5/10
Visually stunning, but badly written and acted film noir
23 September 2003
Apparently Welles made this film to help finance a Mercury Theatre production. It shows. It's sloppy.

The film noir plot is complex. Too complex for Welles, it's riddled with holes. The whole thing hinges on O'Hara behaving in ways that only a fool would even consider. Hayworth is stunning but equally idiotic as the femme fatale. However, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders are good fun as the Hayworth's crippled, hot-shot criminal defence lawyer, husband and his giggling, slimy business partner, although their performances hinge on caricature rather than character.

The trial scene is hilarious, but in ways that were probably not entirely intended by Welles. Sloane is defending Welles on a murder charge, but then both Sloane and Hayworth, Sloane's wife, get called as witnesses for the prosecution without notice. The whole thing is farcical, so farcical indeed that Welles's character decides to scarper. Visually the section that follows is one of the most stunning I have seen.

Finally, Welles's Irish accent was awful. There did not appear to be any reason for it. His character could just as easily have been an American for all the difference it made to the plot.

In all, the whole is one of the most laughable film noirs I have ever seen.
53 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed