The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

King of the Underworld features an early role for Humphery Bogart in one of his many gangster roles.He plays Joe Gurney who uses a female doctor to treat his men and pays her for it. He follows her when she goes to live with her Auntie after one of Gurney's men kills her doctor husband who also worked for him. Gurney kidnaps an author on his way to find the female doctor and gets him to write his life story and he then plans to kill him. He finally meets up with the doctor and after she gives Gurney and his men a substance that makes them temporarily blind, she and the author, who have now fallen in love manage to escape just as police arrive...Joing the excellent Bogie in the cast are Kay Francis, James Stephenson and John Eldredge.Watching King of the Underworld is a good way to spend just over an hour one evening.Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

"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!

The hurried approach that Lewis Seiler takes with King of the Underworld establishes a deeper plot, while still maintaining an efficient run-time. One of the clearest examples of this is the transition between poverty and wealth for the married medical couple. The audience is instantly transported from a shanty medical office to a luxurious suite at the city's most prestigious inn. This development is critical to understanding the position the doctors have been thrown into. The story suggests from the intro that these two people are generally happy with providing medical practice to those who are less fortunate. By abruptly cutting from this scenario to the morally conflicting occupation (the mob's personal physician), the viewer is called upon to experience this sudden turn of events. The Nelsons (Kay Francis and John Eldredge) are forcibly employed by Gurney (Bogart) without objections. This stylized notion of organized crime being too influential and powerful to overcome has become a standard component in every gangster picture. The one aspect of this film that raised some questions for me, ironically dealt with the pacing of the story, and that rate at which it was told. I think that character development and social identity can suffer when certain aspects of a story are not fully examined. This paradox happens to be a result of personal taste, in that I think that the movie going experience can be enhanced through rigorous character development. However, for the purposes of this film, I must admit that the rapid action contributes more dynamic flare to the impact of the film.**1/2 (of ****)

This was almost as bad as return of Dr. X. Bogart made some pretty crappy films in the late 30's, but he also made some good ones. The only thing worth saying is that Bogart kept talking about napoleon. Don't waste your time, watch dead end or marked woman instead.