CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

RyothChatty ridiculous rating

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

mark.waltz It is only by chance that assistant professor of criminology Edward G. Robinson encounters the beautiful Joan Bennett. He is admiring her portrait in the gallery window and it is certainly a surprise to him when he sees her reflection behind her. She innocently invites him over to her apartment to show him drawings by the same artist, and all of a sudden, he finds himself plummeting a pair of scissors into a man's back who interrupted them and presumed something else was going on. He only thought that he was trying to get the man to stop beating him when Bennett conveniently placed the scissors in his hand. Now, determined not to be involved in a murder wrap, Robinson and Bennett conspire to get rid of the body, thus (with his expertise) committing the perfect crime.But crime, no matter the circumstances, never goes undetected, and when the body is discovered, Robinson's pal (Raymond Massey) is involved in the case and asks Robinson to aide him in putting together the clues. The fact that certain aspects of the case Robinson innocently reveals and the fact that certain clues show up implicating Robinson doesn't make him a suspect, but his own guilt gets him back together to conspire with Bennett, especially when a shady blackmailer (Dan Duryea) gets involved.This is a tight little film noir, sometimes slow moving, but always intriguing, only marred by a trick ending. The first half of the film focuses on Robinson's efforts to keep himself from being exposed; the second half focuses on Bennett's dealings with the sinister Duryea. Bennett moved from light-hearted leading lady into film noir vixen with ease, proving that she was more than just a former blonde beauty who became brunette to capitalize on her Hedy Lamarr similar looks. Actually, I had always known that Bennett was a better actress than the types of roles she had been doing up to this point, and as film noir became a major part of American cinema, her status in Hollywood rose, proving that even in the age-defined movie capital, re-defining yourself can stretch your career and keep you going, something very rare, especially for women heading past their mid 30's.As for Edward G. Robinson, he had always mixed his tough guy gangsters with the milquetoast characters he played in such classics as "The Whole Town's Talking" and "Mr. Winkle Goes to War". Robinson proves once again that he was one of the most versatile actors in film and could handle both leads and supporting parts with equal vigor. Director Fritz Lang provides enough thrills here, and while the final denouncement is a bit inconclusive (even before the trick ending), there's a nice touch involving character actress Iris Adrian that will make you forgive the writers for fooling you and being slightly cheap in bringing the film to its conclusion.

ctomvelu1 Edward G. and Joan Bennett star in a noirish crime drama that feels almost surreal (with god reason, as the ending makes plain). Robinson is a staid professor whose family is off on a weekend jaunt. He meets an alluring woman who invites him to he apartment for "drinks and." When her psycho boyfriend unexpectedly shows up, the prof ends up killing him during a scuffle. To protect himself and the gal, he gets rid of the body. Then the fun really starts. Edward G. is at the top of his form here, and Bennett is sexy and ever so slightly tawdry, even fully clothed. The ending, which has been used or misused in many movies before and since, here works beautifully. I am surprised I had never seen this particular melodrama until now. I am no spring chicken, and used to be a film critic, to boot.

bandw This story of a middle-aged man, Professor Richard Wanley, who inadvertently gets caught up in a murder has a lot of good points. For one thing it calls to mind the myriad of unfortunate situations an innocent person can get involved in and promotes an understanding of such situations. And it makes you ask what you would have done in the circumstances. I liked the setup with Wanley being friends with the district attorney and thus having an inside look at the investigation that increasingly points to him as the murderer. The black and white photography is good, but not as dramatic as in some other Fritz Lang films, like "M."I liked the period decor and dress.But I had some problems. Wanley is fascinated by a portrait of a beautiful woman in a store window. Late one night while walking home he stops to admire the portrait and to speculate about the woman. Then, miraculously, the woman appears in the flesh, strikes up a conversation and invites him up to her apartment. A beautiful woman taking up with a stolid middle-aged stranger in New Your City, not very likely unless she is a hooker. Maybe that was to be inferred but not allowed to be explicitly specified in a 1940s movie, but from what is seen this inference is difficult to make.There are many other plot points that put me off. I don't think it would be nearly so easy to kill someone with a couple of jabs to the back with a pair of scissors, particularly in such a bloodless manner. Carrying a 200 pound body around like Wanley did would be beyond his strength--a body is an awkward dead weight. As a lecturer on topics like "Some Psychological Aspects of Homicide," I think Wanley would have been smarter than to make some of the mistakes he did during the investigation. And so on.You might say that the ending makes my complaints moot, but then you have to believe that it is possible to have such a detailed coherent dream where, in less than an hour, the dream spans several days. And I think it is a cop out when a movie involves you and then pulls the, "Oh, it was just a dream" trope.As much as I dislike remakes, I think that this might be a good candidate for such. For example, I imagine that the scene that has the three 40-somethings sitting around proclaiming how "Men of our years have no business playing around with any adventure they can avoid," would play differently now, some seventy-five years later.

dougdoepke I expect a lot of hookers went hungry after this cautionary tale was released. It's enough to frighten most any philandering husband into permanent fidelity. Because once the screenplay finishes with Prof. Wanley (Robinson), he's not even going to think about straying, blonde, brunette, or redhead. And that controversial ending is especially effective at driving the point home.I like the way the screenplay makes use of "doubles". After all, a part of the professor peels off in his dream and has the romantic adventure the real guy can only fantasize about. At the same time, the sexy portrait peels off into the "real" woman such that the two doubles meet in a twilight world of fantasy.No wonder the professor is restive. He's a highly respectable family man in a highly respectable profession with highly respectable friends, undergoing what we would now call a mid-life crisis. His body may feel trapped, but his imagination isn't. And get a load of Bennett—she's one delectable package, especially in that clinging gown. She's certainly no streetwalker, more like a kept-woman with a list of prestigious clients. Note how the Production Code screenplay stays vague about her means of support. Still, she and her ritzy apartment are just the kind of set-up a guy like Wanley (note that the name begins with 'wan') would dream about, that is, until things get out of hand.The middle part sags a bit as police procedure takes over, and the prof's conscience begins to drop hints to the authorities. It's clear, even then, that not even his double can escape the respectable man himself, as the climax reaffirms.But that showdown between Bennett and Duryea amounts to a little gem of scripting and acting. It's a cat and mouse contest all the way, except it's unclear which is which. Bennett is so good at being a silken conniver, while Duryea is the last word in slimy schemer. Watching them maneuver is fascinating, and in my book, the movie's high point.What a fine turn by Robinson as the under-stated professor. Hard to believe his unimposing figure could also snarl with the best of them, e.g. Little Caesar (1930). Here, his homely little man yearning beyond respectability is so believable. For that matter, so is the nightmarish lesson he's taught himself. As a result, when he runs from the blonde streetwalker at movie's end, I expect more than a few guys were running with him. All in all, if Family Council Oscars were given out, this crafty screenplay would deserve a big one. More importantly, the 90-minutes amounts to a darn good film noir.