I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.

So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.

This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).

Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment


OK, it's easy not to confuse this with the lame Stuart Gordon movie called "Death Bed" that came out a few years back, because this one is "The Bed That Eats". And how do I even begin to describe this? Well, for starters, obviously there is a bed that eats. This is as a result of demon teardrops, which of course affect most things, I guess, in a negative way. The bed is in some old servant's quarters or something, and has been responsible for the disappearances of quite a few people in its time. We have a narrator, who is a ghost that sits in the wall behind a painting, and collects all the non-edible goodies (jewelry, etc) that the bed passes on. He died of consumption, one of the few people to lay in the bed that didn't get eaten, probably because he was sick, he theorizes, as we see him hacking blood into hankies.....bleah. The thing about this movie is that is has a very odd sense of humor to it but it's all played pretty deadpan. The movie is divided into several "acts", I guess, "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, & Just Desserts". For fans of the unfathomably weird and bizarre, well, this may just be right up your alley. All I can say is you have to see this one to believe it, it pretty well defies description. 8 out of 10 stars.


Hmmmm. I'm kinda at a loss here. I mean, I know I liked Death Bed, I know I'll be spreading the gospel of Death Bed to all my friends and acquaintances, and if you're reading this, I urge you to see Death Bed, but I can't really say why. Perhaps that's the secret of its charm.

Plot? Well, sort of. There's this bed that eats people (and fried chicken, apples, flowers, suitcases, and any other darn thing that gets near it) by sucking them inside its digestive-fluid filled mattress. Amongst its near-limitless powers, Bed has the ability to keep the spirit of Aubrey Beardsley trapped behind a picture to observe and narrate the events of the film. Various people then wind up at Bed's abandoned mansion (Bed's habit of eating anything that moves gave the place an unsavory reputation), and lay down to have sex, or take a nap, or because they don't feel well, and get eaten, sometimes having trippy dreams first. And in the end we have the explosive final confrontation between Beardsley, Bed's mom (you had to be there), and Bed.

Seems rather straightforward, when I put it like that, doesn't it - well, except for the Aubrey Beardsley part. But something feels constantly off-kilter, and the story seems to glide sleepily from one scene to the next, even when indulging in cheap laughs or strange gore effects. Imagine Bunel crossed with Bergman, then left to soak in a big vat of Herschell Gordon Lewis. The tone of the story shifts from horror, to fairy tale, to comedy, to existential meditation, without breaking stride - an incredible achievement for a no-budget student film shot in the Detroit area.

All in all, an astounding little film that, quite probably, no review can ever completely do justice. See it for yourself.


A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped "inside" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.

A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind.


George Barry is a genius. "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a prototype for much of the 'slipstream' fiction and camp surrealism that is so chic now. Truly innovative, maverick, and just effing brilliant. Hyper-strange acting, subtly nightmarish atmosphere. I recommend reading Stephen Thrower's book "Nightmare USA" (there is a chapter devoted to Barry and "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats"). Available from FAB Press. On a related note, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" and "Beyond Dream's Door" make a perfect double-bill. Furthermore, it's trite and tired - and ultimately stupidly ironic - to criticize a low-budget cult film for being 'poorly made' or 'technically inept.' The B-movie aesthetic is part of these films' charm. No amount of CGI could duplicate the cumulative effect "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" has on the viewer with an advanced palate.


"Death Bed:The Bed That Eats" is a supremely bizarre horror film that truly has to be seen to be believed.There is an ancient four-poster bed that just loves to eat humans and it does so anytime it can lure anyone to lie upon it.There is also a long-dead artist,imprisoned behind one of his paintings,who provides a voice-over narration.George Barry's the first and only one film offers some truly surreal moments such as the bed absorbing its victims in a mysterious sea of yellow foam and liquid.The atmosphere is dreamy and there is only a little bit of gore,unfortunately the premise is rather silly and the acting is amateurish.Still as fan of unusual cinema I enjoyed this low-budget oddity.Give it a chance.8 out of 10.


This film plunges headlong into the realm of the surreal à la Lynch and Jodorowsky--with an atmosphere that is strangely compelling, lulling the viewer with the dream-like intensity of its images.

The narration is to be savoured--the narrator being trapped behind a painting (adjacent to the bed), who often speaks for it, vocalizing its desires and reasoning. Yes, Beardsley would sound like that.

There are some flaws, but its strengths overwhelm its weaknesses. The sequence with the woman wrenching herself out of the bed and crawling across the floor, trying to escape, will leave you breathless.

The film possesses a fin-de-siecle air about it; and should be read as a disarming cry from the bowels of the 20th century.

Find this film and bathe in it.


I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of "so stupid it's funny" films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself "what the hell is this bed/film going to do next!" I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic.


I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.

Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.

The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.


Death bed: The bed that eats.

Judging from the title, you can guess what this movie is about. And yet there is a lot more (background) story to this film then one might suspect.

Okay, so the main plot is about a bed eating people and food, but there are also a few subplots. I won't spoil them for you, but they're a nice touch.

Sadly, the acting in this movie is very mediocre. The fact that most dialog is not even spoken by the actors doesn't really help to improve the quality of the movie as a whole.

Because there is a lot of voice-over work. The thoughts of characters are also revealed to the watchers. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The effects are fine. Sure, it could be a lot better if you compare it with today's movies. But you really shouldn't; just judge the movie as it is and don't take it too seriously. You have to admit that a killer BED is quite creative. If you are easily spooked, don't watch this movie. You might never want to sleep again...

Death Bed: The bed that eats is a strange horror gem with a low budget, but I'd still recommend it to fans of horror movies.

In conclusion, I give this movie a 7 out of 10 stars for it's creative story and unexpected twists here and there.


As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats".

The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.

"Death Bed" is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.

The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric "midnight movie" quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist / narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!

This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.

If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, "Death Bed" may be just what you've got in mind.

7/10


This is seriously one of the best low budget, B movies that I have ever seen. I am not one to stand up and cheer during a movie, but this one was definitely worth it. Obviously the premise is that there is a bed that eats people, well...eats is a subjective term I guess, it really secretes acid bubbles to suck the victims into itself and dissolves them in it's acidy goodness. The best part of this movie is that William Russ is one of the main characters. The typical family man actually started his career with this movie...and an afro. There is plenty of nudity in this flick, so obviously not for the children, but that should not deter anyone from seeing this movie. It is my belief that everyone needs a little Death Bed in their lives at some point or other, it's best to get it sooner than later.


A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.

Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following

-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?

-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?

-What the hell am I watching?

"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.

In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much.


