Browsed by
Month: April 2022

Reflection: Reviews Through the 1950s

Reflection: Reviews Through the 1950s

Hello, fellow film fanatics!

I’m getting close enough to the completion of this massive reviewing project that I’ve headed into a kind of chronological finish-line: as of today, I’ve reviewed every title listed in Guide For the Film Fanatic released before 1960. Click here and you’ll see.

(For those keeping track, I’ve reviewed 3,306 titles in total from the book, with only 994 left to go. Wow – less than 1,000! Another significant milestone.)

It seems fitting to write a brief note saying goodbye (for now) to the cinema of the first half+ of the 20th century — though of course, it bears emphasizing that as comprehensive as Peary’s book is, it’s far from complete in terms of listing EVERY noteworthy or must-see film. That is, there are gaps. Over the years, I’ve occasionally published reviews of what I perceive to be “Missing Titles” but more recently have once again focused on titles in GFTFF simply to keep making progress.

With that caveat in mind, what are my thoughts on “must see” cinema from the 1910s to the 1950s, now that I’ve reviewed all those titles from Peary’s book? I’ll focus this post on the 1950s, and save my thoughts on silent cinema (as well as movies from the 1930s and 1940s) for another time.

Note: Some of my insights below might seem fairly obvious to anyone interested in the history of cinema, but I’ll share them anyway just to document what’s stood out to me in my most recent months of watching, reviewing, and finishing up The List.

Takeaway One: Expansion of World Cinema
As filmmaking progressed over the decades, particularly into the 1950s, an increasing number of movies from across the globe were released (and now, of course, we have access to even more titles through digital platforms). By looking at my list of the “Foreign Films” listed in GFTFF, we can see that some countries and continents — i.e., Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and South America, to name just a few — seem to have had their filmic renaissance in later years, while others (i.e., China and most African nations) remain severely under-represented overall (at least in Peary’s book). (Of course, there are complex socio-political reasons behind this, which I won’t get into here — I’m just pointing out the obvious.)

Highlights and/or notable trends from foreign films in the 1950s include the beginning of significant works from Ingmar Bergman; just a few titles from the Eastern bloc (albeit lovely and provocative ones); many beautifully shot films from Japan (including several solid classics from Akira Kurosawa); a distinct lack of post-WWII German titles; plenty of diverse and engaging French films; the rise of Fellini in Italy; and Satyajit Ray’s incomparable “Apu Trilogy” from India.

Takeaway Two: Visual Innovations
As we all know, screens got bigger — much bigger — during the 1950s (for a variety of reasons). While I was finishing up my reviews of ’50s titles in GFTFF, I was struck by the difference this format made for so many (though not all) movies. VistaVision had its heyday, CinemaScope came and (mostly) went, and other technologies were experimented with. My understanding of the “how” behind the glorious images we see on the screen is limited to what I learn by reading and watching “extras” (I’m an art lover, not a techie); but I do take note when it’s obvious that a wider screen is impacting our ability to appreciate what we’re seeing, either more or differently.

For instance, I was disappointed by what seemed to be a lack of widescreen innovation in Otto Preminger’s hard-to-find Porgy and Bess (1959) (though we’ll have to wait until a restoration is finally completed to see for sure). However, I’ve been blown away by so many other recently restored widescreen titles, in which it’s obvious how well-planned and well-utilized the massive screen space was. Even films I’m not particularly enamored with — i.e., King Vidor’s epic War and Peace (1956) — remain a vision to behold.

As a side note, this is a fabulous time to be a film fanatic. When I started this project 16 years ago, I was watching some utterly crappy bootleg copies of titles which have since been completely revitalized… I’ve become wonderfully spoiled, and am still in the process of replacing older stills in my earlier reviews with newer, better ones.

Takeaway Three: Sadly, History Repeats Itself
It’s been particularly distressing in recent months to revisit films made during or just after World War II, and see how much of what we thought was simply hideous history once again haunting our daily lives.

Fascism is back in full force, Cold War tensions remain ever-present, and… people treat each other in atrocious ways. War abides. Will that ever go away? It doesn’t seem likely. I’m obviously deeply disappointed that cinematic representation doesn’t cure all ills, but at least — at least — we can (and should) maintain some historically grounded humility in what we’re dealing with, with help from movies.

