L'assassin parmi eux

FBI agent John Ripley wants to solve the murder of his partner Zack Stewart. He's digging into three of Zack's cases and hopes to find his killer. Joe Walpo is a murderous fugitive on the run. Kate Martell is being threatened and extorted by a mystery man on the phone. The last case involves a car theft ring.

This is a precursor to the modern TV police procedural. It can be a bit dry and three stories may be one too many. Of the many character actors in this film, I like Claude Akins the most. I love his scar. There is a big time location for the climax. It's great to get so close to the sign. In the end, it's an effective police drama.

...that shows how the FBI handles cases in addition to profiling three particular cases. In the process, it also shows some of the technology used by the FBI at the time.

Agent Zach Stewart (Kenneth Tobey) is assigned to these three cases. One case has to do with a known hijacker, robber and murderer named Joe Walpo who may be headed for Los Angeles. Another is the case of a young man who got caught stealing cars but refuses to give up the guys he works for because of a misplaced sense of loyalty plus the guys are scary and he's rightfully afraid of them. The third case has to do with a widow (Ruth Roman) who is being extorted for the ten thousand dollars in insurance money she got for her husband's death in a traffic accident. The unknown person who calls using a disguised voice is threatening her daughter's life if she doesn't cough up the cash.

When a woman calls saying she has information about one of Stewart's cases, Stewart and agent John Ripley (Broderick Crawford) show up to talk to the woman. When someone disappears out the back door, Stewart gives chase and is shot and killed by that person. The woman refuses to talk further. So now Ripley must solve Stewart's three cases - the titular "three dark streets" - to solve his colleague's murder.

Broderick Crawford plays the FBI agent in his usual TV style of acting, but he's fine for the role and the film is quite engaging. Highlights include Martha Hyer as Joe Walpo's girlfriend who isn't shy and isn't talking. She seems to be doing her best Shelley Winters imitation, but just lacks that "all of the brashness and va va voom that heaven and the production code allows" quality that Winters had.

Then there is Claude Akins as a big galoot who pushes around the spunky blind wife of the car thief and Jay Adler looking almost unrecognizable as the creepy uncle of the widowed extortion victim. William Schallert is a gas station attendant in Barstow who, for some reason that turns out to be a fatal mistake, does not wait until Joe Walpo pulls away from the gas station to try and notify the police in the opening sequence.

And just one more thing - In the extortion segment, Crawford's character tells Ruth Roman that extortionists say things to panic and isolate the victim and make them feel alone and that nobody can help them because that is how they make the victim more compliant with their demands. That's actually good advice when dealing with today's extortionists - otherwise known as internet scammers. Never do anything in a panic. Always think things through and ask yourself if what is being said to you makes sense. Would the sheriff's department REALLY call ahead and let you know they are coming to arrest you and then tell you that the whole thing could be cleared up with 1000 dollars worth of Apple gift cards?

Down Three Dark Streets (1954)

An FBI man has been killed, and the suspects are related to the three cases the agent was working one when he died. So all three cases become priorities, thinking that by solving them all, the cop killer will come to light.

The title of the movie is a cue that this is in some ways a three part movie, with three basically distinct, if intertwined plots. But what holds it together is a single character, an FBI agent played by Broderick Crawford. And it's Crawford who holds it together beautifully. He plays his part with cool, somber, and weary reserve (and if you know Crawford in his more famous roles, such as "All the King's Men" or even more in "Born Yesterday").

Each of the three stories is layered up as you go, which makes it interestingly complex, and in each there is one leading woman connected to a suspect. Ruth Roman is the most powerful of these three, though the other two are bit weak. Luckily, the weakest of these, Ruth Hyer, loses relevance so that Roman and Marisa Pavan (playing a blind woman fairly well) carry their shares. And in a way you never quite notice the uneven acting because the events tumble one after another, through lots of changes of location, and from one plot to the next. It's filmed with economy but good drama. And the story, which might lose some viewers because of its complexity, also has the beauty of not being obvious, with lots of good dialog.

Why isn't it quite a classic? There's something awkward about the many parts that have to be connected, and an occasional odd aspect, like the unlikely ruse of a blanket carried as Roman's child into her car (it looks very much like a blanket). Still, there is a lot of suspense throughout, dark alleys, drives at night, phones that ring and aren't answered, all along waiting for something and not knowing what. An intense example is when Roman takes a senselessness lonely walk in a cemetery and a car pulls up.

"I'm waiting for a friend." "Maybe I'm that friend you're waiting for."

This is good movie-making, and it makes for a good movie. Then, to cap it off, it has what is maybe the best vintage use of the famous Hollywood letters on the hill overlooking movieland. Odd to say, but I think the movie is worth watching for that alone. This is exactly when the industry was falling apart (legally and literally), and the letters were no accident. There is also a nice use of that trope of money blowing away in the wind (made more archetypal in "The Killing" in 1958). The last line? "Sometimes you meet some nice people in this business." Perfect.

While there isn't a lot of spectacular action or twists in this film, it is rock solid throughout--sort of like an episode of "Dragnet" or "The FBI". A very good script and nice attention to law enforcement details make this one worth watching.

The film begins with two FBI agents on an assignment. One is unexpectedly murdered by someone hiding in the shadows. The surviving agent (Broderick Crawford) seems to think that someone on the other agents list of open cases has done the crime, so he looks into the three cases. And so, you see Crawford go from case to case--looking for clues and solving the cases while he's at it. It all leads to a dandy final set at the Hollywood sign.

As I said above, the show is big on realism and police procedures. I also appreciated how ordinary and ugly some of the cast were--like real life. Overall, it's a lot like a tidier version of film noir--with a strong infusion of realism and good acting.

By the way, if you do watch, look for the guy with his home-made 'spy detector'!

When FBI Agent Zack Stewart is killed, Agent John Ripley takes over the three cases he was working on, hoping one will lead to his killer. The first involves gangster Joe Walpo and Ripley finds his hideout through Joe's girl friend, Connie Anderson. Joe is killed but it is established he was 400 miles away when Stewart was murdered. The next involves a car-theft gang which Ripley breaks up by using one of the gang, Vince Angelino and his wife Julie. The last case involves Kate Martell, the victim of an extortionist who threatens to kidnap her child unless she pays him $10,000.

This certainly is an interesting look at FBI cases and procedures, with them using bulky equipment to spy on neighbors, intercept phone calls and make identifications. But this was the 1950s, when such things were primitive and relatively innocent. (The FBI surveillance went too far in the 1960s and was shut down by the courts.) Very interesting film, well worth being better known. And the film quality seems to have held up very nicely over the years. The one on Netflix looks great.