Noir November - The Brothers Rico (1957)

The Brothers Rico has a strong opening and some winning performances. Unfortunately, the acting is uneven, the cinematography uninspired and the ending, rushed with a happy wrap-up that feels tonally out of step with the rest of the film.

The film opens with Eddie Rico (Richard Conte) and his wife, Alice (Dianne Foster) in separate beds, asleep. The phone rings; it is Phil (Paul Dubov). He is sending someone to Eddie to work in his successful laundry business. Although it is not stated immediately, it is clear that Eddie used to be involved in organized crime (it is later revealed that he was an accountant for the "syndicate").

Eddie's brothers Gino (Paul Picerni) and Johnny (James Darren) have gone missing after carrying out a mob hit. Eddie's old boss - Sid Kubik (Larry Gates) - has Eddie go in search of Johnny, after telling him that the other mob bosses are afraid Johnny might listen to his new wife (Eddie was unaware his brother was married) and talk about his role in the killing to the authorities. Although Kubik claims to be on Johnny's side and just wants him out of the country, after Eddie agrees to go in search of him, it is revealed that Gino is in Kubik's custody and has been tortured.

After some sleuthing, Eddie finds Johnny in southern California. After trying to convince him to go to Mexico, Eddie is met in his hotel room by the local mob boss, Mike Lamotta (Harry Bellaver). Mike tells Eddie that Johnny is going to die and that Kubik never planned to let him go. Eddie is powerless to stop the death of his brother - he also is told that Gino is dead - but escapes form Mike's lackey Charlie Gonzales (Rudy Bond) and goes looking for vengeance. There is a final, fatal, confrontation between Kubik and Eddie, which leaves Kubik dead...and Eddie and Alica living happily ever after. The End.

This is a tough movie to recommend. It is competently filmed by Phil Karlson (director, best known for the Joe Don Baker movie Walking Tall) and Burnett Guffey (cinematographer), but has no particular visual flair. The story suffers from a rushed ending and an out-of-place happy ending, as well as dropping a some story threads. For example, the mob member sent to Eddie at the beginning - who was involved in the same killing as the Rico boys - is sent off by Eddie to work, mentioned briefly when Eddie meets Kubik, but then just dropped form the story. And the last 90 seconds or so has the feeling of a studio mandated happy ending, not the finale that makes sense in the context of the rest of the story. Finally, the theme of family solidarity, which would logically be an important part of a story like this, is underdeveloped and perfunctorily addressed.

It is the uneven acting that really hurts the film. Conte and Foster make a believable couple and have on-screen chemistry. While they have separate beds, within the first few minutes, it is pretty clear they have sex right after the late-night phone call from Phil and then again the next morning in the shower. Their concerns - Eddie for both his family and for remaining apart for the mob, Alice for adopting a child to start her own family - are realistic and handled well. Larry Gates is a good villain, playing Kubik in low-key, ingratiating way, but with the right amount of condescension and menace to be accepted as a mob boss. Bellaver's Mike Lamotta is great, even though he only has about 10 minutes of screen time, playing a philosophical - and pragmatic - thug. But that's about it, as far as actors who deliver good performances.

Darren, Kathryn Crosby as Johnny's wife Norah and, most harmfully, Argentina Brunetti as "Mama" Rico all overact shamelessly. Brunetti seems to be playing a parody of Italian mothers, with lots of "Ima gonna make-a you some pasta" level dialogue. While the actual words can be blamed in the screenplay writers, it is up to the actor and director to make even bad dialogue acceptable, if not compelling. In The Brothers Rico that is not the case. Darren and Crosby are not as bad; however, Crosby's default method of emoting appears to be saying every line as shrilly as possible. Darren comes across as dense (again, this is partially the problem of the screenplay) and whiny. There is no reason for him not to immediately take his Eddie's advice and flee; but he refuses to, leading to his death.

I give this a weak recommendation for the good performances and the parts of the story that work. So, check it out; but don't expect too much.

Movie Logic - Knight and Day (2010)

Cameron Diaz in a red dress from The Mask. Just posting this because a) hot and b) I can.

I was watching Knight and Day, the action movie/comedy vehicle for Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. Early in the film, Diaz, a "normal person" who turns into a secret agent type, a la Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies, has been taken into custody by men claiming to be FBI agents. Tom Cruise, as a CIA operative who has gone "rogue" to protect a high-tech energy source from bad guys both inside and outside the Agency, rescues her in an extended car chase/fight scene. The entire sequence is pretty good. There are some funny moments and some nice stunts and effects.

The problem: we find out that the CIA agent heading up the team is a bad guy; he wants to sell the technology - or the young savant who designed it - to a European arms dealer. However, as the movie proceeds, you realize that he was probably the only guy who was part fo that team who was a villain. All of the other guys are, apparently, actual CIA (or, maybe, FBI) agents. So, Tom Cruise winds up injuring (and probably killing) numerous Federal employees, men who are just doing their job.

Not very heroic of him.

Check out the chase below...and say a prayer for all of those poor GS-12s...

Noir November - The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

The Asphalt Jungle is one of the best movies in the crime genre ever made. The film boasts a solid cast of B-level actors (Sterling Hayden, James Whitmore, Sam Jaffe), great direction by John Huston, cinematography that captures the grit of the city and a tightly plotted story. It is required viewing for anyone who loves crime dramas, film noir or movies in general.

"Doc" Reidenschneider (Sam Jaffe), a master criminal known throughout the underworld, has just been released form prison. He travels to a nameless city somewhere in the Mid-West with a "caper" in mind. He gets in touch with Cobby a local fixer and bookie (played with ferret-like intensity by Marc Lawrence) and secures funding from a local lawyer, the shady Alonzo Emmerich (played with an oily, superficial charm by Louis Calhern). The plan is to rob a local jewel merchant of over half-a-million dollars in stones. "Doc" organizes a crew made up of Dix Handly (Sterling Hayden) as the "hooligan" (muscle), Louis Ciavelli (Anthony Caruso) as the "box man" (safe cracker) and Gus (James Whitmore), the driver. Even though the robbery is successful, the aftermath is more problematic. With the police on their trail and with treachery afoot, "Doc" and Dix have to figure out a way to escape The Asphalt Jungle.

Filmed in Cincinnati and Los Angeles (mostly in the latter, at MGM Studios), Huston gives the film an almost post-apocalyptic look. The city seems to be almost deserted. The opening sequences (where the Cincinnati shooting is featured) depict a rundown, urban wasteland. The only exteriors showing life outside of the "rough areas" of town are at the jewelry store at night, maintaining the stark and empty visual motif. Interiors are cramped and rundown from Gus's tiny greasy spoon diner to Cobby's minimalist gambling den to the claustrophobic apartments that the criminals live in. Even Emmerich's home and cottage/love nest for his mistress, Angela (Marilyn Monroe in a small but colorful part) are mostly small sets - an office, a bedroom, a foyer, probably the largest room, one that serves no function. One can understand the desperate nature of the characters, given the dark, constricted world they live in.

