Le guêpier

This is a most conventional propaganda picture for the glory of the FBI with careful documentation of how expertly they handle their duties and get their commie villains. It is very similar in character to Henry Hathaway's "House on the 92nd Street", which though is a so much more interesting film for its characters, especially Signe Hssso. Here there are no characters except stereotypes.. The one character for which the film is worth seeing is Finlay Currie as the Russian scientist who gets into trouble, and his way of handling his very tricky path out of an immense abyss of trouble. It's not a bad film, but it is supremely superficial, varnished to 101% artificial perfection, but for Finlay Currie. who makes a great performance.

We all know, propaganda - with shifting targets according to the years - has been at the core of U. S. (and other countries') mainstream film production from the very start. And we are all right with it, as long as it is treated with some delicacy, and, in the best cases, with some artistic goals in mind. Well, this is not the case for "Walk East on Beacon!", (1952, in the cold war era), where heroic FBI's members', as well as common citizens' efforts to counter the "red threat" are cast upon a plot lacking of whatsoever thrill. If you can stand all that, you should watch the film: an interesting specimen of its times' values. Be aware that the final scenes, as happens often in these movies, are quite concitated action shots in which is really difficult to tell what is really happening.

I'm very shy about the comparison that I now am proposing to you: an equally propagandistic film is 1959 Hitchcock's "North by Northwest". If you haven's seen it, please do, and you will understand what I mean.

This is definitely not a "hysterical anti-communist screed" but a plodding 1950's manhunt story with Westbrook Van Vorhees as the narrator.It would be simple to ignore the ineffective demagoguery of Joe McCarthy as based on fiction, but the U.S.S.R. did aggressively spy on the U.S. and other allies during and after W.W.2 and its party organization and members were totally controlled by Moscow. This whole picture was shot on location but it lacks the punch of such other realistic films as CALLING NORTHSIDE 777, BOOMERANG, IRON CURTAIN etc.

Murphy wasn't much of an actor and comes off as bland as he was when the host of MGM PARADE.

"Walk East on Beacon" is a 1952 film starring George Murphy, about a G-man after a Communist sleeper cell. Set in Boston, it's a dry, unexciting look at police procedure, which we all know is plodding to begin with.

Narrated by Westbrook Van Vorhees, the film uses a documentary style often used for this type of film in the '50s. It usually signals an unexciting film, which this is.

George Murphy wasn't a great actor, but he was certainly charming. He isn't able to use much of his charm in this. The theme of the film isn't uncommon and has been better done.

The Boston locations were fun, but that's about it. If you're looking for thrills, go elsewhere.

"Walk East on Beacon!" is a product of the times. Following WWII, the good will between the US and USSR bottomed out quickly and instead of being friends, the Soviets took over Eastern Europe and parts of East Asia. In response, the US became very paranoid about communism and the notion of communists infiltrating the county....so a movie like this isn't the least bit surprising. Some of the movies are fun to watch...some, like this one, are surprisingly ordinary.

The film is about an attempt by communist moles to capture a top scientist and force him to work for the USSR. Professor Kafer (Finlay Currie) is worried because his son disappeared. Apparently, the communists have kidnapped him and say they'll return him IF the Professor cooperates. Fortunately, American FBI agents are on the case and hope to not only rescue the son but break up this network of spies.

The story was interesting. But it also was surprisingly low energy considering the subject matter. Also, having George Murphy anchor the film didn't help, as he always seemed more passive than most actors....and here he gives a typically bland performance. Overall, not a bad film....but I would have expected more fireworks considering the topic.