The film was originally titled Colonel Rowan of Scotland Yard and Inspector MacKenzie played by Dudley Digges has the most interesting role as the wily detective as if he was modelled somewhat on Sherlock Holmes.David Niven is the dashing cricket player who also has a sideline as a gentleman thief. We actually see footage of Raffles playing cricket on a television screen.Raffles needs to pull a job for his friend Bunny who has money troubles. He has also fallen in love with Bunny's sister, Gwen (Olivia de Havilland) who figures out that Raffles might be a part time burglar. Raffles is spending a weekend with as a guest of Lord and Lady Melrose. A valuable necklace is the tempting prize but Scotland Yard also thinks the same and turn up to the mansion.I have read the Raffles book and saw the wonderful ITV adaptation in the 1970s. This is a poor version of Raffles. It is almost a pedestrian country house whodunit. As the film goes on, everyone seems to have suspected Raffles as the gentleman thief, there is no suspense. This is just an example of a film stifled by the Hays Code.

This appears to be the third remake of "Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman" Which seems to have originally been made in 1925 - No, make that 1905... 1917... 1925, 1930, and 1975 which seems to have spawned a short 1977 TV Series based on the character.I've never seen those, I have only ever seen the Kay Francis/Ronald Coleman version, which I liked very much. So to my surprise I am watching this particular remake: Who knows why this remake was decided upon in 1939? Some of the comments here indicate that it could have been a lot better that it ended up being - And I agree.A Young Snappy David Niven and beautiful Olivia DeHavilland (When is she not beautiful, even when she got older?) spearheading a great cast including Dame May Witty and E.E. Clive.This film with the cast that was attached could have been one of the great films of the 30's but it just kind of sits there like a plate of cold tripe. I give the film credit for atmosphere but not much else. The dialog is delivered in a way in which we do not believe- Almost without enthusiasm.Instead of doing a shot-by-shot and line by line remake (Which was also done with The Prisoner of Zenda) they could have just re-released the great and fun 1930 version. I have only seen one film where Niven was able to get a handle on comedy, and that was "Bachelor Mother" (Another film that was unfortunately remade, as "Bundle of Joy") - And only then because he used very Cary Grant-ish hand and body movements for some reason.Watching this is akin to watching moss grow... Unfortunate, but true. Sometimes there is no reason to remake a film that has already been made three times, as had been the case here. I can understand the need for the 1930 remake, as that was the version that first applied that novelty we take for granted, Sound. Making this film again, so soon, and uninspired like this, I see no reason for it. Why? Nothing special jumps out, even though the performances of the actors are adequate. All of the things that made the 1930 version great are absent from this.On a final note, DeHavilland and Niven do not work as well as Coleman and Francis did: Coleman and Francis have a very "Modern" look, almost contemporary. Which is why I was attracted to it when I originally saw the 1930 version. That timelessness is absent in the appearance of Niven and DeHavilland in this film.

Wow, I was really underwhelmed by this film. Despite starring David Niven and Olivia de Havilland, this was an amazingly uninspired film. After all, the story is about a rich society thief who is a champion cricket player--you'd think there'd be more action and exotic or fashionable locales. But, instead, the film is very, very stagnant and the majority of the action (such as it is) takes place in a manor home where Raffles is staying along with a few other rich swells. It was so turgid, that at times I found myself falling asleep. I kept waiting and hoping for a fist fight or SOMETHING, but instead the film was very talky and all so well-mannered. A very uninspired script with an abrupt and senseless ending as well as lackluster direction conspired to keep this film in the category of 'mediocre', but it's still watchable due to the screen presence of its stars--especially the always lovely Miss de Havilland.

RAFFLES ('40) contains a charming performance by David Niven as the jewel thief who constantly eludes detection by Scotland Yard. Niven has an equally charming co-star in Olivia de Havilland as his sweetheart--a thankless role which gives the actress a strictly cardboard leading lady role. It's Niven and the large supporting cast that consume most of the footage as the plot thickens and a Scotland Yard detective is hot on his heels.Slow paced, only mildly entertaining, this one offers nothing in the way of wit or excitement to stir up anything more than moderate interest. Fans of David Niven and Olivia de Havilland get a chance to see the photogenic pair at their physical peak--but that's not enough to sustain interest in this bland remake of the earlier Ronald Colman version.A standout in the largely British supporting cast is Dame May Witty as Lady Melrose whose necklace has fascination for the amateur thief.Trivia note: Interesting to see a film from 1939 that shows a sports program being televised clearly on a rather medium-sized TV screen...long before TV became a household staple in the late '40s and early '50s.