I can honestly say that "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" was a much better movie than I expected. Allow me to clarify the plot in case the title of the film is a little too vague - there is a bed that eats. An evil bed. It eats people. Several unsuspecting women on an "outing" of some kind, stumble across the sinister "sack" and ultimately fall prey to it's hunger. The bed's devouring process consists of a yellow foam soaking people into it's inner... stomach acid; all complete with chewing sounds. This is a very strange cult flick and the only film from George Barry who had forgotten he made it until word-of-mouth of it's newfound cult status got back to him and he decided to release it on DVD. Not a bad movie at all, if you can look past the lousy acting and enjoy the hokey effects - the most laughable being the guy whose hands are eaten off and he is left with only plastic looking skeletal fingers... Pretty dreamlike tone to it, too, coming across as very surreal and aberrant - mainly the whole thing involving the artist behind the painting and the demonic back story of the bed. If you like bizarre no-budget, oddball flicks than definitely seek out "Death Bed".


Watching "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is like waking up in the hospital, two days into a suicide

watch, disorienting but oddly stimulating. There are few cinematic equivalents to this disturbing yet often humorous lesson in mythology, morality and surrealist ideology.

Cocteau's "Blood of a Poet" and Maya Deren's

experimental works evoke a taste of the strange atmosphere found in DEATH BED. A close comparison are the dark adult fairy-tales by literary genius- author Angela Carter, the short disturbing stories of Unica

Zurn or E.T.A. Hoffman.

DEATH BED has many recognizable elements of the

past, but displays a wholly unique and original storyline.

As a story, DEATH BED is an amazingly simple yet original

vision, something which only one-in-a-thousand independent releases will manage to accomplish. This unassuming film has its technical flaws but overcomes them all with a cast of beautiful non-actors

and lost creepy locations- a true 1970s independent classic.

DEATH BED also displays a unique, subversive, 3-dimensional personality-- a deep and continuous layering of dream images and ideas that lend it a "fun-house" type of construct. The passage of time told in flashbacks and historic time travelogues, the bed with its sinister black humor, the rich yet understated symbolism used within its imagery. Most pleasing is the image of Aubrey Beardsly, the suffering artist, forever trapped inside the frame of his own painting as he comments on and fondles with the murdered victim "offerings" gifted to him as love offerings by the demented bed's spirit. -- A sick refrain and wonderful element /metaphor for the "trapped artist" -- Nothing but the weirdest in POE or MALLARME can equal that.

Anyone who values the spirit of independent cinema and craves the multi-layered symbolist experience, or craves the Surrealist concept of "convulsive

beauty" and the Gothic-horror leanings of low budget exploitation film-making will dig this totally unique vision. A simple and fun film with deliciously deep psychic undercurrents. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. *****


George Barry's "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is, at root, a dark fairy tale told via a horror-movie framework. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the 1970s, and it's downright criminal that the picture was basically stolen and distributed without Barry's knowledge (those responsible for this theft should be fed to the bed, ASAP). If you're looking for overt gore or rabid action, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" isn't the flick for you. "Death Bed" is a gentler, weirder drive-in picture; it plays like an utterly strange dream, half-remembered. I'd recommend reading Stephen Thrower's summation of "Death Bed" in Thrower's FAB Press book, "Nightmare USA" (he describes the movie's vibe perfectly). Whether intentional or not, I've noticed shades of "Death Bed" in everything from the "Phantasm" films to Michele Soavi's "Cemetery Man" to the magic-realism/slipstream fiction of authors such as Kelly Link. Barry is an original and in a fair world I'm sure he would've followed "Death Bed" with a number of fantastically bizarre films.


Never has the words "hidden gem" been so accurate. Bad movie lovers might search all over for the next hidden obscurity, sometimes coming up short with stuff like Weasels rip my flesh, but other times, luck will prevail and you might end up with something like Death Bed, then hopefully realizing it's not a bad movie at all, it just has a bad title, and not even a bad title, but a humorous one that might throw you off, but Somehow Death Bed still fits into the "bad" category. With a vibe that's somber and empty, Death Bed is a true masterpiece of low-budget horror, reserved only for those fortunate enough to appreciate such a dark shadow of a vision.

Death Bed involves an incoherent, yet intriguing relationship between a demon in the bed and the sympathetic ghost trapped in the portrait, who only wishes he could spare someone from the awful fate of being devoured by the yellow suds. Although not all that scary, considering it's about a killer bed, Death Bed possesses the qualities that make for successful horror. A dark, desolate vibe, confusion, an eerie, subtle score and that dream quality that this masterpiece almost flaunts. Such a quality, or vibe usually seems unintentional. Not only is it intentional, but from what I've read, Death Bed is based on an actual dream, George Barry, the director, successfully transferred dream to film, only a genius could accomplish such a task.

Old mansions make for good quality horror, as do portraits, not sure what to make of the killer bed with its killer yellow liquid, quite a bizarre dream, indeed. Also, this isn't quite the brand of B-horror I was expecting, considering the title and all. Before viewing this Gothic gem I expected something more like Class Reunion Massacre, now thats a bad movie, if you've seen it, you know what I'm saying. After considering all of the above, I feel like Death Bed deserves only eight stars, but since it stayed so obscure for so long We'll say the bed that eats deserves nine.


Taut and organically gripping, Edward Dmytryk's Crossfire is a distinctive suspense thriller, an unlikely "message" movie using the look and devices of the noir cycle.

Bivouacked in Washington, DC, a company of soldiers cope with their restlessness by hanging out in bars. Three of them end up at a stranger's apartment where Robert Ryan, drunk and belligerent, beats their host (Sam Levene) to death because he happens to be Jewish. Police detective Robert Young investigates with the help of Robert Mitchum, who's assigned to Ryan's outfit. Suspicion falls on the second of the three (George Cooper), who has vanished. Ryan slays the third buddy (Steve Brodie) to insure his silence before Young closes in.

Abetted by a superior script by John Paxton, Dmytryk draws precise performances from his three starring Bobs. Ryan, naturally, does his prototypical Angry White Male (and to the hilt), while Mitchum underplays with his characteristic alert nonchalance (his role, however, is not central); Young may never have been better. Gloria Grahame gives her first fully-fledged rendition of the smart-mouthed, vulnerable tramp, and, as a sad sack who's leeched into her life, Paul Kelly haunts us in a small, peripheral role that he makes memorable.

The politically engaged Dmytryk perhaps inevitably succumbs to sermonizing, but it's pretty much confined to Young's reminiscence of how his Irish grandfather died at the hands of bigots a century earlier (thus, incidentally, stretching chronology to the limit). At least there's no attempt to render an explanation, however glib, of why Ryan hates Jews (and hillbillies and...).

