Do Fundo da Noite

This is a reductio ad aburdum that conjugal love is laudable and may be stronger than affairs ;the screenplay is pretty astute,since it blends two or three plots and the movie does not suffer for it;the long trial,for once,is not boring,and is not the moment when the lawyer hams it up;on the contrary,Tom Conway gives a restrained performance and the scene has plenty of suspense;in a small part,Nancy Gates almost steals the show,when she says she has never sworn ; a story of a defendant defended by his lover's husband ,it's not derivative for the time,and it is a pretty good thriller by Gordon Douglas,not Hitchcock,but worthwhile all the same.

Tom Conway, with his smooth, urbane air, plays Mark, a hotshot defense lawyer, whose busy schedule leaves little time for his wife, played by the lovely Audrey Long. Tired of waiting hours for him to show up for dinner, and other forms of benign neglect, the wife pursues a platonic relationship with Tony, an artist. Confrontations lead to someone getting killed, and Mark finds himself defending Tony against murder charges. Corrupt officials also figure into the mix. The court room proceedings have a nice blend of drama and humor. Plus, there's the always amusing Edward Brophy. At 65 minutes long, this movie is hard not to like.

Mark Latham (Tom Conway) is a busy defense lawyer with a big case. Erica Drake Latham (Audrey Long) seems to be his happy wife, but he never has time for her. He's winning his case and becomes a target for the bad guys. Erica flirts with artist Tony Clair who has jealous drunken girlfriend, Julie Arden. Mark goes to confront Tony only to find a distraught Julie waving a gun.

I'm not sure why Erica would go to her husband to defend Tony. That's the weakest link in this noir crime drama. She could do it if she keeps her relationship a secret, but even then, she would keep her husband away from the case. The movie seems more obsessed with getting to the trial than setting it up properly. I do find myself wondering where the story is going. It could go any which way including Mark's final destination. That is fascinating.

Tom Conway stars with Audrey Long in "A Night of Adventure," a 1944 film. Conway plays Mark Latham, a busy attorney who has canceled too many evenings with his wife Erica (Audrey Long). Unhappy, she decides to leave him and moves into her own apartment. One of her admirers is an artist, Tony Claire (Louis Borel). When his old girlfriend is murdered, Erica appeals to her husband to defend him, and he takes the case.

Okay film. Conway, the brother of George Sanders, has the family smooth voice, although he's less debonair than Sanders. Audrey Long is one of the glamorous, well spoken leading ladies of the '40s who didn't achieve big stardom; she retired when she married "The Saint" creator Leslie Charteris.

Entertaining - this film is a remake of a 1934 film "Hat, Coat, and Glove" and was originally a play of the same name.

This film is competently made and acted. No one can dispute that fact, but there is the problem. Its just competent. The excellent supporting cast is merely asked to do competent work, while capable of much more.

The leads, Conway and Ms. Long, while not really A-list actors, are also capable of more in the right role with the right production (for example Conway's work in Val Lewton films is excellent and perfect for him). But they are not asked to shine here and don't try to come up with chemistry between them. Instead, some sappy canned string music is used throughout all their romantic scenes together as a substitute for true romantic acting. I do believe it is the producer's or directors' fault, not the actors.

The courtroom activity rings true to me and I believe it is as a courtroom drama that this film succeeds. Succeed it does, but is relentlessly limited to "B" territory by the producers.

"A Night of Adventure", while rather standard and unimaginative, will hold your attention so you might want to view it if you are a fan of the actors involved. Fortunately none of the actors gives a performance that you could call less than "competent".