The Man Who Dared

A crusading journalist attacking the use of circumstantial evidence frames himself for murder , but the only person who can prove it is in a car accident ... Is the plot of Fritz Lang's 1956 film Beyond A Reasonable Doubt . This time it's George Macready , not Dana Andrews , and his confidant is deliberately attacked by gangsters , rather than just a random accident . There is another big difference with the ending , but I won't spoil either film .

This is a typical Columbia B picture , notable mainly for being John Sturges first film .

This is a noir I've been looking for for a long time , didn't expect the deja vu with the plot .

It gets on with it , but the later chase scene feels like padding . The end scene screams TV show as well .

Macready still comes across as villainous ( as he usually was ) , and in one scene Forrest Tucker just looks blank . Brooks doesn't do much , and the real villain is hardly in the film .

Required viewing for noir fans and b movie collectors , but maybe not casual viewers .

( Beyond a shadow of a doubt is what the judge says in summing up , not quite saying the title of the future film . )

Reporter George Macready has got a serious problem with people being convicted on circumstantial evidence, so much so that he frames himself for a murder to prove a point. He takes the precaution of providing Forrest Tucker (Larry) with the evidence that will save him once he has been proved guilty only Tucker is run over and put into a coma at the moment he is required to provide this evidence. It's up to Macready to sort things out by himself. First of all, he has to escape from custody.

The cast are good in this film, especially Leslie Brooks as Macready's fiancée. Unfortunately, the film bombards you from the beginning with too much information. The story is not difficult to follow but it is made heavy-going by cramming in so much in such a short space of time. The result is a loss of interest and we end up just waiting for the thing to finish. Come on, get on and resolve the damn thing. It's not bad but George Macready is an idiot and too much happens.

It's true that the 1956 film with the more relevant title Beyond a Reasonable Doubt shares the same plot device as this film. For a half hour or so they're quite similar with some small but significant differences. After that they diverge, much to the advantage of the later film. This is not because of its bigger names and budget but because of its superior script.

The later film's plot has some ingenious unpredictable twists and turns. This film devolves into low-grade crime film cliches. Three scenes within ten minutes where someone has their gun taken away is a bit much.

If, like me, you enjoy watching different takes on the same plot, watch this film after you've seen the other one. Otherwise you can safely skip it.