Crime Against Joe

Entertaining minor programmer. The first part meanders some, so we're not sure where it's headed. The latter part, however, gels into a pretty good whodunit. Joe Manning (Bromfield), an army vet turned ne'er-do-well painter, is subsidized by his mother, and is going nowhere in life. No wonder he drinks a lot; at the same time, the early scenes show Joe in what seems permanent inebriation. Good thing, he's helped along by car-hop Slacks (London) and taxi driver Red (Calvin) or he'd be in the drunk tank. Seems however that two girls have been assaulted and one murdered, mysteriously. Because of his erratic behavior, the cops have him figured as the culprit. Thus, he better sober up and figure things out or he'll be sobering up courtesy the state lockup.

Bromfield delivers a lively performance that holds interest. And a good thing since he's in about every scene. Also, this is London before she hit the big time as a sultry torch singer and star of A-features. Here she's really dressed down showing little of those later eye-catching attributes. Too bad. Too bad, too, that glamorous Patricia Blair is wasted in a role she could sleep walk through, which ironically she does! Anyhow, the film comes across as competently done, even though filmed in only five days (IMDB). The 70-minutes may not be anything special, but remains an entertaining slice of industry professionalism.

Despite a very low production budget, and a no-name cast (except for the talented Julie London), Crime Against Joe pulls off a bit of an upset as an entertaining film. Although I figured out the killer after about fifteen minutes (and disregarded the enormous red herrings that followed), I was still entertained by the film and its dynamics of a small town, where everyone seems to know everyone else. A libertine mother of a supposed "artist" finds Joe living off of his mother. This is not a crime against humanity, but it does put Joe in a bad light. Slacks, played by London, works at a drive-in burger joint and goes out with Joe's best friend. A couple of late-night murders are committed and Joe is a prime suspect. See if you can figure out the killer quickly. It will surprise some folks.

Amateur night in Tucson! Melodramatic (and rather fruity) murder-mystery/character portrait, made quickly and on the cheap in Arizona, could be called "The Shame of Sleepwalking". Unemployed artist named Joe--still living at home with Mom, whom he calls "Nora"--is wrongly accused of attacking girls at night. He's temporarily released from police custody after a smitten carhop comes to his defense (she lies because she loves him!). Unfortunately, her alibi doesn't hold up, so the two become fast-working sleuths to get Joe off the hook. Co-feature from Bel-Air Productions, distributed by United Artists, is surprisingly enjoyable despite wooden acting and directing. As Joe, John Bromfield is a lousy drunk but he improves (his unself-conscious manly swagger is also winning). Playing Joe's secret sweetheart--nicknamed "Slacks" (no girlie business with this lady)--Julie London is a bit too mature and refined to be convincing as a drive-in waitress, yet her stoic demeanor proves appealing as well. The denouement is satisfying, plus there's an amusingly weird side plot about a society girl suffering subconscious distress while living under the thumb of her possessive father. *** from ****

This is a strange offbeat little movie. At times it is dumb and clichéd 1950's police drama and at times it is philosophical and quite interesting.

In the second scene of the movie, we have Joyce Jameson running at full speed screaming that she's been attacked. It is quite jilting. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie never matches the energy of this scene.

The standout in the cast is Julie London. She is best known as a successful 1960's singer of sultry ballads, but she did do a number of acting gigs. Here she plays a car hop named "Slacks." She is in love with the lead character "Joe." However Joe shows only a passing interest in her, as she has dated his good friend "Red." Julie manages to make the character extremely sweet, nice and strong. She is the opposite of a Femme Fatale, a real Penelope standing by her man.

Rebecca Blair (from the television series "Daniel Boone")is the only other person in the cast I knew. She literally "sleepwalks" though her part, although she does have one good scene at the end as a troubled teenager confronting her overprotective "Dad." While the sum does not add up to much, some individual scenes are clever enough to make this "Wrong Man" genre piece worth watching. It was apparently filmed in five days, so don't go in expecting great production values. For those who like early Roger Corman movies, you'll probably enjoy the similar style.

John Bromfield, unknown to me, plays Joe, a drunken veteran who becomes the chief suspect in a series of murders plaguing his home town. The nominal back story implies that he was a once-promising golden boy gone a little bad; still, it seems implausible that everyone would so quickly be willing to turn against one of their own and assume him to be the guilty party on the flimsy evidence the police collect from the crime scene. That evidence consists almost entirely of a school ring, so everyone immediately assumes that the killer must be someone from Joe's graduating class -- apparently the idea of planting evidence never occurred to anyone. Indeed, this plot point becomes an unintentional joke, as suspect after suspect is asked "Where's your ring?" and if they're able to produce it, or merely say they still have it, everyone assumes they can't possibly be the murderer. That's some cracker jack detective work.

"Crime Against Joe" has no discernible directing style and no apparent reason for existing other than as a program filler. The screenplay is just too weak, and there's not enough style in the filmmaking to compensate for the story's failings. Julie London is the film's best asset, though mostly because she's so pretty, not because her character, that of Joe's reluctant love interest, generates much interest.

There's also a bizarre and somewhat inexplicable story line about a sleepwalking girl and her father's efforts to cover up his daughter's affliction, and how this cover up affects the case against Joe. Was sleepwalking something to be that ashamed of back in 1956?

Grade: C