उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I watched most of Man in the Dark without realising it was originally shot in 3D. At first I thought I was watching a lost Fritz Lang classic---extreme closeups, odd points of view, shattering glass---until I remembered the film had been directed by, ahem, Lew Landers. Now nothing against old Lew, he delivered many a fine B picture, but Man in the Dark doesn't look like your typical Columbia programmer. It's black and white take on the 3D process is more noir than you'd expect and it obviously helped to have Floyd Crosby behind the camera. Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter are good as always, overcoming a pretty hackneyed script that is the film's major shortcoming. Worth seeing for the dream sequence alone, where O'Brien is pursued by policemen in bumper cars!!

Growing up in L.A. always meant a fun trip to Pacific Ocean Park near Venice and riding the "Sea Serpent" roller coaster--and taking a whirl on the "Laff In The Dark" dark ride (while getting creeped-out by the caged "Laffing Sal" in her polka dotted dress who cackled at you from behind bars). "Man In The Dark" takes us back to 1953, and a pre-POP era, when amusement parks were generally seedy and frightening, especially Ocean Park as it was known then (POP came about after Disneyland was built in 1955, and gussied-up by CBS who had purchased it and turned it into a family-oriented theme park-by-the-sea). The "Sea Serpent"--which was "modified for family riding" by CBS in 1957-58 for the new POP, was originally known as the "High Boy"... a John Miller out-and-back masterpiece built circa 1927. This ride was a true thriller...and can be seen to full advantage in this rarely screened noir drama. Laffing Sal was there too, perched above a fun house back then, and she steals the show in many scenes shot to take full advantage of the 3-D process. Since I had experienced both parks back in the '50's through its last season in 1968 before it was torn down, I really wanted to see this movie. I wasn't disappointed. Although not up to the standards of "D.O.A." by a longshot, the movie holds one's interest from the get-go, further capturing the sleeziness old L.A. of the '50's as a place you didn't want to go to if you were trying to stay out of trouble...or if you were on the lam. Edmond O'Brien holds is own, but the other characters do seem a trifle cartoonish to be truly believable. Audrey Totter comes off a little too harsh (even for her) to be considered an attractive prize. The interior shots come off as being filmed a little too flat, but once the film goes on location to the run-down areas around Ocean Park (a real slum at the time), and the park itself, the noir experience kicks-in...Big Time! You can't really call this film a "B-Noir Classic" because its almost impossible to find today...not in the league of "Gun Crazy" (shot at Ocean Park too!) or "D.O.A" or a host of others... but Google it...and you'll find it! Then judge it for yourself.

Edmond O'Brien has a severe case of retrograde amnesia, but he didn't contract it in the Pacific. He's a robber who got away with $130,000 in a Christmas Eve heist, was convicted and served his time. But he'll get a second chance if he submits to an operation to excise the criminal portion of his brain. Understandably, he's conflicted, and when they move it up from the scheduled day he balks: `I was born on a Monday. I may as well go on one – like dirty laundry.' But the operation proves a stunning success, so delicate that it erases all memories of his past life but leaves him with a perfect command of American slang.

But the placid life he leads at the sanitarium – pruning hedges and daubing canvases – comes to an abrupt halt when he's kidnaped by his old gang, now led by Ted De Corsia. They want the money, which was never recovered; so does an implacable Javert of an insurance investigator. Even his old girlfriend (Audrey Totter) sees him only as a ticket to the high life, until she falls for the new, improved O'Brien and renounces her grasping ways. (The often ill-used Totter shines here, especially on a martini bender when she asks the bartender, `Oh, Fred, what do you do when you hate yourself?')

Odd clues begin to surface from O'Brien's troubled nightmares, however, leading him and Totter (with the rest of the cast plus the police in pursuit) to claim a parcel left at an amusement park. And this is the big set-piece of the movie, originally released in 3-D. Cars come whooshing around the curves and down the dips of a roller coaster while pitched battles are being fought on the tracks. Watching these 3-D movies now is like drinking soda that's gone flat: All the ingredients are there but the sparkle's gone. But in their endearingly gimmicky way, they evoke their era, as do the flats equipped with party lines and furnished with lampshades bearing reproductions of paintings. Man in the Dark's too short, and needs an extra layer of complexity. But there's still a bit of fizz left in it.

