MartinHafer It's odd that I would give a propaganda film like this such a high score, but despite the odd plot the film IS very entertaining and tense and is still well worth seeing.Matt Corbin (Elliott Reid) is a reporter for a news magazine. When he arrives in a small town in rural Minnesota, his reporter senses start tingling because things just don't add up there. Despite always being known as a great place to fish, all the fish are dead. And, despite there being no local industry or jobs, folks have moved INTO the town despite the crash of the fishing industry. And, finally, there is a compound nearby that is guarded like Fort Knox! Clearly something is going on here...and little does Corbin know that it's actually a base for germ warfare run by Commie-Nazis!! Why they didn't build it in the good 'ol USSR, I have no idea!The plot is silly...but the sign of a good film is taking a ridiculous idea and making it seem possible and engaging. So don't worry that it's filled with mostly no-name actors and is a relatively low-budget picture, it's surprisingly good.

utgard14 Matt Corbin (Elliott Reid) is a magazine writer on a fishing trip in Winnoga, Minnesota. He discovers all the fish in the town's lake are dead and the locals are none too friendly. He starts nosing around and finds himself in the middle of a Communist plot to overthrow America with germ warfare. The original story for this had Nazis as the villains instead of Communists. But producer Howard Hughes felt Reds were more timely so the story was changed to Communists who used to be Nazis. Which is all kinds of hilarious if you think about it.Elliott Reid, a fine character actor I've seen in tons of stuff, is an atypical lead but does a solid job. His big romantic scene is a pretty big fail, though. Frank Darien is fun as the elderly general store owner who tries to help Reid. Carla Balenda, no doubt given the female lead by Hughes, offers a bland and forgettable turn here. I don't think she changed facial expressions more than twice. Raymond Burr plays one of the Commies. He's the most famous actor in the movie. The rest of the cast is made up of lesser-known but quality actors, some of which classic movie fans might recognize (Lurene Tuttle, for one). Perhaps the most pleasant surprise about this movie is that it's directed by William Cameron Menzies, legendary production designer whose directorial efforts include Things to Come and Invaders from Mars. Menzies gives this movie a stylish direction lacking in most other '50s Red Scare flicks. The movie looks like a film noir, not a political thriller. It's a beautiful-looking black & white movie. Whether you take the story seriously or not, I don't see how you can deny it's a well-crafted film of its type. It's a reasonably suspenseful thriller with some style and some neat creepy moments late in the film.

gjackson-840-900969 I first saw this film in 1952 and have seen several times since. It's one of those movies I always get a kick out of. Critics are right to argue that the plot has a couple of rather large holes. They are not right in denouncing it as McCarthyist propaganda. These deep leftist thinkers need to be reminded that the release of the Venona Papers largely vindicate McCarthy investigations. Sneering leftists also need reminding of the amount of communist aggression that the West was facing. For example, the communists insurgencies in Greece and Malaya, both backed by the Soviets. Then there was the takeover of Eastern Europe followed by imprisonment, torture and execution of opponents. Let us also not forget the 1948 Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, the Berlin uprising in 1953 and the 1956 Hungarian uprising that the Soviets ruthlessly crushed.The Cold War was far from being cold and was the creation of an aggressive Soviet Union. Before any more mal-educated leftists decide to start sneering at this movie maybe they will tell us why they choose to ignore the 100,000,000, people that communist regimes murdered. (The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press,1999). Read this book and you might start thinking that this movie wasn't too far out after all.

Eric Chapman Atrocious. The first 20 minutes or so are competent, establishing the normally reliable premise of a curious stranger stumbling upon a paranoid, hostile town. But "Bad Day At Black Rock" this isn't. At a certain point, the viewer develops the queasy feeling that the producers gave up and said "Oh to hell with it. We don't know what we're doing here. What do you say we just try to wrap things up and go bowling?" Bad performances abound, especially from "leading man" Elliott Reid (sort of a poor man's Farley Granger) who does everything except raise his eyebrow and stroke his chin whenever he puts together another piece of the puzzle. Whoever plays the pitiful old shopkeeper rather embarrassingly seems to break character a couple times. The only person who leaves any kind of favorable impression is Raymond Burr (playing a sleazy local). He hams it up entertainingly, undoubtedly aware of how awful the whole thing is.There is one incredibly weak exchange during a supposedly suspenseful chase towards the end. Reid and his cardboard love interest are trying to escape and he inquires "Are you wearing a watch?" She answers in the affirmative. His matter of fact reply? "Good." I half expected her to fire back with "Yes. Did you comb your hair?" At another point the love interest is in a reflective mode. "I can't believe my brother's a Communist" she states sadly. I want to say that Reid responds with "Yeah, tough break huh?" but it's hard to recall. I had lost a number of brain cells by that point.The last ten minutes of this sorry excuse for a motion picture have to be seen to be believed. Just goes to show that clunkers were indeed made back then as well. Then again it is quite unintentionally funny if one watches it in the right frame of mind.