rodrig58 The 2nd film directed by the one who made the "All About Eve" masterpiece and the biggest financial catastrophe of all time, "Cleopatra". Joseph L. Mankiewicz is not a bad director at all, but this film has the foundation on a script written by him and four more craftsmen on their behalf: W. Somerset Maugham, Marvin Borowsky, Lee Strasberg, Howard Dimsdale. The outcome? Some sort of cabbage without meat, meaning almost total confusion. The actors are all very good and they try their best to be convincing but, the story is incredible. My personal feeling is that they tried to recreate the movie "Casablanca" unsuccessfully (different scenario but atmosphere and similar scenes). There are also stupid scenes, the truck that tries to crush Hodiak-Taylor or the ease with which Richard Conte beats the two Anzelmo men. There are other ridiculous scenes, I will leave you the "pleasure" to discover them. Not to be seen again, unless you have nothing to do and you absolutely want to have fun at the film imperfections. The biggest flaw of the film is revealed at the end, when we find out that Hodiak-Taylor is Larry Cravat, the one who wrote the note that starts the action of the whole film. That is Larry Cravat wrote to himself, to Larry Cravat, which is a non-sense.

clanciai A soldier, all bandaged up, wakes up in an army hospital in the war and remembers nothing. All he can do is to soliloquize. His wallet has been miraculously saved from the grenade devastation that all but killed him, which contains a weird letter from someone condemning him with all her hate. That's the only cue he has to his life and identity.It's a difficult beginning to start with, but the soldier is returned to life and to Los Angeles, where he starts digging for his past, groping his way in the total darkness of a mystery that only grows worse for each new clue that turns up. A singing lady takes care of him and bandages him up when he gets beaten up by hoodlums for no known reason, and there are more and more people like that, trying to get what he knows and the more eagerly so for the fact that he knows nothing.All amnesia films are usually extremely interesting and good, "Random Harvest" is the best example of all, but here the hero has no great past and has never been in any position but is just a common man who had the misfortune to get mixed up with accidents and intrigues beyond his control. At first you feel disappointed with the film, as nothing seems to resolve the mysteries but only to complicate them. Like the man himself you err in a labyrinth of grotesque absurdity, and every helper seems only to make it worse - until he meets an old man in a mental hospital, and then you have already passed way beyond half of the film.What follows though is completely rewarding. The miracle happens that everything in this inextricable mystery actually is resolved and explained, and an impossible abyss of illogical absurdity turns the other way around in a marvel of a sudden revelation, which definitely saves the film and turns it from disaster to glory.All Joe Mankiewicz's films display a high class stylishness of almost an aristocratic touch, which makes them all enjoyable, and this weird odyssey through a nightmare of disorientation is no exception. The actors are also convincing enough, while Richard Conte is the only real character player. This was Mankiewicz's second film on his way up to supreme stardom of directors, and he still had 20 more years to go of reliably outstanding films.

Alex da Silva John Hodiak (George Taylor) wakes up in a hospital with amnesia. He doesn't even know who he is and he spends the rest of the film trying to track down Larry Cravat who has left him some money. His journey takes him to a nightclub called "The Cellar" where he meets Nancy Guild (Christy) and they form an alliance. So where is the mysterious Mr Cravat.....? It is so bleeding obvious where Mr Cravat is. You should guess that part of the plot within the first 15 minutes. However, there are other twists and turns that keep you guessing and I didn't expect the final plot development. As for the story, it can get a little complicated so you need to just go along with it even though it is too long. The cast are fine - my favourite character being Lloyd Nolan's Police Lieutenant who has a way of letting people know that he pretty much knows everything already. He's like Peter Falk's "Columbo". Nancy Guild looks like a cross between Lauren Bacall and Ella Raines, and while many reviewers have given her a hard time about her acting (my girlfriend included), I thought she was fine. It's something about her mannerisms, smugness and trying to act older than she is which seems to annoy.The film starts with an overlong narration and there are dumb parts to the story, eg, why does Hodiak run out of the bank when he is asked to stay and have a quick word with the manager when he goes to cash his cheque from Larry Cravat. Surely, he would be only too pleased to speak to someone who may shed light on his past life or give him information about Larry Cravat. Another ludicrous concept that you have to accept is that Hodiak fell onto a bomb when it exploded. He looks pretty good to me. What a nonsense! However, there are a few moments that provide tension, eg, the episode at the asylum and the scene at the docks where Hodiak and Guild go in search of $2 million. There is also a moment that will make you jump when an attempt is made on Hodiak's life. You'll know the one I mean. That would have properly been game over! Overall, the film is a bit boring. Every scene, particularly at the beginning, takes ages and you'll get fed up with the name of Larry Cravat. Sadly, John Hodiak died unexpectedly while having a shave 9 years after this film was made at the age of 41.

secondtake Somewhere in the Night (1948)This has all the gloomy, alienating, nighttime elements of the best film noirs, and it's smack in the central Post War best of it. It even has a director, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, known for handling dramatic, emotional situations with both delicacy and power. And it all pays off. Somewhere in the Night follows a man just out of the army suffering amnesia, and he encounters a sordid past of crime he didn't know he had anything to do with. The dilemma of American soldiers coming home changed men, and to a home country so changed it was like a foreign country, is the crux of most noir films, and this one plays into it straighter than most. The twist of true amnesia only makes the crisis of George Taylor more stark. The role is played with subtlety, and some stiffness, by John Hodiak, I think because he is meant to be eternally confused by events (since he remembers nothing) and yet can't show his confusion, so he draws up a blank face. Mankiewicz works this inner problem out on the screen well, though choosing to keep the camera at a distance, as if filming a play sometimes, not a recommended film noir method for style, but it does emphasize the psychology more discretely.The camera-work is stiff, too, as if constrained as much as Taylor is in his amnesia. You won't see many sharp angles up or down, no tilted (dutch angle) frames, little moving camera, and little of the easiest of 1940s camera effects, extreme close ups. All of this makes for a dry look, and for my money, with a plot this sensational, a dull one. This cinematography, by Norbert Brodine sets the tone for the whole movie, and I assume it is at Mankiewicz's request, and it just doesn't compare well to other noirs, to Orson Welles, or to any number of Warner gangster films with similar shadowy subjects. Maybe the most extreme example of this is the long dialog over the crystal ball, where the camera just sits and watches. The lighting and the sets, in general, are dynamic, however, and the acting generally solid. And it has all the hallmarks (not quite clichés) of the genre--thugs at the bar, a nightclub singer with a big heart, a good guy who turns out to be a bad guy, and a cop who is clever and peripheral, like a sentry always ready. The movie is, truly, interesting, and doesn't let up as you have to figure out the puzzle of who did what and why. It won't sweep you off your feet or blow you away, but it will be worth settling quietly into.