After reading some negative reviews of this film, I expected it to be a pretty stale B-movie about gangsters and stolen dough. However, I found this to be a pretty entertaining B-movie with some humorous 3-D effects, and some wonderful footage of an amusement park circa 1953.

The script for this film, is indeed pretty routine with the typical gangster stereotypes seen in most films of the period. Edmund O'Brien gives a very good performance, however. There are also a few other familiar character actors in the film, which make for interesting viewing.

The 3-D gimmicks utilized throughout (scalpels, cigars, guns, a flower pot, roller coaster) are fun to spot, and good for a laugh. The greatest asset this film has though, is it's use of location filming. There is an interesting chase across some rooftops which works very well, but best of all are the amusement park scenes, including a roller coaster ride, and some really nice close-ups of the Fun House Laughing Sal figure. If for no other reason, see the film for her presence.

Edmond O'Brien stars in "Man in the Dark," a 1953 film also starring Audrey Totter. O'Brien plays Steve Rawley, a prisoner who undergoes experimental surgery that's supposed to erase the criminal elements of his brain. It also wipes his memory of past events.

Unfortunately Steve and some other thugs committed a big robbery and Steve hid the money. Now that he has no memory, he doesn't know where he put it. His old gang kidnaps him and tries to find out his hiding place. His old girlfriend Peg (Totter) is around, and she wants him to forget the whole thing and go away with her.

Steve starts remembering things in the form of bizarre dreams. He and Peg attempt to follow the clues in the dreams to track down the money.

Edmond O'Brien made a lot of these B films for Columbia. This one is no better or worse than many of them. The last part of the film takes place in an amusement park, and it's very good.

Originally this film was in 3-D, and like some other films, it was filmed in the seen-better-days area of Ocean Park near Venice, CA. I always like seeing the old LA, and this film has lots of shots of it.

I had one major problem with this film, and it's a major plot hole. If you had stolen a lot of money and hidden it, why would you agree to a surgery that is going to clean out your memory so that you don't remember where you hid it?

I don't know the answer.

Here's an example of a routine thriller that could have been so much better if the script hadn't been so banal. Unfortunately, nothing really riveting happens until the last twenty minutes when the amnesiac victim enters an amusement park with some startling results.

It's the final chase scene that make the film come to life, but by that time (and even though the running time is brief), many a viewer will be turned off by the pedestrian script and the average performances.

Even old pros like Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter look as though they know the script is the problem. Totter, minus her usually scrappy dialog has a colorless role. She plays it straight but makes almost no impression as the woman who wants her boyfriend to amend his old ways after he finds the missing loot that the villains are chasing him for.

It was originally intended to be shown in 3D, and this is obvious from some of the gimmicky B&W photography for the carnival scene. Still, the low-budget aspect of the whole thing is apparent from the start and the final impression is of a quickie B-film unworthy of O'Brien and Totter.

Ted De Corsia has his usual tough guy role as the punk who likes to slam O'Brien around but even he is handicapped by the hackneyed tough guy dialog. Lew Landers directs the story without any distinction until the final scenes at the amusement park.

If you approach this movie with the expectation that it's a noir crime classic, you'll be disappointed. But if you come to this film for what it was at the time -- the first 3-D movie barely over an hour long, that was rushed through production to beat out a better-known movie to theater audiences -- a low budget but not cheap crime noir with snappy, clever dialogue that Tarantino wishes he wrote -- a black/white crime caper that skillfully blends backlot scenery (the rooftop chase scene must have been literally on top of the actual movie studio soundstages and offices) with Los Angeles street scenery, with genuine 1953-Lost Angeles street scenes, fashions and architecture -- all topped off with solid acting from star and superlative actor O'Brien, supported by journeymen character co-stars -- and for dessert -- the first glimpse of action choreography designed specifically to showcase the brand new 3-D technology (something we still see too much of in modern 3-D flix) -- then what we have is a movie whose parts are better than the sum total.

