Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

seymourblack-1 In this offbeat but very enjoyable crime thriller, a couple of mysterious deaths in the same family raise fears for the safety of a child and suspicions of murder that are hard to prove. The story is given its momentum initially by a quick series of interesting revelations and then later, by the urgency with which it becomes necessary to act in order to ensure that no harm comes to the apparently endangered child.Having been notified that his young niece Polly is seriously ill, businessman Whitney "Cam" Cameron (Joseph Cotten) rushes to the hospital where she's being treated and is relieved when he's told that she seems to be making a successful recovery. He's troubled by the fact that her doctor is unable to make a definite diagnosis of what she's suffering from but, in the circumstances, returns with his widowed sister-in-law Lynne (Jean Peters), to her home where he gets reacquainted with his young nephew Doug (Freddy Ridgeway). Doug (who's Lynne's stepson) is upset about his sister's suffering, especially because she'd kept saying "don't touch my feet" and this reminded him of his father uttering the same words when he was ill with a similar mystery illness from which he never recovered. Cam is very fond of both Lynne and Doug and is later distressed when Polly suffers a relapse and dies.Later, Cam goes to visit his old friend and family lawyer, Fred Sargent (Gary Merrill) and his wife Maggie (Catherine McLeod). During one of their conversations, Maggie remarks that from her research as a writer for the "pulps", Polly's symptoms were similar to those suffered by people who'd been poisoned with strychnine and as Cam's brother Bill had died in similar circumstances, this possibility should be considered. Cam and Fred initially laugh off Maggie's observations but then Fred (in a later conversation) adds that under the terms of Bill's will, Lynne would only be able to inherit his estate if both his children had died before receiving their inheritances. Maggie also then remarks that her research had shown that most cases of killing by poison never actually lead to a conviction.This information and the results of an autopsy carried out on Polly's body make Cam very suspicious of Lynne's role in Bill and Polly's deaths and extremely anxious about the welfare of his nephew, Doug. His concerns are then heightened further when Lynne announces that she intends to take Doug on a trip to Europe for about a year. Without giving them any indications of his intentions, Cam simply turns up on the ocean liner which is taking Lynne and Doug to Europe and carries out an elaborate plan to discover whether or not his suspicions about Lynne (who was his brother's second wife) and his concern for Doug are indeed justified.Despite its modest budget, straightforward plot and relatively short running time, "A Blueprint For Murder" generates plenty of suspense and intrigue especially because pieces of information emerge at different times that throw doubt on Lynne's guilt. Probably the movie's greatest asset though is its cast who are consistently good. The ever-reliable Joseph Cotten is marvellous as the kind and well-mannered Cam and Jean Peters gives a compelling performance as the sophisticated socialite whose composure always seems unshakeable. Gary Merrill and Catherine McLeod are also very good in their key supporting roles.

robert-temple-1 This is a superb and sophisticated murder mystery. Joseph Cotten is in peak form as the lead man, Whitney Cameron, who is called to the bedside of his young niece, who is dying in hospital. The child dies of mysterious convulsions, enigmatically and inexplicably crying out: 'Don't touch my feet!' The plot thickens from there, and the strange cry is discovered to have a meaning after all. This is a first rate early fifties noir with Cotton, Jean Peters as his sister-in-law, and Gary Merrill as his lawyer friend. It is excellently directed by Andrew Stone and should be better known than it is. The story is cleverly developed, and the mystery lasts up until the very end of the film. The question is: who poisoned the niece with strychnine, and why? And who will be next? Cotton is urbane, reassuring, and very solid in the main role. Jean Peters is rather more arch than usual, with a character portrayal which is intentionally ambivalent, just to keep us all guessing. One does not know whether she is a femme fatale or not, and the whole point is that no one knows, even within the story. This is a most ingenious whodunit which will not disappoint any viewer.

RanchoTuVu Jean Peters plays a cool, cruel, and calculating killer in Blueprint For Murder, which opens as her step-daughter is in a hospital and dying from being poisoned with hard to detect strychnine. Set in high upper middle class society, Peters has a chance to inherit a fortune from her dead husband's estate if she can outlive her two stepchildren (now reduced to one), who for what ever reason, love and trust her (as if children don't have some intuitive feelings). Thus, the movie, which could have been a lot tenser and more realistic (the gullible kid and the weird will), still has a bizarre enough storyline to keep one watching. And the suspense does actually build at the end with Peters taking the one surviving child (the boy) on a long vacation to Europe, from which, according to her plans, he won't be returning. Joseph Cotton's part as the dead husband's brother and uncle to the children, who in the past had a thing for Peters, is fairly well done, as he gradually sees the truth about Peters, and then protects the one surviving child. Jean Peters, who from her first scene looks suspicious, especially if you've read about the film beforehand, is very good in a constrained part. In fact, the entire movie seems a bit constrained, though it's saved by the pacing and general momentum, as the police get involved, with some cool interrogations between them and Peters, who expertly navigates around their difficult questions, while the courts, due to inevitable Constitutional issues, actually give over the surviving child to the stepmother, in spite of their suspicions.

dougdoepke Unusual movie since it's hard to adequately comment without giving away the ending. It's an efficient little suspenser, but nothing more. And that's too bad because the premise has more exciting possibilities than what's there on screen. The problem lies, I think, with the way the project was conceived as nothing more than a low-budget, 70-minute, quickie. It looks like the producers went out and hired a director then making his reputation on just such uncomplicated movie fare, Andrew Stone. He's perfect for the concept with his straight-ahead, documentary style that cares little for artifice or character. The script too plows straight- ahead with little subtlety or ambiguity. Thus a potential that would add the vital extra dimension of mystery or whodunit is eliminated from the outset, resulting in a straight suspense film with no surprises.Now I was slow to catch on. I kept looking for twists or some kind of ambiguity that would open up a mysterious aspect and leave me guessing. But there isn't any. The streamlined screenplay is utterly without artifice, which may have suited Stone, but left me with an ending that's not only badly contrived but also with the feeling that this can't be all there is. It's like taking a sight-seeing trip that keeps you watching, but ends up without any memorable sights to see.Too bad that fine actor Joseph Cotten is wasted in a role that could have gone to dozens of less talented male leads. There is so much room for ambiguity that would have engaged his talent, instead of turning him into a basically one-dimensional bloodhound. I sympathize with those posters who regret that the master of suspense and subtlety, Alfred Hitchcock, didn't get hold of the material first. Jean Peters is fine, and I can see why the notorious womanizer Howard Hughes slapped a ring on her finger if only for a little while. But that final scene of waiting her out is so utterly implausible. After all, what does she gain by risking agonizing death since she's trapped on board ship where a trip to ship's doctor can be easily verified. Once she drinks the cocktail, her fate is sealed, and it's foolish of the screenplay to pretend otherwise.In passing—note how at ease director Stone is with the cop scenes. I detect a Dragnet influence from the TV series, even down to series veterans Phillips and Kruschen. Put that sort of material, such as The Night Holds Terror (1954), in Stone's hands and his single- minded devotion to procedure and plot works really well. Where it doesn't work so well is reducing potentially complex material like Blueprint to routine docu-drama.