dougdoepke
Sprightly Republic programmer. The two leads (Douglas & Long) play engaging newly-weds as they try to solve a complex murder mystery swirling around them. There's quite a bit of innuendo as they try to get a few minutes alone before the navy man has to report back for duty. But roses, a bird, and a couple of murders keep interrupting their time. Long is particularly lively and engaging without going over the top. Fortunately, neither walks through his or her role, always a risk for a low-budget production. It's also a colorful supporting cast, especially rotund Dick Elliott as a stubborn drunk. I could have used more action, but happily director Blair keeps things moving. The mystery itself is not very involving despite the many teasers, so it's really up to the players to carry the load, which they do. All in all, it's a diverting and, at times, charming little farcical mystery.
mark.waltz
A truly contrived mystery/comedy of several murders involving a young married couple (Audrey Long and Warren Douglas) celebrating a quick second honeymoon while the Navy Lieutenant husband is on leave. She keeps getting mistaken for another woman (who turns out to be her cousin) and meets a series of wackos (including Lloyd Corrigan as a jovial drunk named "The Beard") as bodies pile up. Republic Studios couldn't wait for TV to take off, and put a series of low-budget relatively short features on the screen with the quality of antique anthology TV show episodes. The result is a poor convoluted thriller that outlasts its welcome, even at exactly an hour.
MartinHafer
"Homicide for Three" is a brainless mystery B-movie. It tries to be funny (but it isn't) and it tries to be an engaging mystery (but it isn't). It just comes off as an incredibly forced low-budget film--one which never once seems plausible or interesting. And, even if the acting was better (and occasionally it's pretty bad), the writing is so poor that the actors haven't got a chance.The film begins with a very frisky young married couple searching all over town for a hotel room--but with no success. So far, this looks like the makings of a sexy comedy....but no such luck. A bit later, when they are trying to get a room, a woman overhears them and offers them her room. From here on, it's a lot like "Date Night" when a murder occurs and they pair are possibly implicated. Through it all they have a 'detective' who helps them...and pretty much everyone but them knows what will happen next.The bottom line is that the film is stale, silly and full of BAZILLIONS of plot holes. Why didn't they go to the police? Why would two idiots think they could investigate a murder ring?! Huh?!?! Dumb....very dumb. And, during the film my daughter kept begging me to turn it off. I wish I'd listened to her.
secondtake
Homicide for Three (1948)There is a seeming waste of talent here in a Republic (small studio) B-movie that isn't quite dramatic or funny enough to take off. So it sinks under the weight of its frivolous plot, which I think it more or less intended to do. What I mean is, it was a lighthearted movie that would have played with a heavier A-movie feature. By itself it's not enough.But it's worth noticing the very real, honest presence of the main actress, a lively and natural Audrey Long (seen in "Born to Kill" in a similar but secondary role). You can almost watch the movie just for her ease and "American" cheerfulness. Her counterpart is stiff by comparison, and the supporting cast gets worse from there (including a supposed detective that is so wooden he's concrete, though he has a passing resemblance to Lon Chaney Jr.). There are attempts to spice it up, even including some perplexing overview shots of a circus (they couldn't afford to really set up a circus for a shoot).Mostly we have a series of rooms of various kinds and some lightly entertaining twists as two hapless lovers get dragged further and further into a plot with some absurd coincidences. All in fun, but try "Born to Kill" first, or Long's other known film, "Desperate," both great 1947 noirs.
AD
