Beco Sem Saída

I like most of David's movies, but in this he was really sleazy. Very unlikeable. And Stella Stevens, always seems to be type cast as a tramp. She was really horrible, and nasty. Hell I would have killed her. Jeffery, was a wuss, no one should have put up with that. The movie was great, so many vile people, the swinging neighbors, gross. Not surprised to see Bob crane as one of them. He lived that life style. Too bad it focuses more on Stevens,. It even starts showing at the beginning, she's no good. So, letting you know I don't have 61 more things to say. And you need to go back to the original format, A review should be a damn thesis.

I just saw "Mr Soft Touch" with Glen Ford which is a bizarre blend of noir crime and Capraesque comedy. And I found in this Man-trap another strange mix of political noir, friendship between 2 soldiers from Korea, and melodrama in Hunter's life with a boozy Stella Steven's. That blend of genres send the viewers in all directions. So it's certainly not a pure noir for me. This is the last movie directed by cult noir actor Edmond O'Brien, after 2 tvs and "Shield for murder" (co directed with Howard Koch). In this Man-trap, there is a scene in which Jansen disguises in a South American vip and raises his voice, well it recalled me "the Third Voice" directed one year later by Hubert Cornfield, Edmond O'Brien plays the Voice speaking loudly, quite nice tough film noir.

A strange film with a good cast and excellent San Francisco locations, circa 1961. Somehow, during the Korean War, Matt, a soldier played by Jeffrey Hunter saved the life of Vince another soldier, played by David Janssen. Matt has pretty much forgotten the incident--maybe due to a metal plate now in his head. So he's shocked when one day Vince turns up at his door, wanting to rekindle their wartime camaraderie. Things appear to start on the wrong foot, when Vince flirts openly (and mutually) with Matt's wife Nina (Stella Stevens). But Matt hardly minds, since he's had it with materialistic, alcoholic, verbally abusive nymphomaniac Nina. So, when she insists that Vince stay in their guest room, we can assume adulterous hanky-panky is in the future. Matt really doesn't mind too much--he's having an affair with the office secretary.

Very shortly after arriving, Vince reveals his true reason for turning up out of the blue: he has a plan to get his hands on $3 million in a semi-honest scheme (not really), and he'll need Matt's help. Manipulative Vince convinces Matt to play along and things go very badly. There's some entertaining early 60s-style violence and a pretty decent car chase that serves as a partial tour of San Francisco, well shot in widescreen black-and-white. The problem with the film comes in when it tries to tie Matt's marital troubles with the criminal events. It just doesn't work very well. But there are some fun arguments between Matt and Nina (Ms Stevens doing well, delivering very choice dialog). Then there is that party crowd: a group of neighborhood swingers we see first at one of Nina's booze-soaked gatherings (featuring Martini-filled water pistols), and later when they burst into Matt and Nina's obviously looking for an orgy. It's all completely implausible, but it's hard not to keep watching. No spoilers here about other somewhat interesting plot developments. This was directed by accomplished actor Edmund O'Brien, and if he had reined things in it might have just been dull. So, odd as it is, this movie merits a look, especially for fans of the period.

This film noir isn't bad ... but it's based on a novel by John D. MacDonald, so it should be great. The first half of the film closely follows the novel, with some minor adjustments. The movie's second half swerves drunkenly all over the highway, ending up at a similar finale.

The novel depicts Jerry as a borderline nice guy with buried criminal tendencies. The movie portrays Matt (Jeffrey Hunter's renamed character) as a swell guy who keeps getting dragged deeper into the heist scheme - almost as if the screenplay was written by his defense attorney. The desire to portray the protagonist in the most sympathetic light dilutes the story's impact. Since the producers take liberties with the plot after the halfway mark, it no longer matters.

I read the first half of John D. MacDonald's SOFT TOUCH, put down the book and watched this film, then read the remainder of the novel. While the film aligns closely with the films in the beginning, I was surprised by the straightened plots twists and the discarded scenes in the second half.

You can watch this movie without spoiling the novel's surprises, although you may find yourself wishing they had stuck to the novel. Difficult to imagine how the producers could go wrong, when John D. MacDonald had mapped everything out.

The film begins in a hokey, low-budget manner, mostly to establish the debt David Janssen owes to Jeffrey Hunter for saving his life. Later, they do have some good dramatic scenes together, but it is Stella Stevens that breathes life into everything. She is seductive, cruel, ranting, crazed, and clearly bored out of her mind with her war hero husband (Hunter). The swinging couples that travel like a pack of boozed-up interlopers, completely insensitive to the strain in the young couple's marriage are a fascinating glimpse into one of the social strains of instant neighborhoods in suburbia. Times were changing in 1961 and these moments reveal the chasm between Hunter's and Stevens' definition of married life.

The domestic scenes and the crime/noir scenes don't really go together and I wish that the Stevens character had been included in the planning of the heist, the escape, or some other way that tied the suffocating marriage to the recklessness of Hunter. Maybe something that played up how Hunter was seduced by Janssen, Stevens, and even his secretary might have made that two halves of this story more cohesive.