napoleon-like figure and drops vague "Napoleonisms" that sound like they were made up on the spot. Since all we know about Joe Gurney is in relation to Carole Nelson's case, this Napoleon sub-plot is incomplete and out of place. (Would the film be any different if he identified instead with Spiderman?) When Carole tells Bogie he's the moronic type Bogart brags to his goons- straight-faced, "Did you hear that, fellas? I'm the moronic type!" That's about the level of wit this film has to offer.The finale, in which Dr. Nelson blinds Bogie and the boys with magic eye drops, would be more at home in a Three Stooges short. If you want great Bogart go see High Sierra, The Big Sleep, Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo, or The Maltese Falcon. This "King" is a crab.GRADE: C-

King of the Underworld (1939) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Warner remake of their 1935 Paul Muni flick DR. SOCRATES has Kay Francis playing a doctor trying to clear her name after her husband got connected to a gangster (Humphrey Bogart). I watched this film for the first time many years ago and found it to be campy fun but this was my first viewing since seeing the original 1935. My opinion on this film here has certainly changed but in the end I think this is still worth seeing if you're a fan of Bogart. That original film was an incredibly smart and tense little gem that should be better known to film fans but this remake, clearly meant to be the second film on a double-feature, leaves out the brains and instead goes with action. The movie runs a fast-paced 67-minutes and for the most part we get to see Bogart chew up one scene after another and this here is clearly fun if you're a fan of his. He's constantly shouting at his men, giving orders or just going around like a madman and we even get to hear him quote a few things from Napoleon. Bogart's maniac-style performance is clearly the stand out here and the reason people should tune in. Francis seems to be rather upset at having to appear in something like this as she pretty much sleepwalks through here role and she certainly brings the film down some. She was certainly a capable actress but you really can't tell that by watching her here. James Stephenson adds nice support in his small role. The ending to the original film worked wonderfully well because they went for suspense but that's not the case here. The ending is pretty wacky and over the top and sure to draw a few laughs. It does lead up to some violent gun play, which is never a bad thing in a Warner movie.

"King of the Underworld" paces at a machine gun clip, with Humphrey Bogart as Joe Gurney, a crime boss who quotes Napoleon and fancies himself as the last of the public enemies. When doctors Niles and Carol Nelson (John Eldredge and Kay Francis) perform a difficult surgery and save one of his men, Gurney insinuates himself into their lives with money and power. Niles can't help himself, and welcomes the added income to support his gambling habit. Carol feels something amiss, but it's only when Niles is killed in a gang shootout with the police that she comes to understand how entangled her situation has become.This isn't one of Bogey's better gangster films, certainly not on a par with "The Roaring Twenties" or "High Sierra". His characterization of mobster Gurney felt somewhat forced and uncomfortable. He does however take peculiar pride in reaching the top of his chosen profession, taking some delight in author Bill Stevens' (James Stephenson) suggestion for an autobiography - "Joe Gurney - The Napoleon of Crime".For an interesting scene that shows how far we've come from the movie's 1939 year of release, consider how amazed the shopkeeper was to receive a hundred dollar bill from Mrs. Nelson, the first one he'd seen in at least six months! Ultimately, Mrs. Nelson turns the tables on Gurney's gang through a clever ruse using a chemical solution to temporarily blind them, on the pretense that they could actually go blind from an infection caused by a gunshot suffered by Gurney. But she couldn't have done so if she didn't make her way back to Gurney's hideout. When brought there the first time to treat Gurney she was blindfolded, but apparently wasn't blindfolded on the way back - not too clever for the Napoleon of Crime!