Oh, and did I mention the crazy fun dialogue?

If this movie is watched with an eye toward film history, then it goes from a rating of 6, to a rating of 8. This movie is a remake of a 1930s plot, then it was remade as a TV episode. Expect to see it again someday in a modern movie or tv show. It's a solid plot with all kinds of fun possibilities.

Dumb script, cheap sets, black-and-white, second bananas. They all add up to the question: why did Columbia bother with this project at all? Especially in 3-D! Edmond O'Brien is a gangster whose criminal urge is removed surgically, a groundbreaking process that also wipes clean his memory. His hoodlum pals don't believe it, as well they shouldn't, and systematically beat the tar out of him for his forgotten secrets. It's all good for an unintended laugh, and in fact, this could have made a first rate comedy if anybody had realized how ridiculous it was. The cast do what they can under the circumstances, but probably wished they could forget the whole thing.

Edmond O'Brien played in quite a few film noir pictures. And, interestingly, they all seem to be excellent...even "Man in the Dark" which you would expect to be a bad picture even WITH O'Brien. Why? Because the film was cranked out in only 11 days AND because there were a lot of cheap 3D tricks in the picture...yet it still turned out to be very, very good. So why would the studio do this in 11 days? Apparently, 3D movies were brand new and they wanted to be the first major studio to make a 3D picture....yet, amazingly, the film doesn't seem rushed or second-rate!

When the story begins, a prisoner (O'Brien) is about to undergo some surgery. When he awakens, he has no memory of who he was and is christened 'Steve Rawley' by the doctors. Unfortunately, his old gang doesn't know about the purpose of the surgery--they just know they've got to kidnap him and tell them where he stashed the loot from a robbery. But he really does NOT know where it is nor who he was. His only clues are strange dreams he's been having. Could they point him to the right direction before the gang decides just to kill him and be done with it?

As usual, Edmond O'Brien is great. He's tough, mouthy and just the sort of ugly mug you'd expect in a noir picture. And, having Audrey Totter and Ted de Corsia in supporting roles sure didn't hurt! Overall, a nice viewing experience...even with all the 3D gimmicks and use of rear projection towards the end (which I normally hate because it looks so fake).

3-d scenes always stand out as being solely for that purpose; the best one in this flick is doubtless the cops in the snap-the-whip ride in the amusement park. None the less, these oddities do not redeem "Man in the Dark", a true B-flick, which suffers from a hackneyed script and college drama society acting. I like Edmund O'Brien but he can't rise above this material. Interesting period footnote: the flick contains the best example I've seen of what used to be called a "zoot suit", a type of outfit favored by thugs, real and aspiring. It is worn by Nick Dennis as Cookie (the short guy; he went on to play Dionysius in "Spartacus").

Originally made in 3-D, this is another of Columbia's black & white releases of this genre (like Vincent Price in the Mad Magician). 3-D process and numerous subjective camera techniques (like scapels used in operation coming out at the screen, bullets firing at speeding cars, whirling around car rides at an amusement park, etc.)make this interesting viewing and out of the ordinary story about a thug who can't remember anything about his $130,000 heist after brain surgery.

A Rush Job by Columbia to Cash-In on the New 3-D Craze.

The Story is Quite Dull and Repetitive but Comes Alive with Bizarre Shots and Scenes, Like Brain-Surgery, a Carnival Whip-Ride and other Nightmarish Visions.

The Climax on a Roller-Coaster is Exciting and Violent.

The Disappointment comes with Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter's Lackluster Coupling. There is a bit of Thuggish Behavior from Ted de Corsia but Not Enough to make the Story Sizzle.

There are Things that make this Worth a Watch and it Certainly is Anything but a Typical Noir. Fanciful but its All Surface Eye-Candy with the Crime and Medical Elements Rendered Flat alongside the Pumped-Up 3-D and Chases.