Curiously, Crossfire survives even the major change wrought upon it -- the novel it's based on (Richard Brooks' The Brick Foxhole) dealt with a gay-bashing murder. But homosexuality in 1947 was still Beyond The Pale. News of the Holocaust had, however, begun to emerge from the ashes of Europe, so Hollywood felt emboldened to register its protest against anti-Semitism (the studios always quaked at the prospect of offending any potential ticket buyer).

But while the change from homophobia to anti-Semitism works in general, the specifics don't fit so smoothly. The victim's chatting up a lonesome, drunk young soldier then inviting him back home looks odd, even though (or especially since) there's a girlfriend in tow. It raises the question whether this scenario was retained inadvertently or left in as a discreet tip-off to the original engine generating Ryan's murderous rage.


Edward Dmytryk directed this shadowy movie about a murder investigation involving demobilized military personnel. Robert Young gets to lecture us about hatred, Robert Mitchum walks through most of this picture, and Gloria Grahame revisits the feistiness she exhibited in "It's A Wonderful Life." It's Robert Ryan who gets at the heart of the matter: anti-semiticism. He goes so deep into his role as Monty Montgomery (Imagine parents named Lawrence calling their son Larry!), that the drama sits squarely on his shoulders, and he is more than up to the challenge. Without him, the movie would be commonplace. Ryan has played a number of memorable villains in his day ("Bad Day at Black Rock;" "Billy Budd"), but this performance put him on the map. With Sam Levene as the murder victim.


As a rule, there are few things more dispiriting than Hollywood's attempts to be courageous. Mixing caution with heavy-handedness, "message movies" pat themselves loudly on the back for daring to tackle major problems. CROSSFIRE is not entirely free from this taint; it includes a sermon on the nature of senseless hatred that is embarrassingly obvious, assuming a level of naivity in its audience that's depressing to contemplate. As late as 1947, it was a big deal for a movie to announce that anti-Semitism existed, and that it was bad. (It was unthinkable, of course, for Hollywood to address the real subject of the book on which the movie was basedits victim was a homosexual.) Nevertheless, thanks to good writing and excellent acting, CROSSFIRE remains a persuasive examination of what we would now call a hate crime.

Postwar malaise was one of the major components of film noir, and CROSSFIRE addresses it directly. The film is set in Washington, D.C. among soldiers still in uniform but idle, spending their days playing poker and bar-crawling. Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), an intelligent and kindly Jew, explains that the end of the war has created a void: all the energy that went into hating and fighting the enemy is now unfocused and bottled up. Samuels meets three soldiers in a bar: the sensitive Mitchell, who is close to a nervous breakdown, the weak-willed Floyd Bowers, and Montgomery, a tall, overbearing bully who nastily belittles a young soldier from Tennessee as a stupid hillbilly. The three soldiers wind up at Samuels' apartment, where the drunken Monty becomes increasingly abusive, calling his host "Jew-boy." Samuels is beaten to death, and Mitchell disappears, making himself the prime suspect for the killing.

Unraveling the crime are Detective Finlay (Robert Young), dry and by-the-book, and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum), a thoughtful and experienced friend who knows Mitchell is incapable of murder. Among the pieces of the puzzle are Ginny (Gloria Grahame), a nightclub hostess who met Mitchell and gave him her apartment key, and Floyd (Steve Brodie), who as a witness to the crime holes up terrified in a seedy rooming house. While there is no real "whodunit" suspense, the story remains gripping, and the trap laid for the killer is extremely clever.

The strong noir atmosphere saves the movie from feeling didactic or sanctimonious. The cinematography is a striking shadow-play, with inky darks and harsh lights, rooms often lit by a single lamp filtered by cigarette smoke. World-weariness is as pervasive as noir lighting. "Nothing interests me," Finlay says quietly; "To nothing," is Ginny's toast in the nightclub. Gloria Grahame, the paragon of noir femininity, nearly steals the movie with her two scenes. Platinum-blonde, jaded and caustic, she's the quintessential B-girl, poisoned by the "stinking gin mill" where she works ("for laughs," she says bitterly), her sweet face curdling when Mitchell tells her that she reminds him of his wife. Now and then a wistful kindness peeks through her defensive shell, as when she dances with Mitchell in a deserted courtyard, then offers to cook him spaghetti at her apartment. When he goes there, he meets a weasely, crumple-faced man (Paul Kelly) who seems to sponge off Ginny, and whose conversation is a dense layering of lies and false confessions. Gloria blows Mitchell's good-girl wife off the screen in a scene where she's asked to give Mitchell an alibi. Slim and frail in her bathrobe, with her girlish lisp, she lets us see just how often Ginny has been insulted and dismissed as a tramp.

Robert Young is a nondescript actor, and he stands no chance against Mitchum's charisma, but he does a good job of keeping his pipe-smoking character, saddled with delivering the movie's earnest message, this side of pompousness. Mitchum, meanwhile, gets some cool dialogue, but not nearly enough to do; still, even when he's doing nothing but lounging in a corner you can't take your eyes off him. The third Robert, Ryan, creates a fully shaded and frighteningly convincing portrait of an ignorant, unstable bigot; we see his phony geniality, his bullying, his resentment of anyone with advantages, his "Am I right or am I right?" smugness; how easily he slaps labels on people and what satisfaction he gets from despising them.

CROSSFIRE's message seems cautious and dated now, though not nearly so much as the same year's A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Finlay's speech about bigotry cops out by reaching back a hundred years for an instance of white victimhood, reminding us that Irish Catholics were once persecuted; next it could be people from Tennessee, he says, or men who wear striped neckties. Or maybe blacks, or Japanese, or homosexuals, or communists? The script seems afraid to mention any real contemporary problems. It sweetens its message by making the Jewish victim saintly, as though his innocence were not sufficient; and it takes care to exonerate the military, having a superior officer declare that the army is ashamed of men like Montgomery, and stressing that Samuels served honorably in the war. Still, it did take some guts to depict, immediately after World War II, an American who might have been happier in the Nazi army, and the movie's basic premise is still valid. If Monty were alive today, he would have gone out on September 12, 2001, and beat up a Sikh.


Definitely a "must see" for all fans of film noir.

Thanks to a fine script and crisp, razor sharp direction a top cast comes together and works like a well oiled clock to produce a crackerjack psychological thriller.

Wonderful characterizations articulate the movie's powerful message of racial and religious tolerance. It's difficult and almost unjust to single out any one particular performance because there isn't a weak link in the entire company but Robert Ryan as the hateful and violent white supremacist is truly spine chilling.

Making this film in the 1940s would have taken a lot of courage. Now,all these years later, at a time when contemporary movies are dominated by a ridiculous over abundance of foul language, bare breasts, crummy acting and deafening soundtracks it's refreshing to get back to the basics of quality film making with a viewing treat like "Crossfire".

