Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueBlind detective Duncan Maclain relies on his working senses to piece together an assortment of clues to solve a case of murder.Blind detective Duncan Maclain relies on his working senses to piece together an assortment of clues to solve a case of murder.Blind detective Duncan Maclain relies on his working senses to piece together an assortment of clues to solve a case of murder.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Thomas E. Jackson
- Insp. Delaney
- (as Thomas Jackson)
Raymond Largay
- Arthur Hampton
- (as Ray Largay)
Avis à la une
Eddie Arnold is the blind detective MacLain, helped by his dog and an assistant. now that a couple people from the same family have been knocked off, MacLain is brought in to track down the killers. a lot of discussion on perfumes. and Sumatra keeps coming up. a tired, running gag where MacLain's assistant keeps spilling perfume all over himself. co-stars Frances Rafferty and Ray Collins. the wheels turn slowly as MacLain comes up with clues. and he keeps laughing. it's a little odd. it kind of stumbles along. it has all the usual elements of a crime story, but it's just not very compelling. Directed by Richard Whorf. only directed about ten films, then it was a whole lot of television. no big deal. whatever.
Blind detective Duncan Maclain is asked for help by a young woman whose fiancé is the prime suspect in a murder. This is the second Duncan Maclain movie starring Edward Arnold. The first, Eyes In the Night, was released in 1942. I'm not sure about the reason for the gap between the movies. If MGM was trying to launch a series of B detective movies around this character, one would assume they would have produced them quickly. Maybe this was filmed years before it was released. I don't see that info here on IMDb but that makes more sense than them waiting three years to make a follow-up to a B programmer that wasn't a huge hit to begin with. There's something very odd about the opening minutes of this one. The audio appears to be dubbed. The actors' lips are in sync with the words but it still seems off. You'll see what I mean.
Edward Arnold is always worth a look. Reliable Ray Collins leads a so-so cast backing up Arnold. The weakest part is Frances Rafferty, whose overwrought performance borders on hysterics half the time. It's amusing at first but quickly annoying. She's very pretty, though. Audrey Totter has one small scene but it's a great one. Not a bad B detective movie. The pace is good and there's a nice amount of humor sprinkled throughout. The mystery itself isn't much of a mystery as the killer is revealed to be the most obvious suspect about halfway into the movie. I really wanted it to be the fiancé because his scenes with Rafferty were insufferably corny. If you're a fan of these kinds of movies I'm sure you'll enjoy this enough. Definitely not a waste of an hour so give it a shot.
Edward Arnold is always worth a look. Reliable Ray Collins leads a so-so cast backing up Arnold. The weakest part is Frances Rafferty, whose overwrought performance borders on hysterics half the time. It's amusing at first but quickly annoying. She's very pretty, though. Audrey Totter has one small scene but it's a great one. Not a bad B detective movie. The pace is good and there's a nice amount of humor sprinkled throughout. The mystery itself isn't much of a mystery as the killer is revealed to be the most obvious suspect about halfway into the movie. I really wanted it to be the fiancé because his scenes with Rafferty were insufferably corny. If you're a fan of these kinds of movies I'm sure you'll enjoy this enough. Definitely not a waste of an hour so give it a shot.
Hidden Eye, The (1945)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Sequel to Eyes in the Night has the blind detective (Edward Arnold) trying to track down a killer who has murdered four people in a rich family. I haven't seen the original film but this one here is a pretty solid entertainment but we've seen this type of mystery countless times before. Having the lead detective blind was a new angle on the story and his ways of solving a crime without sight was rather interesting. The best performance in the film has to go to his dog, Friday, who is constantly entertaining. Arnold is also very good in his role and really sells himself as being blind. The film only runs 70-minutes and at times it drags along but there's certainly worst out there.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Sequel to Eyes in the Night has the blind detective (Edward Arnold) trying to track down a killer who has murdered four people in a rich family. I haven't seen the original film but this one here is a pretty solid entertainment but we've seen this type of mystery countless times before. Having the lead detective blind was a new angle on the story and his ways of solving a crime without sight was rather interesting. The best performance in the film has to go to his dog, Friday, who is constantly entertaining. Arnold is also very good in his role and really sells himself as being blind. The film only runs 70-minutes and at times it drags along but there's certainly worst out there.