Final Thoughts
If you’re itching to read more about films from the 1950s, click here for a list of 100 “must see” titles from this decade (most are covered in Peary’s book) — and also be sure to check out Tim Dirks’ comprehensive overview of cinematic trends and influences during the 1950s. He covers teen heart-throbs (Marlon Brando, James, Dean, Elvis Presley) and teen exploitation films; the impact of television on studio production (including epics, 3D, and other widescreen films); big-budget musicals; “intelligent” westerns:

… larger-than-life ’50s icons such as Marilyn Monroe, Doris Day, Audrey Hepburn, and Elizabeth Taylor; Method acting; British influence; anti-Communist sentiment (including Cold-War inspired sci-fi); censorship and social conscience flicks; Godzilla; Jimmy Stewart; auteurs like Alfred Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray, and Douglas Sirk; and more.

That’s it for now. Back to viewing and reviewing! I’m heading forth into the 1960s and beyond

Nazarin (1959)

Nazarin (1959)

“Charity does not degrade the recipient, nor does it affect dignity.”

Synopsis:
A devout priest (Francisco Rabal) in rural Mexico helps support a suicidal young woman (Marga Lopez) and a prostitute (Rita Macedo) who is wanted for mortally wounding one of her colleagues; but as the trio head out on a pilgrimage across the countryside, Father Nazario (Rabal) questions whether his good intentions will make a difference against evil.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Christianity
  • Do-Gooders
  • Historical Drama
  • Luis BuƱuel Films
  • Mexico
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos

Review:
Based on an 1895 novel by Benito PĆ©rez GaldĆ³s — who also wrote the novel upon which Tristana (1970) was based — this Luis BuƱuel film was winner of the International Prize at Cannes, and shows clear evidence of many of the director’s most pressing concerns and cinematic interests: religion, morality, hypocrisy — and the role played by doubt. As Bunuel himself said in an interview, “I think doubt is an extraordinary thing. It makes you grow.” In the same interview, he expressed fondness for Father Nazarin as a “really nice guy” who could really be anyone (except, he added drolly, a policeman). Indeed, Rabal’s performance is quite appealing, and we quickly grow to admire this man whose morals truly drive his actions:

BuƱuel places Father Nazarin within an appropriately seedy and challenging milieu, one filled with garishly made-up prostitutes (are they covering illness?):

… and sickly citizens in need of care and alms. The primary narrative tension revolves around how Nazarin will respond when the two women he’s helped begin to follow him around as though he’s a modern-day Jesus:

There are a couple of surrealistic touches sprinkled throughout, as well as the inclusion of a midget as a love interest:

… which all add to the sense that one is very much watching a film by BuƱuel. While this isn’t must-see, it’s worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Francisco Rabal as Father Nazarin
  • Gabriel Figueroa’s cinematography
  • Several effectively surreal moments

Must See?
No, but it’s well worth a look, and of course must-see for BuƱuel fans.

Links:

Music Room, The (1958)

Music Room, The (1958)

“Music — a crazy passion of yours.”

Synopsis:
In 1920s Bengal, an aging feudal landlord (Chhabi Biswas) is cared for by his two loyal servants while resenting the “new wealth” of his money-lending neighbor (Gangapada Basu), and reflecting back on various concerts held in his palatial music room.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Flashback Films
  • Indian Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Satyajit Ray Films

Review:
Satyajit Ray’s fourth film — made after Aparajito (1956) and before The World of Apu (1959) — was this elegiac tale, based on a short story by Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay, about an aging zamindar (landlord) whose love of classical music overrides all other passions (except, perhaps, smoking from his hookah):

… who is unable to cope with emergent shifts of power and wealth under crumbling British colonial rule in the early 20th century. Ever the disruptor — and largely misunderstood and under-appreciated in his own country — Ray wanted to use music and dance as a logical component of the storyline rather than having them simply burst out of nowhere musical-style; so, this film is essentially a series of realistic music and/or dance performances interspersed with a melancholic storyline which shows how a love of arts and leisure at the expense of all logic can get a nobleman into trouble.

I happen to adore Indian classical music, so was quite engaged by this film — though I can see how its meandering, flashback-filled storyline might not appeal to all tastes. It’s not must-see, but it is one of Ray’s more highly regarded films and thus worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Chhabi Biswas as Biswambhar Roy
  • Subrata Mitra’s cinematography
  • The stunning final kathak dance sequence by Roshan Kumari
  • Vilayat Khan’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look and of course must-see for fans of Ray’s work. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

World of Apu, The (1959)

World of Apu, The (1959)

“Living itself brings fulfillment and joy.”

Synopsis:
When grown Apu (Soumitra Chatterjee) — living in poverty after dropping out of college to work on his writing — receives an invitation from his friend (Swapan Mukherjee) to attend his cousin’s wedding, he unexpectedly finds himself married to the bride-to-be (Sharmila Tagore); but once their life together is tragically altered, will Apu be able to rally himself on behalf of his young son (Alok Chakravarty)?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Father and Child
  • Indian Films
  • Newlyweds
  • Satyajit Ray Films
  • Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “final installment in Satyajit Ray’s classic Apu Trilogy” shows us a surprising view of an “arranged marriage” in India, in which the new couple “illuminate each other’s lives, falling deeply, madly in love, and living for each other’s company.”

Of course, “as in most of Ray’s films, there will be great tragedy, reflection, guilt, and, ultimately an affirmation of life,” which circles back once again to the grounding anchor of nature.

Peary writes that while this “beautiful film has [a] familiar plotline” (I disagree), “Ray presents everything in unique ways” and the “final shot… is the perfect reward for us having gone through so much suffering with Apu in Pather Panchali, Aparajito, and this film.”

He points out that “Ray has been criticized for failing to give a clear picture of the changing India,” but counters that “here we see industrialization, get a quick view of a picket line, hear of strike-breaking, get a glimpse of a decrepit school where no education is possible and the back room of a factory where workers waste their lives ‘labeling’ for slave wages.”

Peary concludes his review by noting that “even if this isn’t a social document, it manages to give us insight into people (men and women, children) that few filmmakers have been able to match” — and “for viewers, there aren’t many films that are as emotionally rewarding as the Apu films.”

I fully agree. While I find Pather Panchali (Ray’s debut film) to be the most magical of the trilogy, this one is a close second given its mature depiction of love, heartbreak, and compromise. Young Aparna is stunningly beautiful:

… and she and Chatterjee make a fine couple; her willingness to leave behind a life of relative leisure with servants to follow her unknown husband to his ramshackle apartment speaks volumes about her loyalty and character. We fully understand the depth of Chatterjee’s grief when tragedy strikes, and are grateful that Ray allows us to experience the relentless impact of this as it hits Chatterjee over a period of days, weeks, and years. While this film’s storyline (based once again on a novel by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay) is far from easy, we know we’ll be rewarded by authenticity and genuine pathos.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Soumitra Chatterjee as Apu
  • Sharmila Tagore as Aparna
  • Subatra Mitra’s cinematography
  • Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a moving finale to the trilogy, and a fine film in its own right.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Aparajito (1956)

Aparajito (1956)

“I want to go to school.”

Synopsis:
Ten-year-old Apu (Pinaki Sen Gupta) moves from rural Bengal to the city with his mother (Karuna Bannerjee) and father (Kanu Bannerjee). As a teenager, Apu (Smaran Ghosal) decides he wants to go to school rather than becoming a priest — but how will his widowed mother respond to being left alone?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Childhood
  • College
  • Indian Films
  • Satyajit Ray Films
  • Single Mothers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “second film in Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy” really “conveys [the] special relationship between mother and son,” with teenage Apu (Ghosal) realizing “that he means everything to her, but can’t allow that to dictate his life.” Peary adds that “the scenes between the boy and his mother are priceless — he assuring her that she’s a better cook than the guy at college”:

… “she smiling slightly but with infinite happiness when her son returns home for one extra day of vacation time, claiming to have missed the train.”

Peary describes Aparajito as a “lovely, perceptive film, with a second unforgettable, understated performance by Banerjee (smiling more and acting nicer than in [the] original) as one of Ray’s many fascinating, untraditional women.”

While I’m not nearly as enamored with this second installation in the Apu trilogy as I am with the first (which remains a truly unique gem), I appreciate Ray allowing us to continue Apu’s journey with him, seeing his passion for learning and clear trajectory towards a life of the mind.

And while nothing can compare with the beauty of rural Bengal captured in Pather Panchali, Ray makes excellent use of location shooting in the city of Varanasi, showing citizens praying, exercising, gathering, and bathing near or in the Ganges River.

This classic Indian film remains well worth a look by film fanatics — and I’ll be back shortly with my assessment of the third entry in the trilogy.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine location shooting in Varanasi
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
Yes, as the second in a highly regarded trilogy.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Pather Panchali (1955)

Pather Panchali (1955)

“Who’s to say who’s good and who’s not? People are always cheating you.”

Synopsis:
A young boy (Subir Banerjee) and his sister (Uma Das Gupta) grow up with an aged “auntie” (Chunibala Devi) in rural Bengal while their mother (Karuna Bannerjee) struggles to make ends meet, and their dad (Kanu Bannerjee) is gone looking for work.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Childhood
  • Elderly People
  • Family Problems
  • Indian Films
  • Satyajit Ray Films
  • Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “debut film” by Satyajit Ray — based on an autobiographical novel by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay — has “an almost documentary feel to it, so authentic is his depiction of life in a small Bengali village, circa 1915.” The rambling storyline primarily shows the young children playing and observing the world around them while their “father remains optimistic despite having little money:”

… instead “letting his wife do all the worrying about town gossip, about Auntie’s bad influence on her daughter (who steals fruit for her, and is accused of snatching a necklace), about the kids not having enough to eat (they get less because Auntie must eat), about the house being in disrepair, and most of all, about their poverty.”

Peary notes that Karuna Bannerjee (who only made 12 films over her career through the mid-’70s) “is a remarkable actress — with a slight turn of the head, a worried look inward with her beautiful eyes, an almost imperceptible intake of air, she conveys immense anguish.”

Meanwhile, as Peary points out, while “the characters are distinctly Indian,” the “picture begins as if it were stressing universal qualities that the two children possess: they lick their lips as the candy man passes by, the attend festivals, they run through the fields and woods:”

… “they get excited when they see trains (Ray’s favorite fate symbol), [and] they fight when Apu gets into [his] big sister’s stuff.”

Peary describes the movie as “beautiful” and “unpretentiously sensitive,” with “humor” but “extremely sad,” noting that while “the characters in the film (including neighbors) love each other” this “doesn’t stop them from hurting each other repeatedly” — but “what is so special are those rare moments when they reveal their love.” This groundbreaking film — directly inspired by The Bicycle Thief (1948), and featuring a haunting score by Ravi Shankar — is both gorgeous and devastating; viewers should be forewarned that it’s an emotionally wrenching, albeit essential, cinematic experience.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the entire cast


  • Subrata Mitra’s cinematography

  • Numerous memorable moments

  • Ravi Shankar’s score

Must See?
Yes, of course.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Shadows (1958)

Shadows (1958)

“The point is, if you’re yourself, you won’t get hurt.”

Synopsis:
In New York City, a white man (Anthony Ray) is distressed to learn that his light-skinned new girlfriend (Lelia Goldoni) has black brothers (Hugh Hurd and Ben Carruthers).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Cultural Romance
  • John Cassavetes Films
  • Musicians
  • New York City
  • Race Relations and Racism

Review:
John Cassavetes made his directorial debut with this semi-improvised, Beatnik-era story of inter-racial romance in New York City. He released his first draft of the film in 1957, then withdrew it to add a bit more structure to the storyline, resulting in a more coherent but still intentionally non-linear, jazz-inspired tale. While it’s most definitely an indie film, it’s remarkable on numerous levels — primarily its frank treatment of racial tensions in a non-sensationalized fashion:

… and also its willingness to show first-time love (sex) as “awful”. Perhaps most refreshing is how the storyline doesn’t jump directly to racial prejudice as the driving tension, instead showing Goldoni’s reluctance to bring Ray in to her home simply because she’s not sure she wants to continue their relationship; his reaction upon learning she’s a light-skinned African-American simply seals the pain.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Erich Kollmar’s cinematography
  • Excellent location shooting throughout New York

Must See?
Yes. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance, a Cult Movie, and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

He Who Must Die (1957)

He Who Must Die (1957)

“Everyone on Earth is in charge of his neighbor.”

Synopsis:
Just after World War I, residents in a Turkish-occupied Greek village plan a Passion Play, with a stuttering shepherd (Pierre Vaneck) starring as Christ (Pierre Vaneck) and a widow (Melina Mercouri) playing Mary Magdalene, among others — but when the leader (Jean Servais) of a group of starving refugees seek entry into the village, they are denied in a decidedly un-Christian manner by the town’s head priest (Fernand Ledoux) and its Turkish governor (Gregoire Aslan).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Christianity
  • French Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Jules Dassin Films
  • Refugees

Review:
While attending the Cannes Film Festival in honor of his celebrated heist film Rififi (1955), director Jules Dassin met his future wife Melina Mercouri:

… and cast her in this powerful adaptation of a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, about the hypocrisy of town leaders in the face of a humanitarian crisis.

The situation at the center of the storyline couldn’t be more relevant 100+ years later, as our global populace continues to face unprecedented waves of refugees seeking shelter and safety; seeing how this particular town reacts is a sad indictment of our ever-present tendency to shun and fear outsiders.

Thankfully, there are almost always a few “good actors” in the midst of bureaucratic strongholds — in this case, a few of the leads from the Passion Play who support the efforts of Servais’s Priest Fotis.

Especially creepy (effectively so) in a small supporting role is Aslan as the self-satisfied Turkish governor who is primarily interested in eating and feeding his young male “companion”.

Film fanatics will likely be curious to seek this film out, given both its sociological relevance and fine work by Dassin and his crew.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s definitely worth a look.

Links:

Nights of Cabiria (1957)

Nights of Cabiria (1957)

“Listen — I’m fine the way I am. I got everything.”

Synopsis:
A prostitute (Giuletta Masina) whose boyfriend has just pushed her in the river and left her to drown recovers and gets back to work, heading out with a famous film star (Amedeo Nazzari) whose petulent girlfriend (Dorian Gray) eventually returns to him, and wandering into a show by a hypnotist (Aldo Silvani) who gets her to be highly vulnerable on stage — at which point a stranger (FranƧois PĆ©rier) attempts to woo her into marriage.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Federico Fellini Films
  • Italian Films
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “often sad but magical film by Federico Fellini” stars “Giuletta Masina [as] an aging, sweet streetwalker in Rome” who is “tired of hanging around with sleazy street types and being used by disrespectful men” and “dreams of a better life.” However, “she keeps getting knocked to the ground (or thrown into a stream, pushed into a closet, almost tossed off a cliff)” — though “Fellini is compassionate and gives her a moment of festivity and happiness,” which she “deserves… because of her indomitable spirit.”

I’m not sure I fully agree with the rest of Peary’s assessment — particularly his remark that Cabiria “doesn’t wise up and remains completely trusting of men.” Even as Cabiria seems to soften in later portions of the film (her eyebrows literally shift from angled to curved), it’s not men she begins to trust, but rather her ability to make the best of life no matter what is thrown at her.

She fights off jealous or combative women, and while men continue to attempt to take advantage of her, she is always on the ready to defy and deny their assertions that she needs them in order to thrive. For instance, she rejects an offer by a smug pimp (Ennio Girolami) to come under his protection:

… and enjoys dancing in her own inimitable style when taken to a nightclub by Nazzari, caring not a whit that he doesn’t join in.

While Cabiria is temporarily taken in by a “wise” magician who gets her to literally let her guard down:

… and she is slowly flattered by the gentle and insistent attention PĆ©rier pays to her:

… she never loses her sense of self-worth or dignity for more than brief moments at a time. Cabiria will get up again and again, and keep joining in the festival of life.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Giulietta Masina as Cabiria
  • Aldo Tonti’s cinematography
  • Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
Yes, for Masina’s performance and as an overall powerful show.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Brothers Rico, The (1957)

Brothers Rico, The (1957)

“We’re all brothers, aren’t we? Did that ever stop anything?”

Synopsis:
A former accountant (Richard Conte) for the mafia finds his happy life with his wife (Dianne Foster) disrupted when he learns that his mob-involved brothers, Johnny (James Darren) and Gino (Paul Picerni), have disappeared, and he must help locate them.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Mafia
  • Phil Karlson Films
  • Richard Conte Films
  • Siblings

Review:
Phil Karlson directed numerous effective noir thrillers — including Kansas City Confidential (1952), The Phenix City Story (1955), and this fast-paced flick about the near-impossibility of extricating oneself from the mob. Working with a script by Lewis Meltzer and Ben Perry (based on a story by Georges Simenon), Karlson opens the film by showing us the disruption of marital near-bliss between Conte and Foster, who is appropriately wary when a phone call from mob boss Sid Kubik (Larry Gates) wakes them up at night.

Conte tries to reassure Foster that she comes first in his life, to which she responds, “I know what I am to you: I’m your wife, twice almost the mother of your children.”

This pointed statement swiftly sets up the primary narrative tension for this couple: that is, their inability to have biological kids of their own and their desire to adopt, which may be in jeopardy if Conte doesn’t keep his nose completely clean. Unfortunately, he’s unable to stay away when he learns his brothers are in trouble (this is at heart a movie about the bonds of family):

… and we sympathize with Foster as she watches her husband slip ever deeper back into old, unwanted obligations.

The storyline takes us on a tense ride from Conte being told he needs to accommodate a hitman (William Phipps) lying low:

… to Conte’s brother Gino (Picerni) finding him and pleading for help in getting him out of the country:

… to Conte meeting with “Uncle Sid” Kubik and falsely believing Kubik has his family’s best interests at heart:

… to Conte visiting his religious mother (Argentina Brunetti) and dying grandma (Mimi Aguglia) and finally learning where his brother Johnny is hiding out.

Conte’s trip out to California to visit Johnny (Darren) and his pregnant wife Norah (Kathryn Grant) represents a significant turning point in events:

… and I won’t share more at risk of spoiling. Suffice it to say this film merits a look — and perhaps another one — to enjoy its well-plotted narrative.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Richard Conte as Eddie Rico
  • Burnett Guffey’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a taut thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links: