JohnHowardReid
A somewhat disappointing film from the hands of ace director John Farrow (especially when compared with Leslie Fenton's somewhat similar Ladd vehicle, Saigon, made the following year). Of course he was hamstrung by a somewhat indifferent script whose writer was breathing down his neck as producer (although the script has some interesting characters who are particularly well-acted, the plot is wholly predictable and thus almost completely lacking in suspense); and by the casting of Gail Russell in a pivotal role. She is 100% inadequate, and is not too flatteringly photographed either.All the same, Farrow does what he can: the introductory scenes of the film are put across in short snappy takes, but the scene in which Don Beddoe tells Ladd of Cunningham's death is handled very effectively in one long take with the camera almost stationary except for a short pan at the beginning and end of the scene. Other long takes follow - the scene in the morgue, the scene at police headquarters, but there is less reliance on this device than usual, as Miss Russell was unable to retain her lines without the use of an idiot board.The sets are impressive, but they do not come up to the exotic standard of those in Saigon.On the other hand, Miss Duprez does make a fabulous second lead.
XhcnoirX
Alan Ladd and William Bendix are cargo pilots in the far East. Shortly after their friend and fellow pilot John Whitney announces a surprise marriage, he's found murdered. Ladd decides to investigate the murder himself. Through nightclub singer June Duprez he tracks down the fiancée, Gail Russell, who seems very evasive. When he finds out her wedding present is a necklace Whitney could not possibly afford, he digs deeper, and slowly uncovers a smuggling ring, that might or might not involve Russell, who he is getting quite close to. The movie is a mixed bag, in almost every way. The story wants to be a mystery, relying too much on peripheral characters who seem important but aren't, such as Edith King as the owner of a jewelry store. Gail Russell's ('Moonrise') casting as a femme fatale seems like a potential goldmine, as she is one of the least likely actresses to play one. But she doesn't fully convince me, part of her appeal is her (real life) fragility and it doesn't mesh well with the more conniving aspects of her character. Duprez ('And Then There Were None') fits her role much much better, it's a shame it's such a minor role. Ladd ('This Gun For Hire') on the other hand is great, altho chances are this part was written with him in mind anyways. He could portray tough and tenacious as well as anybody else. And he has excellent chemistry with Bendix ('The Dark Corner'), who is always solid. There's a funny scene early on in the movie with Ladd and Bendix stranded after mechanical issues. Ladd is bare chested, covered in dirt and sweat (I imagine some ladies in the audience wanted this scene to go on forever), while Bendix is still wearing his shirt and is barely sweating. The movie's competently made, but director John Farrow ('The Big Clock') and DoP John F. Seitz ('Double Indemnity') have done way better and more remarkable movies. It makes the movie even more frustrating, so much talent in front of the camera as well as behind, and the end result (despite being a box office hit on release) is rather bland. Maybe if a better print surfaces I will enjoy it a bit more, but as it stands, it's only a 6/10
mcgill653
I have read the negative reviews, both concerning the overall impression of the movie and individual performances, and there may be some truth with them. But look at this view of my feeling of Gail's performance. This acting might be both an indication of John Farrow's ability and talent in knowing how to direct an actress with Gail's temperament so excellently, and Gail's own capability in understanding this directing.We first see Gail leaning over the stair railing, calling out to Alan Ladd if he is looking for her. Her posture here, her body language seems to me to show a personality of confidence and self-assurance. This demeanor of hers is bolstered, I feel, with a tone and articulation of voice adding to her firmness of mind. In every scene and conversation with Ladd, Gail's character, I feel, shows us a guiltless innocence in tone and manner, betraying no emotion but simply, slyly, and slowly winning Ladd over, conning him. And she almost succeeds as Ladd says, "...you really got under my skin..." and "If I live too long I may get too crazy about you." In the end our hero saves himself from the sly seductress, though. Gail's calm, self-confident, and subdued manner is apparent in every scene and always deliberate and intended to be that way. Her delicate, gentle looking face and tone is an excellent facade. For, we find out that she is the "fatal woman" of a big criminal organization. And who better to play this part than a sweet talking, innocent looking and sounding con artist and back stabbing woman who, "would have hated to kill you," as Gail's last words to Ladd are as she is lead away by the police.Other examples of Gail's duplicitous behavior can be seen throughout the movie, and, I feel all very effectively accomplished with the helping hand of John Farrow's excellent direction.
juanandrichard
"Calcutta" was one of Alan Ladd's most successful movies of the 1940s (even out-grossing "The Blue Dahlia") and is a fun combination of film noir and adventure. Alan Ladd and Gail Russell made a beautiful couple, and I was sorry that they made only two co-starring vehicles together.Some critics resented the fact that Gail Russell was the villainness of the story, but I have to disagree. It added irony at the end, and debunked the type-casting limitations so many stars of that period had to suffer through. She was a real beauty! As well, the supporting cast is excellent, in particular Broadway's Edith King. Without a doubt, this is a typical Alan Ladd "star vehicle" of the period -- to be enjoyed for what it is (a fun "Terry and the Pirates" type vehicle), and not to be over-analyzed.
AD
