Gangsteroctopus
Let me start off by saying that I actually like a lot of the old B-movie cheapie film series, like 'Boston Blackie,' 'The Falcon,' 'The Saint,' et.al. - just so you know that I'm not some ADD-addled kid who can't sit still unless a movie is edited like it's been thrown into a blender by Michael Bay.But, c'mon, let's be serious: this is a pretty terrible film, on almost every level.First off, Warner Baxter looks awful. Every time one of the women in the film talks about how he's "good-looking," you have to laugh. I realize that in real life Baxter had had a nervous breakdown and was suffering terribly from arthritis (so much so that he eventually had a lobotomy - ! - to relieve the pain). But then the writers should have either cut the lines where women comment on his looks, or the producers should have cast a different actor in the role.And to be honest, appearance aside, Baxter is a really underwhelming screen presence: his voice quavery, his manner hesitant, his whole demeanor uncommitted. He looks and acts a LOT older than 54. He seems to be barely able look any of the other actors in the eye. (Pretty everyone else in the entire film comes off better than Baxter, in terms of their performances - it's astonishing to think that he once won an Oscar.) I know I should feel sorry for the guy, but that's no reason to let him ruin what might have been a memorable recurring character.The only reason that I didn't give this film a one-star rating is because it DOES have an initially intriguing premise, one that seems to anticipate "A History of Violence," among other more interesting films. But the writers quickly botch any sense of intrigue, completely throwing the story off the rails with all kinds of irrelevant tangents and sub-plots (how can a 64-minute film have this many sub-plots?), like the various criminals (female thief, disgraced Air Force officer) with whom Dr. Ordway deals with in the course of his work. These little side-stories have NO relevance whatsoever to the main story, adding nothing at all to it and, to boot, are uninteresting and insipid. Get back to the amnesia thread, you idiot writers! This is not to mention all of the improbabilities and convenient 'coincidences' that occur throughout the story, further stretching credulity well past the breaking point. (Two of Ordway's former cronies just happening to be in a nightclub where Ordway is with his fiancé, then one of them breaks a glass accidentally, requiring medical attention and, of course, Ordway is the only doctor present - yeah, right.) And why, for example, do Ordway's former partners in crime keep insisting to themselves that Ordway is faking the amnesia? For TEN YEARS he keeps up this charade, goes through medical school, gets a psychiatry degree, sets himself up in private practice, instead of just absconding with the loot and skipping town - say WHAT? How in the hell does that make any sense at all? I'll only mention in passing how poorly directed this film is, especially in regards to the pacing in the dialogue. Actor A, for example, says something, Actor B ponders these words for what feels like an eternity, then eventually, slowly responds - aaaarrrgh! Another reviewer has said that this is actually the least of the 'Crime Doctor' series, so maybe I'll give the next installment a chance (I recorded a bunch of them off of TCM), although I am not overly sanguine, and I still think that Warner Baxter is TERRIBLE.
bkoganbing
One of the wilder premises involving a movie series was in the Crime Doctor films that starred Warner Baxter. We are asked to believe that Baxter was once gentleman crook Phil Morgan who held out the loot from his gang and who slugged him and threw him from a moving car and left him for dead. He didn't die, but has a case of amnesia. In any event ten years go by and in those ten years we are asked to believe that Baxter has acquired the eduction and training to become criminal psychologist Robert Ordway a most respected gent. The Crime Doctor character came from radio and I assume that radio provided a lot of background so that the Ordway character became more believable. Given the fact that the movie-going public had been used to the Crime Doctor radio program the whole premise was easier to swallow in 1943 than it is today.Baxter who is now a successful criminal psychologist and engaged to Margaret Lindsay is visited by old gang member John Litel who wants to know where the stashed loot is. He's not buying the amnesia story. He assembles the rest of the gang and the film is a battle of wits between Baxter and the rest. Need I tell you who wins?Future Crime Doctor films gradually left out the part that Baxter was a convict and as a result they have not become as dated and are more believable than the first film. Some are actually pretty good with the simple premise that Baxter with his psychological training is a pretty good criminologist, better in many cases than those who carry a badge. In fact Jeff Goldblum's character on Law and Order: Criminal Intent who does carry a badge can trace his origins back to Warner Baxter's Robert Ordway. A good screen character with too much unbelievable baggage.
Michael_Elliott
Crime Doctor (1943) ** (out of 4) First film in Columbia's Crime Doctor series has a man (Warner Baxter) thrown out of a car, which leaves him with amnesia. Not knowing who he is, the man decides to start a new life as a doctor but then learns that in his previous life he was a gangster. This was the first film from the series that I watched and I certainly hope they get better. I suspect this film just tells a backstory, which could have been told in the first five minutes of another movie. I found the film incredibly dull and the story itself really wasn't all that involving. Baxter was good in his role but I still wouldn't rank him very high among the countless mystery/detective films of the 30's and 40's.
Spondonman
This was the opening chapter in the Crime Doctor series from Columbia, and as usual the first cut is the deepest. The other nine films veered from lightly sparkling to slightly insipid but all lovely to see - this one was strikingly thought provoking with many memorable scenes scattered throughout. Additionally the production values, acting and plots were of a consistently high standard, and basically Columbia allowed Warner Baxter a six year holiday with the filming of them to help him recover his dodgy health.A man is tossed out of a moving car as one dead in 1932, turns out an amnesiac who is nursed back to good health by a good doctor who encourages him to become a good friend, good citizen and ultimately a good psychiatrist. He achieves all this by 1943, by which time his shady past is starting to catch up with him, 3 dumb guys eager to reclaim USD 200,000 stolen in his previous life. How it all unfolds and is resolved is as ingenious as the b picture format and the Hays Office could allow. Favourite bits: The 4 of them sitting round the table in Frankie's, all wondering what was going off; Margaret Lindsay – almost too exquisite too watch here; Leon Ames, the violent patriot in prison for life then out in a twinkling; the trial of Phil Morgan and Robert Ordway.It should be an incredibly rewarding 65 minutes to fans of this genre of film, if you find yourself unmoved by it my advice is don't bother with the rest and do yourself and the fans a favour.
