Close-Up

Close-Up is an okay film noir with several points of interest.

Alan Baxter stars as Phil Sparr, a newsreel reporter busily filming models outside of a bank.

Later on, he is approached by a man who explains he was photographed with a woman not his wife during the modeling session, and he begs for the film. He gets it, but it's not enough - he wants the negative too.

Turns out Phil accidentally filmed an escaped Nazi known as The Butcher exiting the bank, and the chase is on to retrieve the film.

What I enjoyed about this movie, although it was very grainy, was all the New York locations. The other thing I liked were the things we old-timers take for granted that are gone, like pay phones, newsreels (though I'm really not old enough to remember them), and men wearing hats.

Virginia Gilmore, who reminded me of Jane Greer, plays a magazine writer attempting to do a story on the newsreel office.

Alan Baxter, who later moved into character roles, was very likeable. The acting was okay, but the atmosphere and locations really made this film.

A newsreel cinematographer, Phil, is taking shots of pretty models on the streets of New York. Unbeknownst to him, while filming the ladies, he accidentally captures some footage of a Nazi war criminal who is assumed to be dead. A short time later, the Nazi's buddies try to get this footage from the studio...and ultimately, Phil is even briefly kidnapped by some of the gang who pretend to be detectives. Fortunately, some quick thinking helps him to escape...and Phil and his boss realize they are dead men unless the gang is captured.

While the idea for this low budget film is interesting, occasionally the story has some logical lapses. For example, when Phil escapes, why doesn't he IMMEDIATLEY contact the real police? And, when the film is stolen and the police recover it, why would they give it back to Phil and tell him to drop it off at the police station?! You'd THINK they'd either take it there themselves or contact the FBI and give it to them since it's so important. You'd ALSO think that after Phil escapes and he does meet up with the police that they'd assign cops to protect him. But none of this happens and the movie ends up being about Phil taking on the Nazis AGAIN! You also wonder if after the evil Nazi Butcher is discovered on the film that they really wouldn't need the film. After all, it was taken in 1948....only three years after the war AND the wanted Nazi looks the same as he did in old footage the studio owned already....just give the old footage to the authorities! And then there's the girl...her character simply makes no sense. Overall, the movie is not really very good...when it really should have been based on the interesting story idea. It's a highly flawed film that you can find on YouTube...and after seeing it, I can understand why the filmmakers don't apparently care that it's posted there to watch for free.

Without realizing it, two newsreel reporters took pictures of a surviving nazi-leader in front of a bank, while filming fashion mannequins in the streets of New York. The German, who was thought to have died during the war, was inquiring if he could recuperate a large sum of money. He needs it, to be able to continue Hitler's dream after the dictator's death. He is helped by a criminal gang, which is only in it for a slice of the money, not for political reasons. Hal Ericson's description in the All Movie Guide of the gang as being a "secret neo-nazi gang" is therefor incorrect. The gang will make several attempts to recuperate the film and its negatives, including by kidnapping one of the reporters. The boss of the two reporters however discovers whose face has been captured on the newsreel, and contacts the authorities.

The problem with this rare B movie is that it just can't decide whether it wants to be a kind of political thriller, a crime movie or some kind of comedy. The final result therefor isn't very bright, without being terrible at the same time. The movie sure is watchable till the predictable end, but well... The script isn't always very convincing or logical. While the Nazi leader's henchman doesn't hesitate to kill one of the criminals, the 'hero' has more luck, and only gets knocked out with a gun on his head. Dialogs are quite poor, no cute « one-liners », no quick exchanges of wisecracks etc. Well, the hero's colleague is trying to be a funny guy every now and then, but the movie would have done perfectly well without this kind of clowning.

Alan Baxter may be in the words of Hal Ericson a "character actor", but you won't see very much of it in this movie. Alan Ladd playing like he played in The Glass Key though would have made a good choice. That would have given the movie that extra status it desperately needed to rise above its mediocrity. The soundtrack doesn't help either. While the main title track you'll hear while the names of the actors are shown is OK, the music during the key moments of the movie doesn't support the action. I'd rather qualify it as simply irritating. I'd give it a 6/10

I love this film. It's so full of surprising turnings and brilliant innovations that you actually must enjoy being taken for a ride. The story in itself is ingenious, by accident an ordinary news reel camera man gets someone like Martin Bormann into the picture, and naturally those Nazis having just come out of the bank after some major transactions want to get hold of that film as a matter of life and death.. What follows is a tumultuous roller-coaster of a hunt for the negative, which involves no end to confuisons, and naturally there is a double-crossing dame involved also, and the poor journalist in all his innocence has every reason to get mad. Fortunately he has a cheerful assistant who always manages to keep him happy after all.

There are some striking shots on the way that Hitchcock would have enjoyed, and of course some major close-ups. This is one of those films that in all their confusing up and down turnings leaving you more bewildered than the hero. you must look forward to seeing it some time again.

No, Close up isn't at all a film noir as stated higher, it begins with 25 minutes of lousy comedy (and lousy casting with lousy dialogues), then turns in a spy part trying desparetly to be tough, and ends in a big lousy laugh. I really don't see any evocation of film noir nor crime in one of the few movies directed by Donohue who mostly worked for TV.