L'assassin parmi eux

I enjoyed this early 1950s crime/drama and appreciate the nice job TCM did in restoring the print. The transfer looked outstanding; sharp with excellent contrast. The movie features some fine photography and lighting.

This was one of those semi-documentaries popular among crime stories in the late '40s/early '50s. It usually plugged one of the U.S. law enforcement agencies. Here, it was the FBI and we followed a couple of agents as they tried to tie in several cases in the Los Angeles area. Sometimes these movies were labeled "crime dramas" and sometimes "film noirs." This movie contains a lot of both elements.

Along the way, we see a lot of familiar faces, especially if you grew up watching a lot of television in the '50s and '60s. You may not know all the names, but you'll know the faces.

Names you probably know, however, are Broderick Crawford, Ruth Roman and Martha Hyer. There are three of the half-dozen or so actor who all play a significant part of this story.

Crawford is an FBI agent and lower-key one than you might expect. He's not the gruff lawman of "Highway Patrol" or the loudmouth politician of "All The King's Men." Here, he's gentle with people all the while being an effective FBI guy.

Ruth Roman, as "Kate Martel." plays one of several key female roles, as either crime victim or gangster-girlfriend. Ruth plays a role similar to one Lee Remick played in about 10 years later in a film called "Experiment In Terror." Marilyn Monroe-wannabe Martha Hyer is a hoot as a sexy blonde playing a thug's girlfriend, or should I say "moll." She has some great lines, calling the cops "you dirty crumbs" and the like. Her character is pure film noir.

Marisa Pavan is interesting as the blind "Julie Angelino" and so is a young Claude Akins as a boxer-criminal. Jay Adler, Kenneth Tobey and others all have those familiar TV faces.

Movie buffs will get a kick out of the climactic scene, which takes place at the foot of the "Hollywood" sign on top of a hill. That nostalgia, along with the very cool automobiles of the period, make this a good trip down "memory lane."

Unfortunately, this is one of those classic movies that never made it to VHS or DVD. Hopefully, someone will put it in a DVD classics box-set some day. It's a good film and deserves a DVD of its own.

Based on a novel by The Gordons called "Case File: F.B.I.", this is a semi-documentary style crime drama from Columbia starring BRODERICK CRAWFORD as a diligent F.B.I. agent John Ripley assigned to crack a few unsolved cases when a fellow agent on the job is killed in the line of duty.

RUTH ROMAN, MARISA PAVAN and MARTHA HYER are the three women connected to the cases, all of whom give good performances but Pavan is particularly touching as a blind woman.

The documentary style is nicely handled and there's a twist at the end that came as a real surprise to me.

Not great, but an interesting example of satisfactory film noir.

DOWN THREE DARK STREETS, with its trio of cases for the FBI to solve, was the template eight years later for EXPERIMENT IN TERROR, reduced down to just the extortion plot. Broderick Crawford is "Agent John Ripley" in the first, Glenn Ford is named the same character in the second. STREETS uses the semi-documentary approach (heavy-handed voice-over narration) and is more of a whodunit, while EXPERIMENT is a real suspense-filled thriller with the villain identified much earlier. But even then, it is much more chilling. Ruth Roman is the fear-filled victim in the original, Lee Remick plays the spunky lady being extorted in the semi-remake. Good Los Angeles locales, especially the "Hollywood" sign usage in the first. But great San Francisco scenes in TERROR, particularly the Candlestick Park shootout following a Giants-Dodgers game. Both are recommended, with STREETS a competent mystery and EXPERIMENT a classic at the end of the Noir cycle.

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.

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.