Sterling Hayden looking appropriately badass.

The cast is almost perfect. The characters are all film noir archetypes, from Hayden's thug with the dreams of a child (his only goal, his obsession, is to raise enough money to buy back the horse farm he lived on as a boy), to Jaffe's criminal mastermind with a fatal flaw. In this case, his flaw is his sensuality; he wants to live the good life, giving in to impulses that lead to his eventual - and inevitable - downfall. Emmerich is broke, living a life-style that has drained him of money and made him desperate. He has a bedridden wife and a young mistress, a good representation of his dual nature, the life he used to have (with a loving wife and, one gets the impression, a more respectable legal practice) and his life now (mistress "young enough to be his grand-daughter," defending criminals and getting directly involved in crime). These are rich, complex characters.

The film is also noteworthy for the amount of care and attention paid to the details of the heist. The audience is shown how much planning goes into a professional crime. From securing state-up funds, finding a "crew" and, once the robbery is underway, the details of defeating security systems, cracking a safe and dealing with the stolen goods afterwards. During the heist - an 11 minute scene - everyone behaves calmly and professionally, Huston's direction and the cast's acting selling the illusion that these men are professional thieves. While scenes like this are common now, for 1950 this was pretty revolutionary.

While the point of view of the police is presented, they are not shown in the best light. The lead detective is a crook, taking money from Cubby in exchange for not shutting down his gambling den. The police commissioner (John McIntire) while an upstanding man, is also shown to indulge in crude stereotypes about the men he is chasing. In particular, he says that Handly is a "man without human feeling, without human mercy" something he most definitely is not. Even the arrest of Reidenschneider presents a scene of moral ambiguity. Set in a roadside diner, Doc is paying a young woman to dance for him. While it is mostly innocent - she and her friends were dancing to music on juke box anyway - he clearly is getting pleasure watching her. As he leaves, two state troopers pick him up. He asks them how long they were waiting and they say long enough to watch the girl dancing as well. It is clear that audience is supposed to question how different the police and the criminals really are. In the end, there is a preachy scene where the commissioner addresses some reporters. Without the police, he says, there would be chaos. While this might be true, the movie portrays all levels of society as corrupt and driven by base desires. The most loyal relationships are between the criminals Gus and Dix, and Dix and Doll (Jean Hagen) his boozey, ditzy, but devoted friend (they have some sort of relationship, but are not a committed couple).

The Asphalt Jungle is a complex, multi-layered story, one that rewards repeat viewings with its rich characterizations and engaging acting. Huston creates a set of images that tells a story from the edge of civilization, in a morally bankrupt, physically decaying urban wasteland. Anyone who loves films or just great stories should see this.

Marilyn Monroe...is she good? Is she bad? Or is she just really, really hot...yep, that's it.

Movie Review - Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Thor: The Dark World, is a movie. Stuff happens. Things (including people) explode. Natalie Portman uses Stella Skarsgard’s magic rods to save the day. The End.

What, I have to write more? Son. Of. A. Bi...

Be careful...here come the spoilers...

Thor 2 (easier to write) takes place a year after The Avengers. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his merry band of LARPers are going through “the Nine Realms” bringing order out of chaos by beating on people. With love...and swords and hammers. Thor breaks giant made out of rock from Galaxy Quest and the last of the marauders give up. They look so dejected; they'd found their niche in life and now they've had that taken from them. Sad, really.

Oh, wait, before all this, we have the opening scene from The Lord of the Rings series. 5000 years ago, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), an angry elf, tries to unmake the universe with something called the Aether. It looks like glowing Hawaiian Punch; which is appropriate, since Hawaiian Punch is evil. It a scientific fact. And the ambulatory punchbowl man is an avatar of Satan. But, enough of my religious beliefs.

Odin’s (Anthony Hopkins) father Bor (Tony Curran) and his army of Asgardians snatch the Aether before Malekith can return the universe to a state of darkness...or something. It is never really clear what Malekith expects to happen. It looks like all the lights will go off, which will result in significant rise in toe stubbings. Oww!

Malekith sacrifices his entire fleet and army to mask his escape. Why is is that evil guys like killing their own henchmen? How is it that they keep getting henchmen? Wouldn’t a potential henchmen look at the fate of the last batch and say “umm...I’m gonna go do seasonal work at Target. Later Tatter.”

Bor survives and hides the Aether because it cannot be destroyed. Of course, he picks the worst place in the universe to hide it, since a random human physicist can just wander in (well, wander in through a dimensional portal; still, the security for the universe ending faux-fruit punch is really lacking). But, I’m getting a little ahead of the story.

So, backstory, backstory backstory...Thor reduces stone giant to gravel...okay, now we’re on Asgard. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is imprisoned for his “pro-human enslavement” plans as seen in The Avengers and is tossed into the dungeon. All of the prisoners from Thor’s pacification campaigns also wind up in the dungeons. Don’t the other worlds have court systems? If you rape and pillage on Vanaheim (or wherever) shouldn’t the Asgardians turn over the prisoners to the Vanaheim cops?

Thor and Loki look as lost by the plot as I was.

Anyway, we see the fate of Loki and then head to Earth, where Natalie Portman (as mopey scinetist, Jane Foster) is in London doing science stuff and pining over Thor, two years after he ditched her. This makes Portman's character seem like a complete loser. Yes, Thor is a god...but he hasn't called in two years. Get over it! She does have an amusing "date" with Chris O'Dowd (from The IT Crowd). But, that comes to an abrupt end as we start to get more Kat Dennings (as Darcy the Intern) moments than anyone could possibly have wanted. There’s a lot of gobbledigook about gravity (not Gravity; that's another movie) and other dimensions and weird physics. It all leads to two things: a pretty amusing joke about wormholes and shoes (which has a cute payoff later in the movie) and Natalie Portman somehow traveling through a dimensional rift to whatever world the Aether was buried on. Within 90 seconds of arriving, she is “infected” by it and then deposited back on Earth. Is it really that easy to get your hands on a universe ending super-weapon? I mean, I could use one begin my reign of terror...I mean, no one should be able to get their hands on one to begin a reign of terror.

Natalie has the evil punch in her veins, Loki is in prison and Thor heads to Earth to hook up with Natalie. He deduces that something is wrong with her after she emits a shower of fruit that knocks over a gaggle of cops (gaggle's the right word for a group of cops, right? or is that geese? Hmmm). Thor takes her to Asgard to find out what’s wrong with her. We also find out that Malekth and his surviving elves have spent the last 5000 years in hibernation on their space ship (which does look pretty awesome). Malekith knows that the Aether has been found and is in Asgard.