Another low budget gem from the Hollywood archives .


A bigoted soldier kills a man for being Jewish and tries to pin it on a fellow soldier. Not as good as the novel it was based on ("The Brick Foxhole") in which it was a gay man who was killed...but Hollywood wouldn't touch that in 1947. That said, it's still a very good film. The anti-Semitism is handled very well, but it's hammered into the audience that bigotry is bad...well duh! But this was 1947. The picture is well-acted by the entire cast (especially Robert Young and Robert Ryan) and the tone is very dark...as it should be. Very atmospheric too. A deserved big hit in its day...well worth seeing.


I haven't read the source, Richard Brooks' novel "The Brick Foxhole," which I hope is not as infelicitous as its title, but I understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti Semite. (And to be honest, Sam Levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier.) But, okay, you have to go with the flow. Consider 1947. Not even anti-Semitism has been treated on screen yet. Many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves Jews but anti-Semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. So we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. Now that's REALLY unpleasant -- and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for Robert Ryan to get away with it. We are by no means free of prejudice but we've still come a long way since 1947.

Watching this again for the first time in years I was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie, the many shots of two people talking, the shadows, the time that passes between the question and the answer, the uninspired editing. But I could live with that because of the film's subject matter and because of a few other things.

One of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is Robert Ryan's performance. The guy does a splendid job. At times he can seem thoughtful, cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police -- "Any way I can help, yes sir." Then, alone or with another soldier, the simmering hatred rises to the top, not so much through what he says but the way he LOOKS. That scowl, that penetrating stare, those dark eyes glittering. Wow.

The film has taken a lot of heat because of Robert Young's preachy speech about his Grandfather's murder. That doesn't bother me at all, although I guess Dmytryk didn't have to have Young shove his face into the camera while talking about "MICKS and PAPISTS". Still, taking the context into account, it's one of the more shocking moments of the film. Part of its impact is due to Young's almost casual delivery of the message, and part of it is due to the message's not having been heard on screen before.

Another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the Paul Kelly character and his relationship to the whore Gloria Grahame. Holy Guacamole, what elliptical conversation Kelly is given to. "You know what I told you? All those things I just told you? They're all lies." His character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. It's impossible to know what to make of him. He adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence.

It's a moody, murky film. Its people live in the dark. And there is murder afoot. Practically no one screams or shouts. The horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface.

See it if you have a chance.


Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows.

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.


"Crossfire" is remembered not so much for the fact that its three stars all had the first name "Robert" but as being one of the first Hollywood films to deal with anti-semitism.

The story opens with the murder in silhouette of a man whom we later learn is a Jewish man named Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene). Pipe smoking police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) is assigned to the case. An ex-soldier, Montgomery (Robert Ryan) comes upon the murder scene and we learn through flashback that he had met Samuels in a bar along with other soldiers who were in the process of being mustered out of the service following WWII.

According to Montgomery, he and pal Floyd Bowers (Steve Brodie) had followed Samuels and Cpl. Arthur Mitchell (George Cooper) to Samuels' apartment for drinks. Montgomery tells Finlay that Mitchell left the apartment first and that he and Floyd followed soon after with Samuels still alive and well.

Unable to locate Mitchell, Finlay suspects him of the murder. He enlists Sgt. Peter Keeley (Robert Mitchum) to help him locate Mitchell. Mitchell meanwhile has been wondering the streets in a dazed state. He meets prostitute Ginny (Gloria Grahame) in a bar and strikes up a friendship. She gives him a key to her apartment and he goes there to rest. Unexpectedly a man (Paul Kelly) turns up looking for Ginny. Mitchell, still in a daze, leaves and goes back to meet Keeley and his pals. Keeley manages to keep him from the police and hides him in an all night movie house.

From Mitchell's perspective we learn that Montgomery hates jews and is probably the killer. Finlay begins to focus his investigation on Montgomery trying to prove his guilt. He arrangers to have one of the soldiers, a kid named Leroy (William Phipps) set a trap for Mongomery.

"Crossfire" is considered to be one of the best of the "film noire" genre. In fact it garnered several Academy Award nominations including Ryan and Grahame for best supporting actors. It was made on a modest budget in about three weeks.

It has all of the elements of classic "film noire", the shadows, low key lighting and the story playing out mostly at night. The requisite "femme fatale" of the piece is Grahame's Ginny who plays a minor role but is nonetheless your classic "femme fatale". The unnamed character played by Paul Kelly (in an excellent bit) has been chewed up and spit out by Ginny and was she about to do the same to Mitchell?

Robert Ryan steals the picture as the brutal Montgomery although it would type cast him in similar roles for years to come. Robert Young makes a good low key detective but Robert Mitchum has little to do other than befriend the Mitchell character. Others in the cast are Jacqueline White as Mitchell's wife, Lex Barker (who would go on the following year to play "Tarzan") as one of Mitchum's soldier pals and Richard Powers (who was previously known as Tom Keene) as Finlay's assistant.

Director Edward Dmytryk would shortly run afoul of The House Un-American Committee as having communist affiliations and spend a couple of years in jail.


**** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT **** This is a very strange film - particularly for its time - in every respect. For six years, American movies had shown American soldiers as everybody's son, brother, father.

In movies like The Best Years of Our Lives and Til the End of Time, our hearts are tugged by the difficulty that the sweet returning soldiers have in adjusting to peace and their families. Yet in this same year, this film shows soldiers as a mix of people rather worse than the viewer - one message of this film is - "lock up your daughters."

Even the good soldiers - with plenty of time on their hands - are gambling all the time, getting stupefyingly drunk, and are wholly indifferent to whether they even have wives any more. And their reaction to the police investigating a murder is -- to conspire against them.

Mitchum, the most sympathetic soldier says things like "I don't know if my wife wants to make a go of it now after the War. Haven't seen her in two years. Do I care? Not really. Maybe we'll make a go of it, maybe not."

Another soldier is shown as unusually sensitive because after years away, he would like to see his wife again.

Later, when this soldier states at the police station that he spent the evening at a whore's home - without knowing his wife is sitting just behind him, there seems to be no question whatever that his wife will be fine. Indeed, she is - I guess it's "Hey, soldiers will be soldiers".

The police detective played by Robert Young who is trying to crack a murder case, states convincingly and with infinite weariness about someone's account of their actions on the night in question,

"Do I care? No. I don't really care about anything any more. I've done this too long, I guess."

