The Hawk (1931) User Reviews

Better late than never...maybe.

[horn-5 · 8 December 2005]

Some viewers of the video tape of this film, who have a little knowledge of film history, can be excused when they begin to wonder why players such as Norman Kerry and Carmelita Geraghty, who had not made a film for several years, suddenly show up in a 1936 film. No, Carmelita did not suddenly come back from retirement.The answer is simple...this film was made in 1931 as "The Hawk" by Romantic Productions for Pioneer Multi-Color(a Cinecolor forerunner), had a couple of screenings for the trade press, some scattered bookings and then, basically, disappeared.

Flash forward to 1936 and Ashton Dearholt, who was on the board of Romantic Productions in 1931 and now "in charge of production" for Burroughs-Tarzan productions took a step backwards and liberated "The Hawk" from the inventory storage, slapped his name on it as the Producer, changed the title to "The Phantom of Santa Fe" and shipped it out as a Burroughs-Tarzan 1936 production.It doesn't take but a few minutes of viewing this one before most film buffs would begin to think that "this thing looks like it was made at the dawn of the sound era." It was.Like early in 1931.Jacques Jaccard as the director should have sent up warning signals in itself regarding the correct date and age of this so-called 1936 film.At that, there are a lot of films that actually were made in 1936 that are creakier than this one.Or, for that matter, in 2003.

The Hawk

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 3 February 2017]

I learned here that Phantom Of Santa Fe aka The Hawk was originally shot in 1931, but got shelved for five years. That's usually not a good sign. It also didn't help that star Norman Kerry after failing to make the grade in talkies retired. I'm not sure how the producers intended to generate any box office with this film.

The gimmick here is the color now washed out and the film looks like pastel coloring which actually is lovely in spots. Back in those days color in and of itself was an attraction. But don't expect anything here like The Trail Of The Lonesome Pine or The Adventures Of Robin Hood, two films restored with their color. Not sure if Phantom Of Santa Fe is a priority.

Basically it's a Zorro plot with Kerry as fastidious dandy hacienda owner, but also the notorious outlaw known as The Hawk. He robs the rich and helps the poor like Robin Hood and Zorro did. And the villain is Frank Mayo who has committed a most sacrilegious thing, he's robbed the church itself of some of its artifacts which are of gold. I guess he figured the same as Willie Sutton about banks.

The whole cast overacts outrageously and the dialog is arcane and that's putting it mildly. It certainly didn't resurrect the career Norman Kerry.

A film with a horrible pedigree...and the color is the only reason you might want to watch it!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 3 November 2022]

"The Hawk" is a strange film. It was released in 1931 and quickly pulled from circulation. I assume it's because although the film was in color (a rarity in 1931) the story stank. Or, perhaps the company which made it went bankrupt. Or, more likely, both.

A few years later, the film was bought by another company. They then filmed some new material and re-edited the story...and renamed it "The Phantom of Santa Fe".

When the story begins, there is a lengthy prologue with lots of exposition. It tells a lot of backstory...stuff that SHOULD have been shown in the film but was apparently added this way to save money. But none of this is spoken or acted...just words that appear on the screen. It's as if to say "this part of the film is missing and here's what you missed"! Talk about cheap!

As for the story, it's about a religious relic that was stolen. The man who is assumed to have done it, of course, didn't and he spends most of the film in disguise trying to prove who did the crime. By the end, everyone seems quite happy...except for the real criminal and his gang.

I found the story a bit incomprehensible and apart from the color (which looks very good for 1931), I think the movie should have just been left on the shelf.

Ravishing Norman Kerry!

[Son-of-Asha · 8/10 · 18 December 2014]

I don't usually write reviews, but I felt this was necessary... I'm a sucker for early sound movies, even more if they were shot in color... but (and it's a big one): If we are "lucky" enough to have a 1931 Cinecolor movie surviving and available for purchase, why does it have to be in so bad a condition??? The Alpha Video copy has the color so washed out that you almost wish it was shot in black and white: PLEASE let's all remember that even if only few care about these films, they ARE part of our history!

The movie could have been really entertaining if only the dubbing wasn't so bad: I understand Norman Kerry, a huge silent star, had quite a squeaky voice (as heard in "Air Eagles), but still I would have liked it better with his original voice! Carmelita Geraghty is mostly in the background and does not bring much to the movie... It's anyways of some interest to watch her in color (or what's left of it).

My rating is basically for Norman Kerry and could have been higher if the copy was a better one and if he wasn't dubbed.

By the way, anyone knows if the movie was dubbed for the theaters or if the new voices came later (for TV maybe)?

Manuel