Acton scenes follow. They are fun action scenes, full of explosions and flying stuff and guys with swords and implosion grenades and all manner of things for the hyper-active five-year-old in each of us. One of Malekith’s henchmen - the only black guy in a race of albinos, apparently - infiltrates the Asgardian prison. Kurse (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) - Malekith's henchman - is brought in with a group of prisoners. However, little if any time seems to have passed between the moment he is sent out and when he is brought in. Also, the impression is that he is brought in with a group of marauders. But, we are told that the last of the marauders surrendered to Thor at the beginning of the movie. Did Kurse just show up at an Asgardian outpost and say "hey, I'm a marauder. Could you arrest me please? I could break something, if you'd like."

Jamie Alexander showing why she should be the female lead in the next Thor movie. I was going to make a comment about her riding my longboat (because, you know, Vikings) but I have some dignity.

Once in jail, Kurse activates a flaming acorn Malekith buried in his stomach that gives him superpowers and disables the Asgardian defensive shield long enough for an elf assault force (that sounds stupid even writing it) to penetrate (heh heh) the main castle and kill Thor’s mother, Frigga (Rene Russo). Thor toasts the side of Malekith's face with a bolt of lightning and Portman is kept out of his evil elvish hands.

Odin wants to protect Portman on Asgard, even if it means every Asgardian will die. Thor wants to use her as bait, have Malekith suck the evil juice out of her and then kill him and destroy the Aether. Odin has the better argument. Although they took some damage, we did just see the Asgardians destroy most of Malekith's ships and kill a bunch of his men. Although he did penetrate (there's that word again...heh heh) Asgard's defenses, that seemed to have more to do with the element of surprise. Yes, his ship does have a Romulan cloaking device. But it is only one ship. But this is Thor's movie, not Odin's. So, Thor teams up with Loki, who is very angry with Malekith because of Frigga's death. Loki has a "secret way" out of Asgard that doesn't require the use of the Bi-Frost Bridge/workhole generator. What it does require is flying into a cave. That's it? It is anti-climatic, since it seems like a "secret portal" that would be easy to find. On the positive side, we do get to see some of Thor's compatriots beat up on other Asgardians and a good aerial chase scene. Also, I do like the way this sequence is cut, with Thor and his fellow conspirators sitting around a table outlining the plan, intercut with the action sequences. It is a nice way to break up and highlight the action, as well as provide some character moments.

Kat Denning, at the world premier of Thor 2...hmmm... there are somethings about her I really like...not sure what they are...

Thor and Loki, with Portman in tow, track Malekith back to THE DARK WORLD (see, you knew the title is there for a reason), trick him into draining her of the FPMD (Fruit Punch of Mass Destruction...and no, I will not stop comparing the Aether to a cloyingly sweet beverage; my house, my rules) and beat on him and his elves for a while. Malekith escapes and Loki appears to die while killing Kurse and sacrificing himself to save Thor. I say “appears to die” because EXTRA SPECIAL SPOILER ALERT the most popular character in the Thor movies is not going to expire. Ever. At least, not until Tom Hiddleston demands a truckload of cash to sneer winningly on screen.

So, the evil elf has the death punch and heads to Earth, where a convergence of the Nine Realms will weakened the barriers between dimensions allowing him to unmake the current universe, returning it to the darkness that the elves like. Or, to be more correct, that Malekith likes. The other elves might just want to go catch a tan at Cabo. We'll never know...

So, why Earth? If the worlds are aligned, wouldn't any of them do? As we saw in the prologue, the last time Malekith tried to use the Aether, it was on Elfworld. I guess we need an excuse to get back to Earth and give our other actors (Denning, Stellan Skarsgard as the pantless and moderately bonkers Dr. Erik Selvig and John Howard, playing Ian, Denning's intern and straight-man) something to do, since we've wasted time cutting back to them throughout the movie. Yes, there is a b-story involving these three which is meaningless. They don't do anything to rescue Portman or otherwise advance the plot. I guess their scenes are supposed to be humorous; but they really take up screen time that could've been used to tighten up the plot and expand the characters who actually matter. I would rather have seen more time spent with Sif and the Warrior's Three, as well as more time developing Malekith.

Anyway...action scene, action scene, action scene. Malekith fails to destroy the universe...what a surprise!

We then get a big reveal at the end (that Loki has replaced Odin), a lesser reveal in the now obligatory mid-credits scene (that the Aether is an Infinity Stone, which Sif (Jamie Alexander) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson)- the Warrior Three with weight issues…sorry, he’s big boned - give to Benicio Del Toro as The Collector) and the non-reveal, a horrible end of credits scene with Thor and Portman sucking face and some Asgardian monster playfully chasing birds in London. The end.

I had a big problem with The Collector, by the way. The scene looked cheap and Benicio is acting goofy with a weird vocal inflection and silly hand gestures. However, as an introduction to plot elements that will be featured in Guardians of the Galaxy and Phase 3 Marvel films (the Infinity Gauntlet looks set to be the centerpiece of The Avengers 3) it’s okay and it is only 90 seconds long.

No, Natalie Portman does not make out with Mila Kunis in Thor 2...however, she does in Black Swan, so, ummm, yeah. Hey, just focus on the kissing chicks.

As for the rest of the film, Portman is the single worst thing about it. Yes, even worse than the incoherent plot. She seems bored with the role (and the millions of dollars she made, I guess. Must be nice!) and whenever she is on the screen, the film drags. She has absolutely no chemistry with Helmsworth. There is a brief scene in which Sif and Thor share a moment that creates more of connection between the characters than 90 minutes of screen time that Portman has. The “jokey” elements - many focused on Stellan Skarsgard because he's not wearing pants. It’s funny! See, no pants! - are pretty bad. Denning's character is mildly amusing and she delivers her lines well enough; but she seems to be out of another film; she's the snarky girl who befriends the ugly duckling that the mean, popular girls torment.

Not all of the humor is out of place. Hiddleson does snide well and the moment when he briefly appears as Captain America (in order to taunt Thor) is pretty funny. The problem is that much of the humor seems out of place and makes the film schizophrenic. This is a movie in which the stakes are all of existence; do I really need to have extended scenes of Skarsgard without pants just for a cheap laugh?

These tonal shifts are one of the big problems with the movie. The other is the lack of a sufficiently developed villain. Malekith’s motivation is poorly defined and his character arc a single point (beginning of movie “I want to destroy everything”…end of movie “I want to really destroy everything”). There are many, many plot holes, from little things (how do the Skarsgard's science rods work?) to big ones (why does Portman go to the Aether crypt and how does it pop out and infect her?). Buuuuuut...the movie moves quickly, the action is well done (at no point do you not know what is going on in the action scenes, something that is not a given in modern action films...see every frickin’ Bourne movie for an example of that school of film-making), the chemistry between Helmsford and Hiddelston is engaging and the visuals are impressive, so a lot of the plot problems just get stomped on.