A man shows up at the whore's apartment. He says "I'm just a man like you, interested in" the whore. Then he says, "No that's a lie, I'm her husband. I'd like to be in the military, I was turned down before." T

hen he says, "No, that's a lie, why would I want to be a soldier?" He goes through another series of lies when the police ask him who he is. To the end of the movie, we haven't a clue who he is or why he is there!He's one of the strangest characters in the history of movies!

A man stands with his girlfriend at a bar talking to four soldiers, when a clumsy soldier knocks a drink onto his girlfriend. She leaves to change her dress - and is right back wearing another, no problem. Yet the man doesn't leave with his girlfriend - who simply disappears - but instead follows one of the soldiers when he leaves to go to another area of the bar! The man then extrapolates from the minimal information he's learned about the soldier -- to philosophize grandly about the problems of returning soldiers -- and immediately invites the soldier home because he is drunk and feels sick. This is strange stuff.

Similarly, a dance hall girl is irritated by the sentimental soldier who would like to take her out "for a real dance - and dinner maybe". Yet she does dance with him - and immediately gives him the key to her home!

Were people in the late 1940s always urging soldiers to come to their homes after they just met them?

Robert Ryan kills his host, a stranger, when he's enraged that the Jewish host tries to get the steadily drunker Ryan out of his home. The reason for the murder? "No Jew tells me how to drink". "How to drink?" Huh? What does that mean?

This movie is always off-kilter, quite deliberately so - the soldiers act consistently with total complete defiance of the law, and all the characters are as cold and tough as any movie I've ever seen.

And yet the movie is utterly gripping! You simply have no idea how these people are going to act - or what new bizarre character is going to pop up - without anyone thinking the person's actions are strange in the least - e.g., the wife's behavior.

The acting is about the finest I'e ever seen - from Robert Young, Robert Ryan, Gloria Grahame (who earned an Oscar nomination), Paul Kelly and other actors I'd never heard of.

I'd never heard of this movie - and it's a complete delight that I've discovered one that I shall want to see again and again and again. it's really strange but impossible to look away from because you've no idea what these creatures will do next.


"Crossfire" feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece -- it's well acted and beautifully filmed, but thinly written and way too short. As is, it's just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. It's remembered today as one of the first two Hollywood films to deal with anti-Semitism, and as being much better than the similarly-themed "Gentleman's Agreement" (no mean feat). But its real subject is the difficulty that WWII soldiers, as trained killers, were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (For a more genteel take on this topic, try "The Best Years Of Our Lives.") A man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. We do not see his attacker. The movie is about the investigation of this murder, which is actually pretty straightforward, but it takes some unnecessary detours, like when the main suspect, a depressed soldier, winds up in the apartment of Gloria Grahame, a dance-hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by Paul Kelly. There's also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl, and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. But otherwise it's a pretty decent mystery. Still, what a great noir it could have been. Director Edward Dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel -- homosexuality, not anti-Semitism -- like when sadistic creep Monty seethes at the image of his friend Mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. And the cast is excellent. Robert Ryan makes for a very credible cretin, and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes, not unlike Peter Lorre as the child murderer in "M." He deserved an Oscar but lost to Edmund Gwenn that year (you can't beat Santa Claus). Robert Mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. Was Mitchum a great actor or a great star? Someone else can figure that out, but his sleepy eyes and bemused half-smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn't. (And he does.) And Robert Young, as the detective assigned to the murder, is surprisingly gritty, discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil-rights sermon midway through the picture. There's no question that Bogart or Tracy would have been brilliant in the role, but neither of them were at RKO in 1947 so you'll just have to deal with Dr. Welby. Still, Young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of "Father Knows Best," which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. The man deserved better than smarm and Sanka.


Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay  not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.

There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading


A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.

But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.

Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the "hick"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.

Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too.


The real Best Picture of 1947 also deals with Anti-Semitism and is superior to Elia Kazan's GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (the eventual winner at that year's Academy Awards) in practically every department. Edmard Dmytryk's near-perfect direction, John Paxton's terse script and J. Roy Hunt's expert Expressionist lighting are wonderfully abetted by a superb ensemble cast. Although Robert Young (playing an easy-going, methodical and very likable cop) and Robert Mitchum (who actually does have the occasional throwaway witty remark) are the nominal stars of the film, it's Oscar nominees Robert Ryan and Gloria Grahame - as well as Paul Kelly, in the small but pivotal role of Grahame's pathetic husband - who give the film's most memorable characterizations; Ryan proved so convincing as a homicidal racist that he was eventually typecast for a while, excelling in equally villainous roles in such films as ACT OF VIOLENCE (1948), CAUGHT (1948), THE RACKET (1951), CLASH BY NIGHT (1952), THE NAKED SPUR (1953) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1955). The film is also notable for its atypical structure in that Ryan's "flashback" sequence, a complete fabrication, is shot in a straightforward manner while the actual truth emerges from the hazy, distorted recollections of the real protagonist of the film who, furthermore, isn't even played by any of the film's stars! Also, CROSSFIRE was originally to have treated homosexuality (as per Richard Brooks' original source novel, "The Brick Foxhole") but this taboo subject was unacceptable to the Hays Office at the time - a far cry from the situation we have today when (at least) 3 gay-themed films are in the running for this years' major Oscars!

The print utilized for Warners' DVD transfer shows some regrettable signs of wear-and-tear at times but the Audio Commentary by noir experts, James Ursini and Alain Silver, is a good one, even though I don't happen to share their opinion that Dmytryk's career declined steadily after his HUAC troubles, as such excellent pictures as THE SNIPER (1952), THE CAINE MUTINY (1954), BROKEN LANCE (1954), THE YOUNG LIONS (1958), WARLOCK (1959) and MIRAGE (1965) amply prove; having said that his collaborations at RKO with producer Adrian Scott and screenwriter John Paxton - MURDER, MY SWEET (1944), CORNERED (1945; hopefully this will be part of the next Film Noir Box Set from Warners) and CROSSFIRE - do constitute his best work. In any case, in my opinion, the latter is not only one of the key films of the 1940s but also one of the finest noirs ever made, period.


Edward Dmytryk's "Crossfire" is a rare film coming from the Hollywood of the 1940s. This was groundbreaking territory for Mr. Dmytryk and the studio because of what the director and his adapter, John Paxton, decided to do with the novel, in which the film is based.

If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.

Richard Brooks novel was about the killing of a gay soldier. In the movie, the subject matter was turned around to prejudice against Jews, a theme that was taboo during that time in the American cinema. It's to Mr. Dmytryk's credit to have had the courage to get involved with this film project, at all.

The movie is an outstanding piece of film making because the way the director presents it. Obviously influenced by the film noir style, we are taken to the Washington of the post war. The opening scene about the brutal murder of Samuels shows such unusual cruelty being inflicted to a decent man, who we don't know yet, or why has been killed, but who didn't deserve to die in such horrible fashion.

The basis of the murder is prejudice, pure and simple. We realize how in the mind of an ignorant man, the mere fact of being successful and different, plays in the mind of the assassin. Samuels stands as the sacrificial lamb, the same way the gay soldier is the victim in the novel. The parallels are well drawn.

This film makes compelling viewing because of the brilliant star turn of Robert Ryan, as Montgomery. Mr. Ryan was an actor that always played interesting roles, but never so well as in "Crossfire". Also, there is a great appearance by Gloria Grahame, as Ginny, the prostitute with her heart in the right place.

The rest of the cast play as an ensemble. Robert Young, as the police detective in charge of the investigation plays is a decent man who has known prejudice first hand in his own family and speaks loudly against it. Robert Mitchum plays a cool Sgt. Keeley who is deeply touched by the crime when one of his men is accused of committing it. Sam Levene is excellent in his small role of Samuels.

This is a film to watch because of it probably the first to speak out loud against ignorance.


Brilliant thriller, deserving far more fame, Mitchum and Ryan are awesome in their starring roles, as is the entire supporting cast. A truly gripping film noir featuring some wonderfully images and some great dialogue, at the heart of it all is a strong message of tolerance and understanding. Based on a novel concerning homophobia, this movie attacks post-war anti-emitism, and all intolerance and hatred, with considerable power. Though parts may seem a little preachy to modern audiences, it still has the power to shock, and works very well as a thriller in its own right. A credit to all involved.


Crossfire is one of those films from the Forties that is crying for a remake, if for no other reason than maybe it's time it should be done as originally written. The story on which the film is based is about the killing of a gay man. But anti-Semitism was certainly a hot topic in the days of post World War II with the holocaust fresh in everyone's mind.

In the Lee Server biography of Robert Mitchum, Edward Dmytryk the director was interviewed and and bluntly said that the film could never have been made about a hate crime against gays at the time with The Code firmly in place. It could have been though because the character of Robert Ryan is such an equal opportunity hater of everything that deviates from his societal norms.

Mitchum was told in no uncertain terms that he was in the film strictly for the ride. Robert Young was cast as the Washington, DC Police homicide captain who catches the case and while Mitchum was second billed, he knew from the beginning the film would belong to Ryan. But he was RKO's new star by dint of his performances in The Story Of GI Joe and Till The End Of Time so he was there for box office insurance. Mitchum's part was as a sergeant and friend of the original suspect in the case, George Cooper.

Crossfire is not a whodunit, even though we don't see the crime it becomes clear that Montgomery is the one who kills Sam Levene, the quintessential Jewish salesperson. And it becomes clear to Young and Mitchum that Ryan is the guilty party almost as fast as it does to the audience. It becomes just a question of getting the evidence.

Ryan earned one of several Academy Award nominations the film garnered, his Best Supporting Actor category. Though he lost to Edmund Gwenn, the film was Ryan's breakthrough role. Similarly Gloria Grahame was nominated for a brief part as a party girl for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost to Celeste Holm for Gentleman's Agreement. In fact Crossfire ran up against Gentleman's Agreement and lost for Best Picture and Best director for Dmytryk to Elia Kazan. It's fifth nomination for Best Screenplay and Crossfire came up short again with the winner being Miracle on 34th Street.

Gloria Grahame also had her own problems on the set which spilled over from her personal life. She was having big trouble with her then husband Stanley Clements who was an abusive husband. He was hanging around the set causing Ed Dmytryk a lot of problems. Fortunately Grahame's part was a small one. In fact the whole film was shot in typical RKO economy style in 20 days.

Robert Young has a particularly fine scene with William Phipps a young kid from Tennessee in Mitchum and Ryan's outfit who Ryan constantly belittles. Young is most eloquent in speaking about the corrosive nature of hate and how it affected his family as Irish Catholics who came over in the potato famine years. It was one of Robert Young's best moments on screen in his long career.

As fine a film as Crossfire is, it's time to be remade as a story about an anti-gay hate crime. Especially with the real killing of Barry Winchell from the last decade and the debate about gays in the military.

That's a film who's time has come and almost gone.


RKO Radio Pictures made a real classic in 1947 and even managed to get it nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award. The acting, script, continuity, et cetera, are all just about perfect; and the story is well worth the viewer's 82 minutes. Although the picture soft-petals the true life story by making the murder victim a Jew rather than a homosexual, most viewers will see the victim as a Jewish homosexual -- such disguises never work, perhaps weren't intended to.

I could nit-pick about a few details, but just for fun. There was no all-night movie house in Washington, DC in 1947 --- and if there was I wish Robert Mitchum and his pal wouldn't talk through the show. There weren't any bars where a GI could pick up a pretty blonde. NONE! If Robert Ryan wanted to read the latest murder scoop he ought to have bought the Daily News; not the Times-Hearald, Evening Star and certainly not the know-nothing Washington Post. But these little things take nothing away from this classic.

The film benefits a lot from the absolute lack of a musical score, except during the credits. I've only seen this done in a few films.

On the negative side, since 1995 it comes with a TMC introduction where some liberal blabs about what the public was "ready for" in 1947... blah, blah, blah! As if this fool has any business judging his betters. I'd say the ex-GI's in 1947 -- the Greatest Generation -- were much smarter --and had better values -- than some commentator, film historian, or other wise-mouth in 1995. Put a sock in it!


This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.

Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.

I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There must have been something in the air in the immediate postwar years that made night cities attractive settings for movies. A gaggle of nocturnal, urban films were made at that time, and not just in America. One of the most notable was Carol Reed's Odd Man Out, an English picture about a wounded gunman staggering through the streets of Belfast. In America it was the high noon, or more properly, high midnight, of film noir.

Crossfire isn't really film noir, but has the trappings of noir, though it uses them for its own aims, which have to do with bigotry. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, written by John Paxton, it was adapted from a novel by Richard Brooks. The book concerned the murder of a homosexual; in the movie the victim is changed to a Jew. Though filmed like a mystery there is little suspense in the film, as it is fairly obvious who the murderer is early on. What makes the film so watchable and beautiful is its evocation of a city, Washington, D.C., just after World War II, by some of the most gifted craftsmen working in films at that time. Unlike many night movies Crossfire is set mostly indoors: in police stations, rooming houses and all-night movie theaters. Soldiers are everywhere in the film, and most are itching to get back to their civilian lives. Yet one senses, from most of the men we meet, that their personalities have been so shaped by their military experience it's going to be tough for them to return to their old neighborhoods; for some maybe even impossible. They seem more bound to one another than to anything or anyone else.

Yet some men never truly bonded with anyone in the military. The murderer, Monty, is one such individual. One senses that he was never connected in his civilian life, either. He is a lone wolf who also needs people. Desperately alone, he has a sadistic streak a mile wide, and always needs someone nearby to be the butt of his jokes. The man he kills did him no harm, and was in fact a stranger to him. But once Monty figured out the man's religion, that was enough. He didn't really mean to kill the guy, as it was his intent to 'merely' humiliate him and just beat him up. But as he was quite drunk at the time, Monty's fists got the better of him. It is this act that sets the story the story in motion.

Once the movie builds up a head of steam the other characters come rapidly into focus. Monty's opposite number is Keely, another soldier, who, though introspective like Monty, and somewhat detached, harbors no resentment toward anyone and seems a reasonable, even amiable guy. Finley, the pipe-smoking homicide detective, is dandyish and a tad effete compared to the men in uniform, but proves more than a match for the various and mostly recalcitrant soldiers he deals with. The actors who plays these roles, Roberts Ryan, Mitchum and Young, give excellent performances, each in a different key. Ryan, as Monty, is tense and paranoid, always looking around for someone to pick on; and one can feel his anxiety over becoming a victim himself. As Keely, Mitchum is low-key, almost nonchalant; he never raises his voice; and he seems to have more to say, more to offer, than is permitted by the script. Young's performance has often been criticized as being too soft, but I find it deceptively strong and nicely offbeat. He cuts against the stereotype of the hardboiled cop, and makes the character of Finley a bit of a prince of crime detection.

There are few surprises in Crossfire, though the script is at times surprisingly well-written, even brilliant. Character actor Paul Kelly gives one of the best short performances in the movies as the 'boyfriend' of a woman a soldier picks up in a bar. Kelly may or may not be her husband; and he may or may not live with her, though he seems relaxed enough in her apartment. The beauty of these scenes are that nothing is made clear, and this man himself seems more than a little confused over what his role is, was or ought to be. In a way these few scenes form the thematic core of the film, which is anomie. With the exception of the detective all the men in the film are drifting, aimless and basically lost, some more seriously than others. In this respect Crossfire is, for all the preaching near the end, a film about the vagueness of identity, and how easily it can be lost or warped. Men drift from one bar to another in this film, as they engage in a sort of woozy camaraderie, their personalities merging into a kind of general American male template. Then something happens, something is nailed down. A word is mentioned, whether 'Jew' or 'hillbilly', and things suddenly turn tense, and the very notion of individuality, of an identity outside the group, of anyone not like them, becomes deeply offensive, even loathsome. Then, after tempers flare and whatever stirred them up has been resolved or forgotten, the men revert to their loose, non-personal group normality, and order is restored.


"Crossfire" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a "hillbilly" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.

The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called "The Brick Foxhole" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the "House Un-American Activities Committee". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.

When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur "Mitch" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).

Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt.

"Crossfire" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The "message" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.

Despite it being a low budget production, "Crossfire" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received.


A March 1947 New York Times article described Crossfire as one of the first Hollywood films of the 1940s to "face questions of racial and religious prejudice with more forthright courage than audiences have been accustomed to expect." While RKO was producing Crossfire, Twentieth Century-Fox was making Gentleman's Agreement, another story about antisemitism. RKO raced to beat the much "ballyhooed" Fox picture to the theaters, releasing Crossfire several months before Gentleman's Agreement. In July 1947, RKO screened Crossfire for representatives of various Los Angeles religious groups. In addition, several surveys, which were designed to gauge the audience's prejudices, were conducted before and after screenings of the film. Crossfire received both praise and criticism for its depiction of antisemitism in America and was the subject of many editorials. Crossfire received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, but lost to Gentleman's Agreement. It was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan), Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame), Best Director and Best Screenplay (Adaptation). In September 1947, Crossfire was named Best Social Film at Cannes. In December 1947, Ebony magazine, an African-American publication, gave the film its annual award for "improving interracial understanding." Loved this movie. If you get the chance to watch it, see it.


"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.

I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.

The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.

Truly excellent, and a must see.


After a man turns up dead, a soldier becomes the prime suspect. Undoubtedly the best film to feature three Roberts and all of them are in fine form. Young is the cool-headed, pipe-smoking cop investigating the murder, Mitchum is the murder suspect's concerned friend, and Ryan is a hot-headed soldier with something to hide. Grahame has a brief but effective role as a femme fatale. Future Tarzan Barker has a bit part as a soldier. This film touches on anti-semitism, a subject also covered in Best Picture Oscar winner "Gentleman's Agreement," which was released the same year. It is solidly directed by Dmytryk, who creates an effective film noir atmosphere.


A man by the name of Joseph Samuels is found brutally murdered in his apartment. It would appear that Samuels was visited by a group of drunken soldiers the previous evening, and with one of them seemingly missing, the evidence certainly implicates the missing soldier. But as detective Finlay digs deeper into the case he finds that they could be barking up the wrong tree, and that this crime is dealing with something desperately sad and vile, anti-Semitism.

Crossfire was born out of the novel written by Richard Brooks, adapted by John Paxton and directed by the shrewdly excellent Edward Dmtryk, Crossfire {originaly titled Cradle Of Fear} is a taut and gripping picture that boldly tackles anti-Semitism. Tho the makers were forced to tone down the story from the original source, the novel is about homosexual hatred as opposed to anti-Semitism, what remains, largely due to RKO supremo Dore Schary and producer Adrian Scott, is a sort of creeping unease that drips with Noirish style.

The cast features three Bob's, Young, Mitchum and Ryan, with Noir darling Gloria Grahame adding the emotional female heart. Tho only third billed, it's Robert Ryan's picture all the way, his portrayal as the bullying, conniving Montgomery is from the top draw and perfectly showcases the talent that he had in abundance. Ryan had good cause to give Montgomery some of is best work for he had served in the Marine's with Richard Brooks himself, both men having discussed the possibility that if the novel was to be made into a film?, then Ryan wanted in and to play Montgomery, thus the genesis of Ryan's career as weasel types was born!. Gloria Grahame also puts in a wonderful and heartfelt turn, which is all the more remarkable since she was being plagued by her abusive husband at the time. Stanley Clements was known to be violent towards her and his constant presence around the set irked others in the cast, but Grahame, probably channelling real life emotion, became the character of Ginny and shone very bright indeed. Both Bob Mitchum and Bob Young come out with flying colours as well, to really seal the deal on what a smartly acted picture Crossfire really is.

Tho Crossfire was released before the other 1947 anti-Semitic picture, Gentleman's Agreement, and raking in over a million and a quarter dollars at the box office, some of its thunder was stolen by the Academy Award winning picture from Fox Studio. Nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor {Ryan}, Best Supporting Actress {Grahame}, Best Director and Best Screenplay, it won nothing, but critics of the time hailed it as a brilliant shift in American Cinema, and today it stands tall, proud and dark as a bold and excellent piece of work. 8.5/10


Crossfire is a fantastic film noir that is both a product of it's time and a timeless classic. This film achieves this by addressing issues that haven't been brought to the screen before its 1947 release, and by being a high quality film that holds up to this day with a good script, great look, and fantastic performances from it's actors. The first American film to take the issue of anti-Semitism head on, Crossfire is cemented in classic standing. Set in post-World War II America, a lurid whodunit develops after a Jewish man is found murdered.

The story is great, its anti-hatred theme wrapped up in a dark multiple-character crime thriller, and along side the anti-Semitism angle is some great post-World War II dialogue and themes as well. Unlike other mystery thrillers, the audience is alerted to who the perpetrator is almost immediately. However, the film's story is still engrossing because of the struggle of all the great characters involved are going through while trying to make sense of the situation. Outside the great overall story and themes, the entire script is simply smart, complete with meaningful messages and razor-sharp exchanges between characters.

The film's captivating story is played out wonderfully by the its excellent cast. Robert Young is fantastic as Capt. Finlay, the leading investigator of the murder case. Finlay's my favorite character of the film, he's just a cool character - dry as bone and tough as a two-by-four and stopping at nothing to bring the killer to justice. Robert Mitchum is also great in the film, very vivid in his soft-spoken army sergeant character due to his superb screen-presence. Gloria Grahame gives a memorable performance in her small Oscar-nominated role; George Cooper also does a good job as the sick and distressed Corporal Mitchell; Paul Kelly gives an eerie portrayal of a bizarre character; and Steve Brodie, Sam Levene, Jacqueline White, and William Phipps also give strong supporting performances. Robert Ryan ends up being the most talked about performer of the film, giving a chilling performance as Montgomery and also being nominated for an Oscar.

Crossfire has a terrific look. Director Edward Dmytryk does an extraordinary job with the film's execution and cinematographer J. Roy Hunt does a masterful job with its black and white picture. Crossfire's picture is as dark and dank as its themes, covered in shadow with an almost glossy overtone, yet also very raw in parts. Ironically, the film's great look was not the result of hard work - or even intention. Dmytryk wanted to spend more time and money on the actors rather than the lighting - so that's what he did. Less lights, less preparation (around a 6 hour work day), and it resulted in a fantastic looking film. Not just a well done piece of cinematic art, Crossfire is also a great example of a cheap film that ends up a rich classic.


Exceptional movie that handles a theme of great proportions with a very well-balanced direction. Dmytrik was a very good director, at least from what I can tell from this movie and Murder my Sweet but he was seriously affected by the HUAC as other movie directors and actors. It is in a way ironic that Crossfire received no Oscars, because it is exquisite example of how to make a great film on low budget. Everything about this movie is exceptional: a well-written script that makes use of extensive flashbacks, a great cast, superb lighting that seems to tell the story more than the actions proper. What more can you expect from a top-notch movie? Might I add that noir is here used for its stylishness, and I might add financial advantages. But this proves once more that what was originally deemed a B-movie can have more impact today that most of the heavy-handed A-movies that lost their audience with the passage of time.

This film is not a noir movie per se and this rises serious questions about what noir actually is. The style is definitely noir, in terms of sets and especially lights but the theme surpasses the recipe of the "noir genre". You can see things from the opposite perspective and claim that Anti-Semitism is only a pretext for the criminal investigation, the puzzle around the murder being the actual focus. This would have been the case had it not been for Robert Ryan in an outstanding performance. Either way, the movie has a lot to offer and it is truly a pity that the director had to suffer so much iniquity for his former beliefs in a really "noir" period of America


My top 2 actors happen to be in this film - Robert Ryan and Robert Mitchum.

Ryan could play anything from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller and play it magnificently. In this film when he starts his speech "...people with names like Samuels and others with names that are hard to say" - it is chilling to watch him.

Robert Young plays the policeman who is called to investigate the murder of Samuels (Sam Levine), a civilian, who is chatting with several soldiers in a bar. Mitchell is the soldier wanted in connection with it - his wallet has been found in the apartment. But Mitchell is a gentle soldier, who is only missing his wife.

The story is told from different perspectives. Mitchell and Samuels strike up a friendship and go back to Samuels apartment. Samuels seems to know the loneliness that Mitchell is feeling. "For years you have been concentrating on one peanut and now it is gone you don't know what to feel" he says about the war.

Ryan is superb as Monty, the psychotic racist.

Robert Young (along with Dick Powell) was an actor whose career was re-juvenated by film-noir. "Crossfire", "They Won't Believe Me" and "The Other Woman" are great examples.

Robert Mitchum is his usual laid back self as the philosopical Keeley.

Gloria Graham and Paul Kelly as the "odd couple" are outstanding as well in their brief but telling roles.

This is probably the best film about racism ever made.


What a fine film! Unfortunately, being 1947, the movie script couldn't have followed the book from which it was adapted, but the murder of a homosexual would have been too hot to handle in that era.

I thought all of the performances were outstanding, as well as the script, direction, brilliant black and white cinematography, music and film noir atmosphere.

I do understand that in 1947 the film couldn't portray racism against blacks or prejudice against homosexuals. (Robert Young's account of prejudice against his grandfather who was Irish and who endured this racism 100 years ago was pretty lame, but the times dictated that the film avoid a further examination of racism.)

I do have one observation and one question to ask the viewer: 1. Did you notice that Robert Young didn't aim his gun when he shot and killed Robert Ryan who was running fast in the dark and Young shot from an upper story window into the dark without aiming? 2. If Robert Young's grandfather was killed 100 years ago in 1847 (the film was made in 1947) and Young was 40 years old, the time line would not be logical. If the grandfather had been killed 50 years ago then the time frame would be realistic.


**SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel "The Brick Foxhole" about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie "Crossfire" is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.

Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in.

Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place.

With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.

The movie "Crossfire" then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him.

Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.

It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of "them" he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of "us"! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death.

It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI "friend" of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.

Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. "Crossfire" addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved.


Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), "Crossfire" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of "cleansing".

Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a "war of aggression".

This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.

See "Crossfire", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.

See "Crossfire" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in "Cape Fear".


I've seen this movie more than once. It isn't the greatest scifi flick I've every seen, but it is not a bad movie. The acting is good and the characters are more "real" than most in low budget sci fi. (At least it isn't full of dumb bimbos like so many other low budget scifi.) I especially like Elizabeth Pena. She is a good actress and she does worried single mother as well as any and better than some.

Don't let the nay sayers run you off. See it for yourself and judge it for yourself.