Historically Important and a Glaring Example of its Time. An Artifact Attraction then and Now.

Film Buffs should get a Kick Out of it.

Harden criminal Steve Rawley (Edmond O'Brien) gets experimental brain surgery to rid himself of his criminal tendency. Afterwards, he gets paroled into the care of his surgeon Dr. Marsden. Insurance investigator Jawald is trying to retrieve $130k from his last heist, but apparently, he has lost his memories as a result of the surgery. Jawald is not the only ones after the money. Rawley's old criminal crew is also looking for the loot. They take him to his girlfriend Peg Benedict (Audrey Totter), but he doesn't remember her either.

This is a remake of The Man Who Lived Twice (1936). The premise stops making sense with the changes. The parole alone doesn't make sense. All that is probably secondary. The bigger aspect is the 50's 3D craze. This is Columbia Pictures' first 3D film. I don't have the glasses or the 3D print. One can see the attempt at the 3D effect. There is a lot of shooting at the camera, crashing into the camera, and throwing things at the camera. While I cannot comment on the effectiveness, it does seem very gimmicky. There are some good action and I really like the rollercoaster. This is generally a bland crime noir with some gimmicky early 3D.

1953's "Main in the Dark" marked Columbia's debut in the short lived 3-D sweepstakes, supposedly a remake of their 1936 title "The Man Who Lived Twice" that completely botches the premise. In the earlier version, Ralph Bellamy played dual roles, a disfigured cop killer who volunteers as a test subject for Thurston Hall's eminent surgeon, in the belief that a delicate brain operation may remove the criminal element to allow the patient to become a more useful human being. The fear of exposure maintains a high level of suspense as Bellamy's criminal past threatens to derail his current position as a renowned physician, until fingerprints reveal the truth and he's arrested; this update ignores the possibilities inherent in such a scenario, casting Edmond O'Brien as convicted crook Steve Rawley, caught after hiding the $130,000 from a daring payroll robbery, spending a year behind bars before being selected for an operation that causes him to lose his memory (Lon Chaney buffs familiar with 1954's "The Big Chase" may experience deja vu in regard to the crime). Rather than retraining to become a doctor like his benefactor in the original, this version quickly goes off the rails as Rawley's old gang kidnap him and spend the rest of the picture holding him hostage in a cramped apartment, the only excitement generated by a deck of cards, a bizarre amusement park nightmare finally stirring his memory, plus a mysterious note left behind in his former home sending him off on a literal roller coaster ride. A perfect example of how a remake can go terribly wrong when they fail to use the original story, Audrey Totter easily standing out in a dreary cast led by the unsympathetic performance of a surprisingly unengaged Edmond O'Brien, looking and behaving exactly the same both before and after the operation so no change in characterization, a huge comedown from Ralph Bellamy's excellent work (only those unfamiliar with the 1936 title may get some enjoyment out of this forgettable gangster meller). Director Lew Landers had seen better days with Boris Karloff in "The Raven" and "The Boogie Man Will Get You," and Bela Lugosi's "The Return of the Vampire," his career ending with the posthumous release of 1962's "Terrified."

Edmond O'Brien plays a criminal who is paroled to participate in experimental brain surgery which will remove his criminal impulses as well as his memory. The problem is that his former partners want their shares of $130,000 he stole before he went to jail. (Big Plot problem: Why would O'Brien agree to participate in this experiment if he knew he had a bundle waiting for him? Wouldn't he just do his time?) This B-crime drama, too light in tone to qualify as a Film-noir (check out O'Brien in DOA if you want to see some real Film Noir), with its paper-thin characterizations and dated tough guy dialog, would be easily forgotten if not for its status as the first Big Studio picture released in 3-D. Check it out: It beat "House of Wax" to the screens by one day. I just had the good fortune to see an excellent print of the film today at the Maryland Film Festival. (I should say prints, since it was projected by two cameras simultaneously.) The 3-D experience more than compensated for any deficiencies in the script. (In the film's defense, it does move along quite quickly in its effort to entertain.) I have seen many of the classic 3-D films in their natural format, and I found the 3-D in this film fabulous. Just seeing the black & white Columbia logo itself was worth the price of admission. Oddly, however, the intentional 3-D effects, amusing as they could sometimes be, distracted from the overall 3-D experience. I found myself fascinated simply by the illusion of depth in simple conversational scenes with the occasional object in the foreground. If I were flipping through the channels and watched a bit of this film flat on television, I doubt I would linger very long on it, but the excellent 3-D made it a worthwhile theatrical experience. Check it out if you ever get the chance.

The writing for this film is as trite as one can get for the amnesia genre. Yes, the plot of the protagonist having amnesia has been done son many times (and much better than this), that it has turned into a genre of its own.

As soon as I see a film with a plot where the protagonist has amnesia, I already know it has been done dozens of times before and almost all of those films use the same devices; some event triggers a memory, and the protagonist finally has some direction in life. O'Brien tries to get through this mess, even though they know the script is silly.

Fun to watch if you have insomnia.

One of the few thrillers originally intended to be released in 3D, this movie sums up the joined assets of having been made by a respected studio (Columbia), offering good performances by thoroughly good actors - specially Edmond O'Brien who holds most of the film going on-, and raising an interesting if a bit constricted story filled with excitment, mystery and a thrilling action finale at a roller coaster. The first part, beginning with a brain surgical intervention on our leading man resulting in amnesia which will bring him so much trouble, could have been more developed since it offers an interesting contrast to his prior behaviour. The plot is good enough, and its relatively sparse settings are counterparted by its technical achievements, dynamic chases and a treasure hunt. Ted de Corsia and his partners and Audrey Totter as a bewildered girlfriend add realism to the story.

The 3D effects are wisely combined with the plot. They include bullet shots, a frontal car crash, falls and many other tricks better not to be advanced. Here is where Lew Landers ability as a director is shown, as he does not let the movie loose its rhythm.

But aside of these various effects the film is equally interesting watched in 2D version, making it a good noir movie.

The Twilight Time restoration is excellent with good image quality, and the much appreciated inclusion of the original (non-3D) trailer, which doesn't reveal anything about the picture but the secrecy under which such innovative productions were then made, intended to create expectation.

As for the 3D effect, when first watched on a 3D TV, though, it was quite disappointing, because it was hardly noticeable. Nevertheless, after a meticulous search the right TV was found in one specific Sony HD model, and all at once the 3D magic came to life. You feel like you could grasp the objects on the Psychiatrist's desk, notice many small details in close-ups, and sense the depth in many scenes. I can only share my enthusiasm. Splendid !

Be aware that different TV models from the same brand may show strong differences in 3D effects, so don't give in. Wish I had found this information in some other review, it would have been very useful to have it beforehand.

A bit expensive, but worth it. Let's hope it sells good enough and encourages the producers to issue new titles (Bwana, Fort-Ti, and so on). Don't miss other less known 3D jewels as Inferno, Dragonfly Squadron or MGM's Kiss Me Kate while we wait for more !

This is a tale of two films.

The 2-D version is a decent 1950's film noir. Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter, both veteran actors, give superior performances. Production values are solid. But you might scratch your head over some of the strange actions (ex: the scared bird and the position of the scalpels). Such visuals slow down the action. And that brings me to the only way this film can be appreciated for what it is. That's in the 3-D version.

"Man in the Dark" is the second 3-D movie that had a major film release. It was preceded by "Bawana Devil" and was followed by "House of Wax". It's 3-D they way it was first thought of. Objects fly at the screen. There's a natural multi-layer depth. The all around feel is "it's 3-D, look at me!". And that at times makes it a real hoot.

The one disappointment is the rear screen shots. The action in the front is 3-D, but the rear projection is just 2-D which is a bit jarring at first.

The 2-D version is fine. But to appreciate "The Man in the Dark", you must watch it in 3-D.