Gangster

This film reminds me a lot of an earlier film that paired Robert Mitchum and Robert Ryan (CROSSFIRE), as both have very tough and gritty plots that are excellent examples of Film Noir. However, in this film instead of a plot involving anti-semitism, it's a good cop versus organized crime flick. Once again, Ryan is a scumbag and Mitchum is a decent and hard-as-nails cop bent on justice. A particular standout is the dialog between them--very snappy and pure Noir! I particularly liked the exchanges between them in the police station when they were cross-examining the cocky and unrepentant Ryan. And, since it is Noir, you know that there will be ample quantities of violence and testosterone. Give it a try--this is a seldom-mentioned classic.

Entertaining film with politics, crime and corruption the main themes here.

Robert Mitchum plays a dedicated, righteous policeman who heads a unit of officers. He is as honest as 24 hours in a day. He takes pride in such officers as Bill Talman, a young cop gunned down in police headquarters by the usually evil Robert Ryan. Without the insanity of his earlier crime driven roles, Ryan comes across as the embodiment of evil.

Ray Collins steals the show as a worm of a prosecuting attorney up to his neck in corruption. It is interesting to note that both Collins and Talman went on to TV careers in "Perry Mason."

Lizabeth Scott, as a lounge singer, caught up in the mayhem, tries hard to please but she does not evoke the emotion needed for her role.

To say that the ending is justified is more than right.

Amusing, inexpensive, and predictable, this 50's gangster film's highlights are the snarling confrontations between Ryan and Top Cop Robert Mitchum. Ryan's cruelties are three-dimensional, but Mitchum seems to be thinking about something offscreen when he's not in a face-off with Ryan. Other secondary characterizations are quite vivid, especially by Ray Collins (a few years before "Touch of Evil") as a crooked political candidate, and William Talman, 50's TV stalwart, as the doomed rookie cop.

The 80-minutes has the cast elements of a memorable crime drama—Ryan, Mitchum, Talman, Conrad. Then too, RKO's head honcho Howard Hughes actively participated, along with a narrative of city corruption that's handled in some revealing detail. So why aren't the results more memorable than I think they are. To me, the screenplay is more congested than it should be. For example, Liz Scott's role is clearly there for marquee value, adding nothing to the plot, other than crowding up the many characters and sub-plots. Considering the number of writes, rewrites, and re-shoots (IMDB), perhaps the crowding is understandable. All in all, the number of production fingerprints fail to blend into an impactful whole, leaving a movie of a few memorable parts.

Ryan, of course, is Ryan, scary in his intensity, and wholly convincing in his criminal belligerence. Mitchum, however, is cast against type as the unwavering precinct captain. In fact, Captain McQuigg runs his precinct much like Scanlon's (Ryan) territorial tyrant. Thus McQuigg is more like a competing territorial chief than a neutral enforcer of the law, (note how McQuigg unlawfully tears up a legal writ.). The film's worth watching for its outlining of how corruption works in a city environment. District Attorney Welch (Collins) and Sgt. Turk (Conrad) betray their public trust by allying with the crime syndicate, becoming instrumental as go-betweens and influence-peddlers.

This was a period in the country's history (1951) when organized crime was getting headlines thanks to Sen. Kefauver's investigation committee. So Hollywood's response is not surprising. I just wish the movie had lived up to its potential, but I guess there's a lesson here about too many cooks.

A competent crime movie, enlivened by two strong lead performances from Mitchum and Ryan. The latter has the more interesting part as the gangster who ultimately finds himself friendless when those loyal to him decide he has become too much of a liability. Although the political machinations behind the scenes are dealt with more predominantly than many of the film's contemporaries, much of the satire is lost due to the 'other-worldliness' of the setting. Time and place are never specified, so we are more entangled in the personalities than the bigger moral implications.

A slight, but entertaining example of the genre.