Sorry, this movie sucks

Absolutely the worst movie.

A Major Disappointment

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Apparently, "Detour" follows closely the 1939 novel by Martin Goldsmith of the same title. Goldsmith also wrote the screenplay. The general plot idea is good for film noir, but this story played out on the screen is just too hokey. I watched this movie with no more inkling of what it was about than I got from its promos. Afterward, I read that this film has been preserved for posterity and has become something of a cult classic. I can't imagine why, in either case – unless it would be for the technique of voice over for an actor's thoughts. There are any number of other noir films that have superb plots, casts and productions. There are two things I noted of historical significance in this film. The first is the long distance telephone connections that used to take some time for coast-to-coast calls. The second is the border check stations in California. I can't think of another movie that shows this. For many years, people entering California were not allowed to bring fruits or vegetables in with them. Vehicles had to stop at road entry stations to answer questions, have their vehicles checked and discard any fruits or vegetables they had with them. The lines at these check stations could sometimes be quite long, and the check stations operated almost like passport stations between countries well into the 1960s. Today, California still has control stations, but many fruits and vegetables for personal consumption are allowed, and the process is much quicker. "Detour" shows Al entering California from Arizona at a highway checkpoint where there are no other vehicles in sight. Even in 1939, there would have been more traffic. The low budget, cheap shooting, and minor cast of "Detour" are emblematic of the story quality. And, that's just hokey, with one incongruity after another. The viewer is first drawn to the tone of Al Roberts (played by Tom Neal) as he ruminates over coffee in the roadside diner. The "poor me, life is tough" message sets the stage for the film. The guy's got a real chip on his shoulder. Then, a flashback takes us to New York where he's playing piano while the love of his life sings. That's Claudia Drake playing Sue Harvey. And, we're led to believe that he's a masterful pianist. But whoa – he's got the chip on his shoulder already. Times are tough, they're just scratching out a living playing in a cheap nightclub. Then Sue wants to go to California to try to break into movies. Enter incongruity. But not Al – he wants to make it playing in a concert at Carnegie Hall. He loves Sue and wishes her well in California. Any number of other movies show couples in love traveling West together. The incongruities begin to pile up. We see Al playing in the same nightclub. The patrons are sitting around tables like wooden dummies. Al plays a medley of virtuoso numbers on the piano. He gets a $10 tip from a client. It's a big one. That $10 in 1939 (the setting of the film) would be more than $175 in 2017 dollars. More incongruities. Apparently, wealthy people frequent the cheap nightclub. There are no scenes of Al trying out, pounding the pavement, or playing with an orchestra or in a concert hall. Love strikes again and he misses Sue. He calls her and sets out to join her in California. He hocked everything and has just enough money for food. But he can't afford a train or bus ticket? What did he do with all of his tips and pay – or was he living on the high hog? He could have saved enough for an $80 train fare from New York to L.A. Al was so preoccupied in his thoughts that he didn't pay attention to Charles Haskell Jr. (played by Edmund MacDonald) when he asked twice for Al to get his box of pills out of the glove box. He saw him take the pills, but he didn't think anything of it. Yet when he opens the door after he wasn't able to awaken Charles, he thinks Charles dies when he falls out of the car and hits his head on the ground. And the ground is wet and muddy from the rain. So, he doesn't have enough sense to realize that the guy had a heart problem, and the pills probably were strychnine. OK, so he was dumb in the ways of life. Then, instead of doing what normal people would have done – driven to the next place with a police station, he conjures up all sorts of "reasoning" of wrongdoing. He justifies in his mind what he's about to do. The incongruities continue throughout this film. The last big one being his pulling on the telephone cord under the door instead of yanking the cord out of the wall on his side of the door. Or did he think he could pull the phone through the door? No, the acting isn't that good. Ann Savage as Vera makes a good Bette Davis impersonation. But this plot in this film is so contrived and hokey that it's almost laughable. In real life, Tom Neal's personal story is more interesting than this movie, and much more like film noir. Neal came from a wealthy family and was a champion boxer in college. He attended Northwestern University and got a law degree from Harvard. He got mixed up with some underworld characters even as he started out in Hollywood. He severely beat up actor Franchot Tone. Two of his three wives died and he spent several years in prison for killing his third wife. He died of heart failure at age 58, less than a year after his release from prison.

Well this film is not nearly as good as I've heard and read it was - at least not for me. I've seen better minor B film noirs, I've also seen worse. This one isn't too bad and is worth watching if you enjoy the dark crime films.*Spoiler*: Maybe I missed something but what I noticed is: Al Roberts was not arrested in the end of the film. They only showed him walking (or hitchhiking) and the police showed up, spoke to him and he got in the back of the police car UN-handcuffed. That means the police could have simply given him a ride in the same direction or he could have been brought in for questioning (he may or may not have been charged). The ending is left open to interpretation it seems to me. 6/10

Detour (1945): Dir: Edgar G. Ulmer / Cast: Tom Neal, Ann Savage, Edmund MacDonald, Claudia Drake, Don Brodie: Intriguing noir suspense about levels of complications. Tom Neal plays a nightclub pianist whose girlfriend heads to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career. Neal hitchhikes after her and is picked up by a business gentleman who talks of his dying father and scars on his arm left by a woman. When he dies of a heart attack Neal buries the body and assumes the identity believing that police would accuse him of murder if he contacted them. Frankly, the coroner's report should prove otherwise. The biggest contrivance regards the hitchhiking woman who turns out to be the victim's blackmailing ex. Do we believe Neal's narrative? Even the silliness of the conclusion is striking from its viewpoint. Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer who plays with the film's sarcasm and thriller elements. Neal is fine as a victim of circumstance that concludes with two bodies. Ann Savage is vicious as the hitchhiker whom Neal learns much about and cannot counter. Edmund MacDonald is seen briefly as the victim but the role is pivotal. Claudia Drake rounds out the cast as Neal's girlfriend who seeks a career away from the madness. There are smaller roles that appear here and there but nothing beyond prop level placing. Low budget example of the compiles of sin and guilt. Score: 6 ½ / 10

Watching Detour, it becomes apparent immediately that the movie was made on the cheap. The film relies on extensive rear projection work and shies away from using exteriors. All of this contributes to a certain cramped feel. This modest production is extremely effective nonetheless due to a few factors.First of all, we get a great raw-nerved, vulnerable performance from Tom Neal as our protagonist. This is complemented nicely by a vicious turn from Ann Savage as a hitchhiking femme fatale. Meanwhile, the script contributes several gems of dialogue that allow the two to really stand out. The limitations of the production actually work in the movie's favor. The cramped, constricted environment in which the characters operate becomes a pressure cooker, heightening the sense of dread as emotions boil over. On the negative side, the movie does fall victim to some clunky editing. This, along with a few other minor issues keeps me from rating this more highly.Bottom line: Worth your time for the performances of the two leads, especially if you're a film noir fan.