Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

dougdoepke Fast and efficient slice of thick-ear, with a plot borrowed from previous year's The Big Heat (1953). The producers, however, had the good sense to locate the action in Ketchican, Alaska, definitely not an over-used locale. Director Stevens makes good use of the outdoor settings, lending exotic flavor to the action. To bad that the photography is definitely non-noir. But then the interiors were filmed in a TV studio.The plot may be borrowed, but there's an interesting wrinkle. Namely, nominal, good guy Stevens is more fearsome than the ostensible mobster, bad guy Kennedy. That's because Stevens thinks Kennedy killed his family and framed him. Now, ravaged with revenge, Stevens wants to kill Kennedy's family, including his winsome little daughter. So, we're left wondering just who to root for. Then there's the psycho hit-man Homeier who's kind of a wild card in a mop of ultra- blonde hair. (Note, for example, the cold-hearted abruptness of the execution scene.) Add a number of familiar supporting players, like Mills and Doucette, and you've got a generally persuasive cast. And, oh yes, on the blondined distaff side mustn't forget barfly Vohs or the fetching Martha Hyer.Considering this movie along with Stevens' tour-de-force Timetable (1956), it's too bad his niche with b&w B-films was giving way to TV. In my book, he shows himself a filmmaker of more than average aptitude. Anyway, the movie's both interesting to follow and scenic to eyeball, a pretty good combination for any film.

robert-temple-1 Mark Stevens was a leading player in B movies, and was an excellent cop in THE STREET WITH NO NAME (1948, see my review) and private eye in THE DARK CORNER (1946, see my review), both excellent noirs. Here he got his first chance chance to direct himself. Although he does well enough as a director in other respects, because he could not see himself he probably did not realize that he looked too grim throughout most of the film, never changing his expression during the early portions. This may have made sense in theory, because he a wronged man seeking vengeance, and grief-stricken at the death of his wife and child. But one cannot have a single expression for nearly an hour like that without it becoming monotonous. Stevens furthermore according to the story had to have a severely scarred side of his face, which meant that he could show very little emotion on his face in any case. The film was largely shot at Ketchikan, Alaska. Alaska was not even a state at that time, but still a Territory. This was an extremely unusual place to set a film in the 1950s. The location footage, especially the aerial footage, is thus of considerable historical interest, not least to the people who live there today. Mark Stevens went on to direct himself again in TIME TABLE (1956) and directed three more feature films and 50 television drama episodes in the nine years between 1956 and 1965. He last appeared as an actor in 1987, and he died in 1994 at the age of 77. This film is not outstanding, but it is nevertheless a contribution to the noir genre.

secondtake Cry Vengeance (1954)Leading man Mark Stevens falls something short of a cult figure. He is director and first actor in four movies from 1954 (this one, his first) to 1963. He plays his roles as if he is in control, which he is, literally, from the director's chair. He's the hardened type, and here he is bitter bitter bitter, to the point that he is not quite a fully developed character and it's hard to get absorbed in his problem.The rest of the movie is functional. It doesn't lack interest--for one thing, it's shot in Alaska, mostly (the exterior shots)--and the supporting cast is middling to good, filling roles we've seen before from pretty girl befriending the unlikely hero to chatty bartenders to a sweet kid who turns the man around through her innocence. And the filming (William Sickner, a routine cameraman with nearly two hundred B-movies to his credit) and editing, likewise, are workaday...the job gets done, but it lacks some kind of richness or aura or plain old drama. Then to make it a little more disappointing, a couple of the main themes are taken a little too directly from earlier noirs, namely "The Big Heat" which came out the year before. The theme, established right away, is a cop who is out for vengeance against whoever killed his wife and child in a car bomb meant for him. Stevens plays this part with cold certitude. It's an interesting film in some ways, but a clunker in many others. Take it for what it was, and what it is.

frogdaddy14 Well, me being a resident of Ketchikan, Alaska my entire life, am amazed. I just watched this film about 2 weeks ago, and I think it was awesome. The areal shots of the town are really neat. Now, of course, the city has changed quite abit, but its still neat to see historic Ketchikan in a great film. For those of whom that have seen this movie, the house that it was shot in just recently burned down. That was sad, because obviously it was a very historic house. I would suggest that everyone see this film. It was awesomely filmed, and it is very entertaining. Also, if you are ever in the Ketchikan area, hit it up! Anyway, thats all I have to say.