Courtsey of MGM's prolific/proficient second feature output unit, comes this sequel to Fred Zinnemann's debut feature 'Eyes In The Night', about a visually-impaired sleuth. This time around, the technical team is unfortunately less resourceful than their protagonist who is busy, with the aid of his faithful guide dog, trying to clear an innocent man of murder.
The replacement of B-frisson chills with chuckles is a miscalculation on this outing, and stereotype B-movie characterisations abound from vulnerable love interest to seedy villains. The story's gritty, 'urban' settings, replete with dark alleyways and disused warehouses, are never exploited to the full effect of their classic noir trappings.
The proceedings are all lighthearted enough if a little too genial. However, although there is some inevitable sentiment, the film is surprisingly unpatronising in its treatment of our blind hero. All in all it's a disappointing sequel, but not an hour-and-a-bit wasted.
The replacement of B-frisson chills with chuckles is a miscalculation on this outing, and stereotype B-movie characterisations abound from vulnerable love interest to seedy villains. The story's gritty, 'urban' settings, replete with dark alleyways and disused warehouses, are never exploited to the full effect of their classic noir trappings.
The proceedings are all lighthearted enough if a little too genial. However, although there is some inevitable sentiment, the film is surprisingly unpatronising in its treatment of our blind hero. All in all it's a disappointing sequel, but not an hour-and-a-bit wasted.
I love old B-detective films such as Charlie Chan, The Saint, Boston Blackie and The Falcon. In addition to these very popular series, MGM tried to make a string of films starring veteran character actor Edward Arnold as a blind ex-police captain who now investigates crimes on his own. Unfortunately, while I really liked the first two films of the series, there must not have been much interest as MGM killed the series and only ended up making the two.
What a shame, as I found them charming and innovative--something that is lacking in most films of the genre. I liked Arnold's easygoing manner (though my wife felt he laughed too much) and his guide dog, Friday, was a great sidekick--practically stealing the show. The plots were creative, the supporting acting very good and the production values many steps above lower budget Bs. About the only thing that was a deficit was the use of stunt doubles. All too often, it was VERY obvious that it was not the rotund and middle-aged Arnold but a younger and thinner man with significantly more hair! In this regard, it reminded me a lot of the work done on the original STAR TREK television series--where it was obviously NOT Kirk, Spock or McCoy in the action scenes.
By the way, if you get a chance, try seeing the first film (EYES IN THE NIGHT). It's really funny watching Arnold's character deliberately trying to be super-obnoxious and irritating!
What a shame, as I found them charming and innovative--something that is lacking in most films of the genre. I liked Arnold's easygoing manner (though my wife felt he laughed too much) and his guide dog, Friday, was a great sidekick--practically stealing the show. The plots were creative, the supporting acting very good and the production values many steps above lower budget Bs. About the only thing that was a deficit was the use of stunt doubles. All too often, it was VERY obvious that it was not the rotund and middle-aged Arnold but a younger and thinner man with significantly more hair! In this regard, it reminded me a lot of the work done on the original STAR TREK television series--where it was obviously NOT Kirk, Spock or McCoy in the action scenes.
By the way, if you get a chance, try seeing the first film (EYES IN THE NIGHT). It's really funny watching Arnold's character deliberately trying to be super-obnoxious and irritating!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe little black terrier who distracts seeing eye dog Friday in the scene where a truck nearly runs over Edward Arnold is one of the most famous canines in cinema history. Six years earlier, he had portrayed Toto in The Wizard of Oz.
- GaffesWhen Barry goes to turn on the lights in Uncle Rodney's office (about five minutes into the film), there is a slight delay between when he flips the switch by the door and when the lights come on in the room.
- ConnexionsFollows Les yeux dans les ténèbres (1942)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée1 heure 9 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was L'oeil caché (1945) officially released in India in English?
Répondre