7/10
Maybe not the first film noir but still gives credit to the genre
1 October 2005
This is a taut psychodrama that some claim was the first film noir. Though that is a dubious dub, it is still a worthwhile contribution to the genre. Although the premise is intriguing, a key witness in a murder case is himself drawn into a similar murder situation where he may become the accused, there still seems to be something lacking. The film becomes very uneven in its presentation and the creepy ending involving the great Peter Lorre suddenly sizzles as all the loose ends come together much too quickly. One is left with the feeling that the movie was disjointed and jagged. The dream sequence in the middle is somewhat feeble by today's standards. I'm sure it was much better when first seen in 1940. Actually there are two attractions in the movie that make it so compelling. One is the use of a single set with actors the audience would probably not recognize. Except for Peter Lorre who has a small but effective role and Elisha Cook Jr.who does his usual fine job, the actors seem to be the actually denizens of the neighborhood. The other attraction is the amazing cinematography, the wise use of shadow and shade, especially in the brilliant staircase scene when Peter Lorre runs downstairs to escape John McGuire. Rain is always an important element in film noir. It is used in "Stranger on the Third Floor," but in one scene only and then very sparingly. The script has moments of greatness but also moments of saccharine mediocrity. With just a little more effort, this film noir would have been a classic.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed