IN: Review: As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with him.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie looked good - good cast, evergreen topic and an explosive opening. It went downhill from there. Why was it filmed by hand held camera? It shakes, judders, part captures scenes and simply confuses the viewer. A poor choice indeed. As if this was not enough, the worst edit in memory assumes a drugged viewer - mandatory if you want to get any enjoyment from it at all. And then it commits the worst sin of all. After leading the viewer down all sorts of unlikely and implausible scenarios to the point of exhaustion, they roll credits without revealing the denouement - the ending - the payoff -like what the heck was the motive? How can you expect to succeed by making thrillers without an ending? Doh! This movie had great promise and ending up doing a face plant in the mud. What a waste of effort. Poor effort by writer and director.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Pretty good film from Preminger; labyrinthine at times, as it explores sets and locales from various angles and perspectives as if it were a nature film on the denizens of the modern city and how they live. In this sense it is visually and spatially satisfying, as its hero, a good cop with a bad temper, gets into very hot water when he accidentally kills a guy with a plate in his head.

Dana Andrews plays the lead as if it were Hamlet, and has never been better. The story may be pure melodrama but Andrews gives it weight, and almost raises it to the level of tragedy. As his girl, Gene Tierney is attractive but unremarkable. Gary Merrill makes for a very interesting villain, with his natural warmth providing a nice contrast to Andrews' coolness; his smiling, amiable-seeming bad guy seems to be continually challenging his nemesis by the mere fact of his being emotionally open, as opposed to the tightly wound and moralistic cop who is pursuing him.

There are no major surprises in this film, which seems transitional for all concerned. For director Preminger it is a reunion of sorts with his Laura stars, Andrews and Tierney, who were passing their career peaks at around the time the movie was made. The supporting cast,--Merrill, Karl Malden, Neville Brand--are, understandably, more optimistic, as they were all on their way up. Preminger, as serene an observer as ever, lets the events unfold without expressing a strong point of view, as the morally ambiguous ending is somewhat disappointing, for the cat and mouse game between the two antagonists seems larger and more archetypal than any mere movie could contain, much less resolve.

What is this review like?
OUT:
positive