Truly Dreadful Film

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Dreadfully Boring

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Don't waste your time on this stinker. The movie only runs an hour but you'll be thinking that it had to originally run longer and has been severely cut. There are no explanations as to what motivates the killer-we get some conjecture but never find out why this man has selected his victims ahead of time. What "evil" could a random housewife be responsible for? Why is his killing instinct motivated by rain? Actually he gets motivated by ANY falling water (as indicated in the lame chase/conclusion). Why? The scene where he replaces the dummy (known only to the police working the case)is mind boggling.Is the man omnipotent? How does he stay one step ahead of the police? If you want frustration then watch this film. It had possibility but comes up short very early on. Regarding those prior questions-they never get answered.

This picture is such an oddity it left me scratching my heads for many minutes after I ran it. Okay, it's a Schlom production, so it's from the B unit. Lundigan is certainly a capable lead in these second features but FOLLOW ME QUIETLY required a bit more gravitas for the Lt. I suspect this might originally have been mapped out for Sid Rogell's graduated unit and then sent down the line. The ingenious machinations with the dummy; the anxiety provoked that the Lt. might actually be the killer; and the elaborate location chase all have the earmarks of something that Robert Ryan would have starred in for Rogell and Ted Tetzlaf. Then there's the red herring of Leonid Raab as the credited composer. Paul Sawtell did the action cues and Raab was not on staff at RKO. In fact, he was primarily an orchestrator (long time) for Franz Waxman. I didn't want to run the projector back when I screened my print but I'm pretty sure that Herman Schlom's name was on the cover of the detective magazine they find at Paul Guilfoyle's house (his wife the murder victim). Finally, having Edwin Max turn out to be a rather slovenly killer after he is built up as wily (taking the dummy's place at headquarters) and personable (according to the waitress and landlord), he simply doesn't fit the portrait painted of The Judge. Nor does he seem fanatical as an avenging angel would be. He looks more like a fellow in a perpetual drunken stupor. Where was Paul Stewart when we needed him! Anyway, the whole thing looks like a great kernel of an idea taken in the wrong direction by the wrong personnel. Still, it's unique enough to be enjoyable.

In defense of the movie I DID have a decent time. Story was neat..Who couldn't appreciate a faceless suspected murderer..(See it to know of what I speak.) The scenes with the faceless fella were indeed eerie like the wonderful Jeff Corey also commented. My problem was 100% with Dorothy Patrick. She reminded me of Priscilla Lane, not one of my favorites, but Ms Lane could show something going on in her noggin. It seemed like perhaps William Lundigan treated her poorly or plain ignored her off camera..there wasn't an ounce of anything resembling attraction/chemistry that I could detect. Ms Patrick wasn't the sexiest gal around but she also showed nothing resembling acting ability.Anyway, besides she standing out in the rain in her raincoat and entering a bar dry was not her fault but after the ginger ale her bird-dog attempt to get to the police LT (Lundigan) for allowance for her magazine article was weak. Lundigan caved in far too quickly for his "release" or whatever it was called. The film may have done fine without the weak romantic addition. Sure Barbara Stanwyck could have pulled the Patrick role off in spades but...Do see it and it's not a lengthy film and then YOU can chop it to pieces or hail its praises!

I wouldn't call this a film noir. It's not dark enough or desperate enough. Most of the characters are good guys, really good guys. No femme fatale, no focus on the depravity of the bad guy, and only one bad guy. It's a police procedural, or a mystery/detective.There is some effort to make it seem noirish. It's got lots of rainy streets upon which murder is done by a serial killer. The title is a noir title, (I wonder if Mickey Spillane borrowed it for "Kiss Me Deadly"), and we've get some scenes of empty streets, (too empty), but no depression, no hero who plays by his own set of rules, no city full of crooks, shysters, perfumed men, down at the heels detectives willing to do anything for anyone, and et cetera.The production values are good. Set ups could be better, but it's lit nicely, it moves along, it's got a sort of Dragnet style, it's pretty good on all that.The acting is anywhere from fine to adequate, depending on who is doing it. In my opinion, this is a film which requires hot and energetic male and female leads, but they forgot to plug them in so they are very genteel at all times. Sam Spade could knock them over with a sneeze.The really wonderful thing about this film, according to my wife and I, is that it so superbly inept. There are plot holes galore, there is a guy who runs a place that the principles frequent who is always on the phone with his bookie, for comedy relief, but the actor who plays him is so scandalously bad that his acting becomes the comedy relief. There is the very usual climbing to the top of an open metal structure with lots of metal to ping bullets on, and tons of pipes to hide behind, but the fight at great height isn't as exciting as the Thrilla in Manilla. It isn't as exciting as tying your shoelaces, but it's so drunkenly botched that it's entertaining as heck.We've watched it twice now, and we'll watch it again whenever we're in a mood to feel superior to someone.This has the same kind of charm as "Plan 9 From Outer Space" only with good production values. Edward D. Wood Jr., eatcher heart out!