Flamingo bar

Ava Gardner looks delectable and the character actors are wonderful in this preposterous soaper with noirish tendencies. No hint is ever given why Ava should fall for such a schmuck as portrayed by Raft. Why she should dally with the sort of weasel as portrayed by Tom Conway is a head scratcher as well. Perhaps they're the best that this one track town can offer in the way of available men. One would think that Chicago, the town Ava leaves to return to this burg, would present a more palatable platter of gents. But, thought doesn't play much of a part in this story. It is improbable, turgid and despite the fact that a train rolls through town, goes nowhere. There is some interesting camera work and nice lighting. The secondary actors are the only reasons to keep watching this bore. Well, that and the various shots of dreamy-looking Ava attired in her robe, nightgown and clinging dresses. Ultimately, though, this flick can be tersely summed up as being about a mope and a dope.

This movie doesn't quite make it into the ranks of noir. Although it's interesting to watch George Raft and Ava Gardener, there isn't any chemistry between them and their relationship is not believable.

Nevertheless, Gardner is amazing eye candy, a screen goddess, and steals every scene she is in. Frankly, she is so gorgeous that she is completely miscast in this little melodrama about small town hicks.

The story takes place in the post-depression era and contains a few nice plot twists. Victor McLaglen delivers a terrific performance as Raft's drinking buddy and partner in crime, but the rest of the cast don't do much for the movie except provide forgettable characters.

The direction and cinematography are okay but the biggest problem is the casting. None of the main characters except McLaglen fit their roles. The DVD (Classic Film Noir, Volume 2) is worth watching for Gardner and McLaglen, who sparkle in a movie that is otherwise quite ordinary.

This turkey came as an entry in a set of eight noir DVD's. I almost returned the set on the basis of this single movie. Leonard Maltin's Film Guide charitably characterizes the 82 minutes as "stupid". In my little book, that's too generous. From the cheap sets, to the slack direction, to the incoherent script, the movie's nearly laughable, especially when a zombified 51- year old George Raft deadpans sweet nothings into the luscious ear of 24-year old Ava Gardner. It's enough to make you want to call the cops or check your eyeglasses. And that's when Raft's not playing the wayward son of parents maybe 10 years closer to retirement than he is. If he could show a little emotion, he might get away with it, but you almost have to stick a fork in him to make sure he's breathing. Raft doesn't so much walk through the part as blankly stare his way through. No wonder the script turns to McLaglen to carry the action through the last third. And the miscasting doesn't stop with Raft. The sleekly urbane Tom Conway of British accent fame is cast as a small town hood, no less. It's as if both Conway and Raft got confused about which movie they were supposed to be in, and wandered onto the wrong set. Of course, there's the compensation of a ravishing Gardner for the guys, and in a flimsy dressing gown, no less. Too bad, her ability to do anything with the muddled script sort of comes and goes. The sometimes brilliant Philip Yordan's name is on the screenplay, but I can't believe it's actually his. The plot simply meanders all over the page like a bottle of spilled ink. There's no need to go on. This may be somebody's idea of noir, but the shovel has to scrape bottom to find it. Too bad mine did.

George Raft and Ava Gardner seem like a surefire hit but somehow it just doesn't turn out that way. The relationship between the two seems contrived. I think there may have been screen writing problems or something. Taking a decent plot and a good idea for a story and weighing it down and forcing it. It always seemed like there was something missing. But have no fear, Victor McLaghlin saves the show. His character is not only the only one that is interesting enough to care about but McLaghlin gives a really wonderful performance and one well worth watching. I wish the entire movie had been about him with Raft and Gardner as the peripheral characters.

Without Victor McLaghlin I give the film 3 or maybe 4 out of 10 but his screen time brings it up to a fairly solid 6 out of 10.

Whistle Stop (1946)

The style is pure film noir but the plot is not. A curious blend at the time of the first noirs at the end of WWII (this one is actually copyright 1945). It has two strong headliners, though some might argue this--George Raft is always a bit less than he wants to be and Ava Gardner is simply young and charming, before her great later roles. It does have a great idea--a beautiful woman has returned to the simple little town where she grew up wanting to see if her true love was still what she thought.

And so Gardner steps off the train at the whistle stop wearing furs, and mentioning her rich lovers left behind in Chicago. She looks at George Raft and thinks he's still a handsome guy, maybe it'll work. But she soon learns Raft is still a loser. And that another guy in town, with lots more money, still has the hots for her. It takes about one scene to switch her game plan.

It's called "Whistle Stop" because it's such a small town on the train line the train doesn't stop unless a signal is put out that a passenger is waiting. Then it blows its whistle and stops. (It also blew its whistle when it had a passenger, Gardner, who wanted to get off, so the whole town, if listening, would say, "Oh, the train's stopping." This becomes important later when Raft gets involved in a way to both make some quick major cash and get even with his rival.

But I should finally say the plot and direction are horribly put together. After awhile the four of us watching were speaking out, after a half hour of really rapt silence, saying, "What?" Or, "Now way." That is, the most improbable flip-flopping of emotions and inconsistent characters keeps adding up until you just can't quite get it. What's worse is it was all really avoidable with some minor thinking. You get the sense that maybe it got re-edited after shooting was done, maybe to create a different flow, or shorten it, or change the ending, and they just didn't have the pieces that needed to make it make sense. Whatever the reason, all these heartfelt, gritty, intense situations fall slightly flat. Just slightly--the movie is sort of watchable--but you have to like this period of movies to see all the great things going on otherwise.

Like the filming--great noir-ish darkness and high contrast, wonderful tight framing, and a few shots in a few scenes that you could study for their simple effectiveness. This is what keeps it going. And the whole scene is great, the little town, the back rooms and odd characters, the family at home. None of it is fully fleshed out, but it's all there to look at at least.

And a last point--the only copy I could find was streaming on Amazon, and it's a terrible print--there must be a hundred little gaps and jumps where both the sound and picture skip a second. Beware of that. Too. But Ava, well, she's got a career ahead of her, and she brings her scenes alive.