Is this the best Marvel film? No. That honor belongs equally to Iron Manand The Avengers. Is it the worst? No; that title belongs to the first Thor movie, which I find barely watchable (I’m only considering Marvel shared universe films). Is it a fun movie, with some nice dialogue, great action scenes and nice continuation of the themes and plots of the Marvel Universe? Yes, it is. So, go check it out.

The Remans from Star Trek Nemesis and the Dark Elves...hmmm...well, that would explain the cloaking device.

Movie Review - Gravity (2013)

Going into Gravity I knew I'd like the visuals. The effects looked stunning in the trailers and Alfanso Cuaron demonstrated he knew how to craft visuals Children of Men. The question was, could Sandra Bullock sustain the film, since she'd be in much of it by herself. The answer, thankfully, is yes. It's not a perfect role; there are moments when she talks to herself that are unnecessary. The most egregious is a scene that involves an errant ham radio broadcast that she picks up in a language she doesn't understand. It goes on for a while and ends with her howling along with the broadcasters dog, which is laughable. And, yes, there are technical flaws, although some of these can be overlooked since this is set in some kind of alternate universe, in which the US has a functioning Shuttle program and the Chinese have a large space station. If you want to see a good overview of the flaws in the film, check out Time Magazines write-up.

In space, stuff blows up real good.

The question isn't really "is it scientifically accurate" No, the question is "is it a good story with believable characters in engaging situations?" And, the answer is, "yes." Clooney and Bullock both deliver performances that are sympathetic. The script by Alfonso Cuaron and his son, Jonas, creates believable people who act mostly in reasonable ways. The single biggest problem is the way Clooney dies. Quite simply, it makes no sense, if you know anything about physics. I don't mind weird orbital mechanics or equipment oddities; but, when you violent basic physics in order to create drama, I have a problem with that. This was the one moment in the film when I literally said "Oh, come on, that's dumb."

Not feeling so sexy in those spacesuits, are you guys? Ah, damn, it's Clooney and Bullock...of course they are.

I'll leave out the ending, accept to say I didn't it, even though there is a lot of suspension of disbelief involved.

Even with the criticism, this is still a really good movie, one that deserves to be seen on the big screen in order to appreciate Cuaron's visuals and has a story and acting that makes this more than just pretty pictures. Check it out.

Noir November - Day 6 - Panic in the Streets (1950)

Another medical thriller/crime noir hybrid, Panic in the Streets is tightly written thriller with great acting by Richard Widmark as Clinton Reed, an officer (and doctor) with the US Public Health Service. It also features Jack Palance in his debut as Blackie, a low-life gangster who contracts pneumonic plague. The movies follows the Widmark's attempt to track down everyone who was exposed to the plague, while Blackie, wanted for murder, tries to evade the authorities, his every breath carrying HOT DEATH!!!!! Or something like that.

Panic is a solid, entertaining film. The film features the usual reflexive decision by the authorities to cover up what is happen. Blackie's murderous nature, coupled with the threat of the disease getting out of New Orleans and killing millions, provides the requisite amount of tension. Widmark makes for a solid hero, although he is missing the morally ambiguous qualities of the best noir protagonists. Director Elia Kazan (On The Waterfront) and DP Joseph MacDonald make good use of the location shooting (the entire film was shot in New Orleans) particularly a great climatic chase through the warehouse of the Port of New Orleans.

Panic is entertaining and an above-average example of both the noir and medical thriller genres. Check it out.

Jack Palance is all set to spread some panic in the streets.

Noir November - Day 5 - The Big Heat

Within the first 10 seconds of The Big Heat, a man - we only see his hand - picks up a revolver and shoots himself in the head. Director Fritx Lang (M, Metropolis) knows how to start a movie. After such an arresting opening does the rest of the film hold up? The answer is a resounding "yes!" The Big Heat grabs you from minute one and leaves you satisfied when "The End" appears on the screen.

(Spoilers Ahead)

Police officer Tom Duncan, the man in charge of the Police Records Bureau, is the suicide. His wife Bertha (played to soulless perfection by Jeanette Nolan) finds the body and contacts crime boss Mike Lagana (Alexander Scourby). He in turn contacts Vince Stone (Lee Marvin) to "handle it." In this scene Debby (Gloria Grahame in "hot and sleazy" mode), Vince's girlfriend, is also introduced. Homicide detective Dave Bannion (Glenn Ford) is assigned to look into Duncan's death. It appears to be an open and shut case; however, after talking to Lucy Chapman (Dorothy Green), who was Duncan's mistress and who is tortured and killed right after talking to Bannion, he starts to dig deeper. He uncovers other inconsistencies in the story Bertha told him, but is ordered off the case. Bannion, understandably, suspects there is more here than just suicide.

Bannion, hat in place, ready to dispense justice.

Bannion and his wife, Katie (Jocelyn Brando) are threatened at home by an anonymous phone call. He immediately confronts Lagana at home, roughing up one of his thugs in the process. Why he suspects Lagana is not clear at this point, one of a handful of story problems. While it is stated that Lagana is the most powerful criminal in the city, Bannion has no particular reason to suspect him. However, this gap in the plot soon gets blown away by Lagana's response...trying to have Bannion killed. A car bomb meant for Bannion kills Katie, setting Dave on the road to revenge. When the smoke clears: Dave has beaten and tortured people; Debby is disfigured by Vince, turns to Bannion for comfort and help, kills Bertha and is killed by Vince; Vince, Lagana, and the corrupt politicians get their comeuppance, heading to jail for their myriad crimes; and Dave gets his job back with the cops, fighting crime the Bannion way.

The Big Heat is memorable for its complex characters. Bannion starts as a seemly average cop with a nice home life. He changes into a vengeance machine, wanting to find the killers of his wife and punish them, using any means necessary. He beats people, sets up one of Vince's henchmen to be murdered and almost strangles Bertha (she has evidence that would prove Lagan's criminal activities and the depths of corruption in the city government that will come out if she dies) only to be stopped by the timely arrival of a couple of cops. Although he has shown concern towards women being brutalized, he has no problem almost killing one to get what he wants. The Bannion we see before his wife is murdered has a strong moral code and a good home life. There is an easy chemistry between Ford and Brando, one that effectively conveys the sense of a real relationship. And it is obvious why people would see him as a good, if bull-headed cop; Ford has an intensity about him, one that would translate into an effective detective. It is the dark aspects of his character that come out after the death of Katie, however, that round him out and make him a noir protagonist. He is obsessed with vengeance, a good man giving in to darker impulses, but is grounded enough to be able to resume his "normal" life once Lagana et al are brought to to justice.

Debby, in pre-Sanka days.

Other characters are less well-developed, but still memorable. Debby's journey from boozy, superficial bimbo to angry killer is believable. She is young and hangs out with Vince because he spends money on her. As she says, "I've been rich and I've been poor; believe me, rich is better." A line like this fleshes out her background, providing her with a back story that explains why she is with a brutal thug like Vince and can so quickly turn against him. Once she is scarred (an intense scene in which Vince splashes hot coffee in her face after finding out she was with Bannion after Bannion humiliated Vince in a nightclub) her only tool for the good life, her looks, are gone. She aligns with Bannion not out of a sense of social right and wrong; she wants Vince to pay for hurting her. In this way she is like Bannion. He has given up on the concept of social justice, because he sees that society is corrupt. Unlike Debby. in the end he "returns" to society. He doesn't directly kill anyone and is satisfied that Lagana and the corrupt members of the city government will go to jail. Debby does not have this opportunity. Her final acts are to murder Bertha (finishing the act that Bannion was prevented from carrying out) and hurt Vince they way she was hurt (scalding water in the face). She also haa a redemptive moment before she dies. While she's bleeding out after being shot by Vince, she convinces Bannion to tell her about Katie (something he wouldn't do before). Her final words are "I like her a lot." Does this ring true? If they met in life, Katie would have seen Debby as a drunken party girl and Debby would doubtless have looked down on the stay-at-home cop's wife. After what she has been through, however, she realizes at the end that the life she had been leading was both superficial and harmful, that the money she loved was made by men who hurt and killed people to make it. Her final words really say "the path society lays out, one of law and order, traditional families and a belief in the system is the correct way to live."

The villains, Vince, Mike and their henchmen, aren't fleshed out as much as the protagonists. However, the actors bring an interesting mix of cunning and brutality to the roles. Lee Marvin is the stand-out actor. His Stone is a smooth talking killer. He is casually violent, but reflexively subservient to Lagana, transitions that Marvin handles well. Scourby's Lagana has less to do, but he still projects an intelligence that makes his crime boss, one who holds unassailable sway in the city, believable.

While the look of the film isn't particularly memorable - Lang opts for a flat, realistic look to the film, forgoing stylish shots - the characterizations are fascinating, offering complex, engaging people who evolve during the course of the film. While there are a few plot holes, none are particularly egregious. Check it out.

Noir November - Day 4 -Dark City (1998)

Can a science fiction film be film noir? Of course it can, particularly when it is so self-consciously modeled after the genre as Dark City. There is a claustrophobic, nameless city, locked in perpetual night, the distillation of the noir urban jungle. A protagonist - John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) - who may be a serial killer with a serious case of amnesia. His law enforcement nemesis, police detective Bumstead (William Hurt) who is relentlessly pursuing John and the truth. and, mysterious benefactor, Dr. Schreber (Keifer Sutherland), who knows the secret of John's past - and that of everyone in Dark City. Finally, we have the mysterious Strangers, bald, pale and dressed in leather bondage gear and black dusters...oh, and they can fly.

(Spoilers Ahead)

The story is pretty simple. Murdoch is looking for clues to his identity and to his past. As the film unfolds, he finds that he isn't John Murdoch, that John Murdoch has never existed. No one in Dark City is who they think they are. They are being injected with false memories by the Strangers, who are aliens conducting psychological experiments on the inhabitants of Dark City, humans abducted from Earth and brought to a massive space station orbiting a distant star. John has developed immense psychokinetic powers (called tuning) - like those possessed by the Strangers - and he uses them to liberate Dark City. The end.

Our protagonist is tormented by his lack of a past. The partial memories he has - he woke up during the implantation, so it was not completed - were those of a killer, driven to murder women due to his wife, lounger singer Emma (Jennifer Connelly), cheating on him. These fragments initially propel him on his journey of discovery. His obsession with the past - exemplified by memories of a place called Shell Beach - is what drives him. In doing so, he realizes that all memory in Dark City is a lie. The truth does offer enlightenment; but at the price of authentic identity. Bumstead is also obsessed, fist with finding Murdoch when he believes he is a killer, and, eventually with finding out the truth of Dark City. When he does, it is fatal for him. Again, truth becomes is both liberating and destructive. Dr. Schreber, as an agent of both truth (in that he helps John) and lies (because he creates the false memory templates and administers them for the Strangers), is also haunted by the what the aliens did to him. After kidnapping their specimens, they decided to use him as their "memory engineer" since he understood humans and they did not. They forced him to delete all parts of his past not related to his scientific knowledge,leaving him knowing more of the truth than anyone else, but also fully aware of what he lost. And, finally, the main antagonist, Mr. Hand (the very creepy Richard O'Brien) has his own problems with memory and identity. He is injected with the same template as John Murdoch, in the hope that those memories will help the Strangers track him down. Instead, it drives Mr. Hand to commit murder and, eventually, to die, unable to exist as an individual.

The look of Dark City is an exaggeration of the heightened reality of noir. Every image is highly stylized, with most backgrounds lost in darkness, faces obscured by shadows, lights dim and barely illuminating the scenes. Even in brightly lit scenes - for example, an interior at an automat - the light is an unhealthy, sickly green. There are amazing images, including a scene of the Strangers manufacturing documents and artifacts to go along the new identities they create. And the Strangers machinery, in which they harness their "tuning" powers to remake Dark City, is beautiful, a black metal cathedral in Hell.

There are some problems with the film. Some of the CGI - particularly that of the Strangers' true form, a cross between a slug and squid - is very dated. There are plot points that don't make sense. The Strangers motivations, while explained, leave a lot of questions unanswered. For example, they are dying race, a hive mind that shares a single consciousness; it is not clear how learning about human individuality is supposed to save them. Some characters also are one dimensional, the most obvious being police detective Eddie Walenski (Colin Friels), a person who has become aware of the true nature of Dark City. It really isn't explained how he has learned so much and he really just serves as a vehicle for exposition. Also, it isn't clear how the Strangers can have a completely controlled environment, but have a hard time tracking down Murdoch. If they don't know where everyone is at all times, how are they monitoring people?

Problems aside, Dark City is an impressive film. It asks questions about identity and the meaning of truth in an interesting fashion and is full of beautiful noir imagery. Check it out.

Noir November Day 3 - Les Diaboliques (1955)

Les Diabolique starts with A bright white paper boat floating serenely in a mud puddle, only to be smashed by the wheels of a truck. This is an apt metaphor for the damaged characters who populate the film. Each has been crushed and distorted by a combination of lust, greed, fear, weakness and violence. It is also significant in that water plays an early, symbolic role in a film that is centered on tubs and pools.

Spoilers follow.

Christina Delassalle (Véra Clouzot) and Nicole Horner (Simone Signoret) are teachers at a run-down private school for boys. The headmaster, Michel (Paul Meurisse), is Christina's husband and Horner's lover, a relationship that he flaunts. In short order, the audience is shown that he is physically, emotionally and sexually abusive to both women. The audience also learns that they are conspiring to do something about him. What isn't clear until later in the film, is that the "something" is a plot to drug and drown him at Horner's home, over a holiday weekend. They appear to succeed, transporting Michel's body back to the school and dumping it in the pool, hoping to pass his death off as an accident. However, when the pool is drained and the body isn't there, the nerves of the two women begin to fray. Is someone playing a game with them, is Michel really dead or is his ghost haunting the killers?

Les Diaboliques is best known for its twist ending, one which I won't reveal, although it is not as surprising or shocking today as it may have been in 1955, a testament to the impact the film had on subsequent cinema. An amusing side note: Les Diaboliques concludes with an end title asking viewers not to tell people who haven't seen the film how it ends. Spoilers were a problem even 58 years ago.

Beyond the ending, there is a rich, rewarding film. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic; abused Christina is the person most people will identify with and she does have good cause to kill her husband...except, why not just divorce him? She says it is because she is Catholic; but she plans to murder him. It's been a while since Sunday school, but I think murder trumps divorce as a sin.

Paul Meurisse smooth acting gives Michel a slimy charm. He is superficially attractive; however, he is such a violent, repulsive person - casually raping his wife, giving his mistress a black eye, shoving his affair in Christina's face, inflicting petty torments on the staff and students - that he begins to slip into the mode of a caricature. This is important, as it keeps our sympathies, such as they are, with the killers. If anyone deserves to die, it is him. It also raises some questions about Nicole's overall motivation, as revealed in the finale, one of the few weak points in the film.

Both Clouzot and Signoret are captivating in their roles as the abused damsel-in-distress and femme fatale, respectively. Clouzot believably pulls off the shifts from fragile and doll like (her primary characteristics) to resolved (on a few occasions) believably enough. She also conveys the role of follower - whether to domineering Michel or take-charge Nicole - well. Signoret, beautiful and ice-cold, is perfect as a personification of Christina's independence and willpower, damaged as it may. What Nicole get's out of the relationship is a little less clear, although one scene near the end, where Nicole tells Christina they should leave the school together and Christina rejects her, hints at a relationship that is not just a friendship born of necessity and hardship. While based on undertones and interpretation rather than clear plot-points, there is some indication that they are lovers. If so, this clearly shows that Christina is evolving as a character, killing one domineering (and abusive) lover and ultimately rejecting another (although Nicole is not physically abusive towards Christina).

The film itself is filled with great moments, both scenes and images. There is a disturbing dinner where Michel forces his wife to eat a piece of fish while the staff and students look on that conveys the discomfort that everyone around Michel feels toward shim...and that none of them will stand up to him. A scene late in the film has Christina walking down a dark corridor of the school, her white nightgown slowly becoming the only thing clearly visible, emerging from the shadows like a ghost. A sequence at Nicole's home shows how the signs of the murder are interpreted by others. While she fills a bathtub to drown Michel in, her upstairs tenants complain about the pipes making so much noise late at night, while they are tying to listen to the radio. Scenes like this abound in the film, creating a complex environment for the story and one that repays close viewing and analysis.

There some plot-holes, mostly having to do with the ending and therefore something I won't go into. On second viewing, some of these are cleared up, but only because the viewer now has the complete story and can fill in some of the blanks and overlook some unexplained parts of the plot. Also, the finale includes a reveal that relies so heavily on exposition that it wouldn't seem out of place at the end of a Scooby Doo episode, a rare moment of clumsy writing. Les Diaboliques is a classic for a good reason; it is a masterpiece of film, a merging of story, acting, sound and images that creates a world of such depth and complexity that one can overlook the plot-holes. See it immediately, both to enjoy a great noir film and to see where many tropes of the thriller movie genre were popularized.

One Paragraph Review - Olympus Has Fallen (2013)

Netflix is now carrying Olympus Has Fallen, so I decided to check it out. What a terrible movie. There are some decent action sequences, but even these lack much of a sense of logic. The acting is bad (and there was a pretty good cast). The effects are pretty good, although there are numerous technical inaccuracies. Basically, the North Koreans attack the White House, in order to use a fail-safe system in our nuclear arsenal to blow up all of our missile, devastating America. Gerard Butler is a lone Secret Service agent trapped in the White House, who kills dozens of people and saves the President (Aaron Eckhart). Meanwhile, acting president Morgan Freeman (as the Speaker of the House) pretty much surrenders to the North Koreans. But, no worries, Butler saves the day, Eckhart gives a speech about how the attack will bring Americans together - I assume we will all be together in the our desire to nuke North Korea - and then the movie just ends. There are no apparent repercussions, not much of a plan by the NorKors (the fail-safe system needs 3 security codes; if no one gives them up, their plan ends with Pyongyang a glowing crater), and stupid, senseless decisions by most of the characters that makes holding on to your suspension of disbelief almost impossible. For the $70 million dollars they spent on this loud, moronic mess, maybe they should have bought a story that made sense. If you have Netflix, there are some decent action sequences to watch. Otherwise, avoid.

Noir November - Day 2 - The Sniper (1952)

"A word about the picture which follows: High among police problems is that of the sex criminal, responsible last year alone for offenses which victimized 31, 175 women. Adequate and understanding laws do not exist. Law enforcement is helpless. Here, in terms of one case, is the story of a man whose enemy is womankind."

And that's just the opening titles for The Sniper. We then cut to a dingy one bedroom apartment. Even before we see the antagonist, we see his rifle, as he opens a locked drawer revealing the shiny black gun.

Played by Arthur Franz, Eddie looks like a normal guy; but, of course he is not. As the titles state, this is a movie about a man who hates women. Within a few moments of the opening, we see him take aim through the rifle's telescopic sight at an attractive brunette across the street, as she kisses a man. He pulls the trigger. The gun dry clicks; empty. A not too subtle comment on his own sexual performance problems?

While walking the streets of the city later that night, Eddie encounters other women (all dark haired) who reinforce his psychosis. A tall brunette tells her friend how she is happy to be rid of her boyfriend, that their are "plenty of fish in the sea." A moment later, a mother strikes her crying son, causing Eddie to wince and reach for his own cheek. Mostly through visuals, we are given a quick tour of his psyche. The gun is his sexuality, empty and impotent. Women are the enemy, creatures who callously use men or beat their children, something Eddie was apparently subjected to by his mother.

While these scenes are not subtle, they are handled efficiently and without resorting to exposition. We have no scene of Eddie blubbering about his mother, cursing the fairer sex or, at this stage, saying anything at all. As he roams through a city park, all he sees are happy couples. The city - San Francisco - is awash in sexuality, a far cry from the image of the 1950s as a neo-Victorian, family-values era.

The first words from Eddie are when he calls an operator and ask for the "State prison at Huntsberg." Here is a man we already saw "hunting" even if only vicariously. Has he killed yet? Or, are his violent feelings still kept in a prison? He is calling to talk to a prison doctor, about a matter of life and death. It is clear that Eddie is on the verge of some kind of breakdown, that the doctor was helping keep the hunting urge, the violence, locked away. No one is available to help, a recurring theme.

Eddie rushes back to his apartment and in an intense scene, turns on his hot plate and jams his hand onto it. The shot is beautiful, with the camera in the position of the burner, the radiant heat causing a shadow of Eddie's hand to fall on the ceiling. Later, in the hospital, he is told by the doctor tending to his hand that a stove is something for "women" and that he needs a wife, even though they "have you coming and going." The doctor knows the burn is self-inflicted. He tells the doctor that he was in the "psycho ward" while in prison and that he was there for assaulting a woman. Eddie wants to be locked up; but the hospital staff releases him due to laziness and being distracted by a sudden rush of patients.

The next day, we join Eddie on his job, as a delivery man for a dry cleaning company. He makes a delivery to one of his customers, the attractive Jean Darr (Marie Windsor). Eddie obviously is attracted to her; something she doesn't realize. She innocently compliments him and even flirts a little. Eddie doesn't take it well when her boyfriend shows up, although only we see his violent outburst.

Marie Windsor

Later, Eddie stalks Jean in a beautiful nighttime scene. The city seems deserted except for hunter and prey. Jean is all in black, like a free roaming shadow. Eddie follows her to a neighborhood dive where she works as a piano player and sets up a sniping position on a roof. This is another great shot, with a nice depth of field. While he is in the foreground, behind him, we see the bar and the pedestrians. As he loads his gun, we get a sense of how he must feel when he has his gun, bigger and above the people he fears and hates.

As she leaves the bar, she halts for a moment in front of an illuminated poster of herself. We hear a shot and she collapses, dead. Eddie has taken his first life, a woman he had coveted, his first obsession, consummated with a bullet.

After the police show up, we are introduced to the protagonists, police Lieutenant Frank Kafka (Adolphe Menjou) and Sergeant Joe Ferris (Gerald Mohr). We are also treated to a nice bit of symbolism. As Jean's body is wheeled out of frame, the light over her poster goes out.

Eddie takes one of the dresses that she had dry-cleaned and places it in the drawer with his gun, the repository for his fears and desires. He later burns the dress with a mix of glee and anguish on his face. His life is one of constant rejection, even by children. When he innocently tosses one a ball during street baseball game he "ruins it" according to a dark haired teenaged girl.

He sends a note the police, telling them to find and stop him before he kills again. But he does kill again, shooting a woman who had flirted with him - then rejected him - in a bar earlier in the film. The scene is stunning in its intensity. The camera watches her in her room through a window as she prepares for bed. A single note is played the entire scene. We see what Eddie sees, even though we never see him (the camera follows her up the street, into her home and then remains fixed on the room) or where he is located. We know that a shot is coming; but the scene plays longer than our expectations would be. a masterful moment by Edward Dmytyk, a director who knows the language of images.

As the police investigation proceeds, a police psychologist - Dr. James Kent (Richard Kiley) - is introduced to provide psychological insight, including a profile that fits Eddie's psychosis. He also provides the film's only slow point. He gives a dull, long-winded speech extolling the virtues of early treatment - or indefinite incarceration - of sex offenders. While not necessarily wrong as public policy, it is out of place in this movie and cause a break in tension.

Arthur Franz looking for a victim in The Sniper

.After this slow section - it comes during a meeting of the mayor and a group of civic leaders that goes no where - things get moving again, as the police apprehend a young man on a roof top with a broken gun, who gives a truly disturbing rant about how he can get as many guns as he wants and how the city is full of people who hate everyone.

Eddie is behaving increasingly erratic. He successfully shoots another woman, but does a couple of things that lead the police his identity. The police stake out the dry cleaners, but Eddie is waiting on a rooftop elsewhere for his next target. He is spotted, shoots the man who saw him another visually impressive scene and flees. He makes it back to his boarding house, where the land-lady identifies him and calls the police. When Kafka and Ferris break into Eddie's room, they find him on the bed, cradling his rifle, crying. The end.

Tthis is a great movie. The story is engaging, the acting very natural and appropriate for the characters. It was shocking to see Marie Windsor killed so early. In a more conventional film, she would have been the woman Eddie obsessed over, while killing others, until finally coming after her at the end. There are no particular missteps in directing or camera work (Burnett Guffey, the director of photography, pulled similar duties on other memorable films, including Bonny and Clyde and The Violent Men). The images, whether stylized or naturalistic (such as the many scenes shot on the streets of San Francisco) are stunning and memorable.

This is a movie that any fan of the cinema should see. Both cast and crew are close to perfect, the story is straight forward, the plot compelling, and the visuals captivating. Check it out.

What Is Film Noir (To Me)

Since I'm writing about films noir this month, it's probably a good idea to define what I think makes a movie part of this genre. Coming up with an all-encompassing definition is difficult. Noir films are generally crime movies from the '40s and '50s. However, not all crime movies from the '40s and '50s are noir. And, there are films that fall outside of that date range that are what I would consider noir films. Finally, there are films in other genres (horror, science fiction, western) that are also noir movies.

I look for five general general characteristics that make film noir?

First, the visual style. While film noir can be in color (e.g., A Kiss Before Dying (1956), Vertigo (1958) and most post-50s film noir) the majority are in black and white and filmed in a stylized fashion, where the light and shadow become characters of their own. Unlike most films, where lighting is used to fully illuminate the action, in noir, what is lost in the shadow is equally as important. The lighting can be naturalistic, but is often not; it is used to maintains a sense of reality out of alignment, where the shadows are seeping into the light.

Second, characters are often morally conflicted. In some of the best noir films, there are no traditional heroes. The Asphalt Jungle (1950) is my favorite example of this. Every character, including the protagonist, Sterling Hayden, is a criminal. Hayden is a thug, someone who doesn't "reform" in the end. More traditional protagonists often have serious flaws, even if they are the hero of the film. Ralph Meeker's Mike Hammer in Kiss Me Deadly (1955) is almost as bad as his opponents, taking apparent pleasure in dispensing violence (as well as making a living blackmailing adulterous spouses).

Women in film noir are femme fatales, beautiful, alluring, strong characters, who are just as dangerous as the men. While there are women who are "good girls," many of them have their own flaws, some severe. Simone Simon, the star of the 1942 noir horror Cat People, is at best, dangerously delusional, believing she turns into a panther due to an ancient curse. AT worst, she really can turn into a panther, symbolically a "woman" unable to control her passion. (I'll have more on Cat People when I review it later this month). Female characters in noir films are often more complex than those in traditional movies of the time. A character like Marie Windsor's undercover police woman in The Narrow Margin (1952) is rich and complex, one that has multiple layers and is three-dimensional. Many other female roles are similarly complex in films of this genre.

Third, obsession is a common theme. Most of the characters want something, to the point that they will do anything to get it. This obsession leads them - protagonist and antagonist alike - to bend the rules of society...or break them. This is important, as obsession plays off the visual styles - of the shadows of relentless obsession overcoming the better light of a more balanced approach to life and of the stark imagery denoting how the characters see the world. It is a place of things to possess in a very black and white, zero-sum manner. The characters, often full of passions (whether obvious or smoldering just beneath the surface) have a focus. It can be a Maltese Falcon, a faded Hollywood career (1950's Sunset Boulevard) or a quest for one's true identity in a surreal city of perpetual night (1998's Dark City). It doesn't matter what the thing is, as long as there is an obsession that will overwhelm the character's moral center as they struggle to possess it.

Fourth, most film noir have an urban setting. Not all, of course; for example, Key Largo (1948) is set in a hotel in the Florida Keys and Red River (the 1948 Howard Hawks masterpiece) takes place on the trail of a cattle drive in the late-19th century. Most of the movies in this genre, however, are set in cities, in urban jungles as dangerous as any wilderness. The ultimate expression of the noir city is seen in Blade Runner (1982). Los Angeles of 2019 is a vast metropolis of megastructures, almost always seen at night and in the rain.

The urban setting is important as it becomes a character it its own right. The great cities of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are the usual settings for noir films, representing the pinnacle of America's urban/industrial power in the mid-20th century. Significantly, they are also, home to thieves, corrupt cops, drunks and floozies, a man-made eco-system of predators and prey.

Fifth, while noir films do exist outside of the 1940s and 1950s, the closer you get to modern cinema, the more you see that many of the defining characteristics of film nor have metastasized throughout the cinema. This is particularly true of the morally ambiguous characters, which are now standard for movies of all genres. While I will look at some movies outside these two decades, they are fewer and in some cases (Like Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000)) they are conscious homages to the noir genre and, therefore, of a different nature than the films they imitate.

A stylized look, where the interplay of light and shadow creates a sense of reality out of balance, characters who are morally ambiguous and motivated by consuming obsessions, a setting that depicts the greatest accomplishments of our civilization - the cities - as dangerous "asphalt jungles," where you are either predator or prey (and often times both). All of these things go into making a film noir...at least from my point of view.

Noir November - Day 1 - The Killer That Stalked New York (1950)

The Killer That Stalked New York is an interesting film, a combination low-life character study/medical thriller. While the two story-lines don't completely mesh, they do unfold with an urgency that is engaging. The movie is also populated with a lot of colorful characters (and well-known character actors) and benefits from some inventive camera work and a partially documentary feel (at least the scenes that deal with the medical story).

(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

Sheila Bennet (Evelyn Keyes) an attractive blonde, is returning to New York City after working in Cuba as a night club singer. She is also smuggling diamonds into the country for her husband, Matt (Charles Korvin). Unknown to her, she has also become infected with smallpox.

She arrives by train at Penn Station, followed by a customs official, Treasury Agent (repeatedly referred to as a "T-Man" in the narration) Johnson (Barry Kelly). Sheila calls her husband - who is sleeping with her sister, Francie (Lola Albright, who was later in an awesome sci-fi movie The Monolith Monsters) - and gives Agent Johnson the slip.

She starts feeling sick and is brought to a neighborhood clinic by a police officer, where the protagonist is introduced, Doctor Ben Wood (William Bishop). He sends her on her way with some cough syrup. Soon, smallpox cases are showing up in the hospitals. Wood and the city government try to halt the spread, while Sheila, after being abandoned by her husband once he has the diamonds, spends the rest of the movie trying to locate him. After her sister comes to a tragic end, Sheila's goal changes to murder.

In the finale, everyone's paths cross, mass vaccination stops the disease from wiping out the city, Matt comes to a well-deserved bad end and Sheila, before expiring, helps Dr. Wood by telling him of everyone she had contact with. The end.

The most significant problem with this movie are the two stories. They do inter-relate in broad terms; it is Sheila's movements that spread the disease and her motivations - first to avoid the police, then to kill her husband - that keep her from going to a hospital as she becomes increasingly ill. However, most of the details of the Sheila story are melodramatic and uninteresting compared to the other story, the attempt to organize a response to the disease and Dr. Wood's grappling with his own fears, exemplified by one scene where he imagines New York City, empty of people, decimated by smallpox.

The smallpox story has some fascinating little touches, which led to the documentary feel. There is a brief scene at a US Army disease research center, where tissue samples have been sent to confirm the disease is smallpox, that is a forerunner of every lab scene in every police procedural and disease movie and TV show, where 1950 state-of-art technology is on display. Another scene that has a very "real-world" feel deals with local vaccine producers telling the mayor (Roy Roberts) they can't provide all the vaccine he wants because of health regulations. After he tells them to ignore the regulations they all look like they're calculating how much they're going to lose in the post-crisis law suits.

There are a lot of memorable bit characters as well. Jim Backus plays a sleazy, borderline rapey, bar owner. Seeing Mr. Howell trying to force himself on Sheila is a little traumatic for a child of Gilligan's Island. Connie Gilchrist channels every nosy landlady stereotype, while delivering important life lessons to Sheila - "Matt's a cheating bum...now where's my rent." Most of the supporting cast is similar, having a few scenes to create a memorable, if one-note character.

What makes this a film noir? Dr. Wood's story really isn't "noir." If stripped of the diamond smuggling/desperate criminals and losers story, it would be a pretty straight-forward medical thriller. It is even shot is a flatter, less stylistic manner, helping create the feeling of watching a documentary. The characters behave believably as city officials and health care professionals trying to halt the disease, first while withholding the truth form the public, then with a mass vaccination campaign.

Sheila's story is where the noir elements come in. Like all good femme fatales, she is beautiful and corrupt. She has no heart of gold; she really is a low life, corrupted by Matt. Their story is one of shady deals and, from Shiela's perspective, obsessive passion. Even after she finds out that Matt has slept with her sister, after her sister kills herself over the affair and Sheila has vowed to kill Matt in revenge she still calls out to him desperately, as he falls to his death. Obsession is a constant theme in noir; it is obsession that turns people away from a balanced "good" life.

It is also in Sheila's story that we get more of the traditional noir images. There is one stylized shot of her, emerging from her hotel at night, trying to avoid Agent Johnson, standing in the dark street, where everything is black except for her and the neon signs. She is a lone figure, trapped in a shadowy realm, where only the artificial lights promising tawdry entertainments burn through the darkness. Sheila's scenes are grittier, taking place in flophouses and bars, while Dr. Woods is in brightly-lit hospitals and offices, creating a visual environment for each character that reflects their characters. It is telling that the last scene featuring the two leads takes place at night, first in a dark office and then on a building ledge, where Wood has to rescue Sheila and bring her, if only briefly, out of her world and into his.

While the movie does suffer form the story issues already mentioned, The Killer That Stalked New York is worth watching. It's medical thriller story is well-developed and all of the characters, while mostly one-dimensional, benefit from a good cast. Check it out.

Resuming Transmission 5 November

Noir November begins on the fifth with five reviews.  I'm currently getting my groove on at the Voodoo Music Festival, which means 12 hours rocking out, followed by booze and sleep.  So, check back in a few days for tales of desperate men and dangerous dames.