Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Must See Movie...

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Walter Pigeon plays the part of a truly disgraceful lawyer. He agrees to represent a defendant in a murder case, thereby assuming a duty of loyalty to his client. In the course of the trial he succeeds in establishing that the key eyewitness against his client could not reasonably identify his client in view of the poor lighting conditions and, most important, that the witness need eyeglasses which he was not wearing at the time. Having demonstrated that there is not only lacking evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but a virtual lack of any evidence of guilt at all, the verdict of acquittal is inevitable. Indeed, the case should never have even gone to the jury; the judge should have entered judgment for the accused at the close of the prosecution's case. Upon discovering that his client really did the deed, the lawyer proceeds to assume the defense of the client for a second murder, one that he, the lawyer, committed, not the client, and proceeds to secure a conviction by withholding evidence, i.e., his own testimony that he, not the client, committed the second murder. He then goes on to provoke the client into killing him by, in effect, taunting him by revealing that he is the one who committed the second murder and getting the client to believe that he is prepared to see the client will be punished for the murder he did not commit. It is hard to imagine a lawyer betraying his duty of loyalty to his client so blatantly.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes the higher expectations you have for something, the more disappointed you are when those expectations are not achieved. I had high expectations for this film simply because Walter Pidgeon was a very fine actor, and a role as a lawyer seemed a natural him, particularly at this point in his career (he also played a lawyer in at least one other film -- "These Wilder Years", with Jimmy Cagney). And, it turns out that Pidgeon's acting here is just fine. That's not the problem.The problem is a dumb script that couda been a contenda. Now, the script started out fine. Young thug is arrested for murder. A distinguished lawyer -- but not a defense attorney -- reluctantly agrees to take the case. He gets the thug off, but later realizes that the thug was guilty of that murder and probably of at least one other. In trying to figure out a way to get the thug convicted on another murder, he learns who the kingpin of corruption is in his city. And he (Pidgeon) stabs him to death...with the weapon that the young thug used in the first murder! Well, you know something, that's just too sophomoric a script device! It ruined the picture. When the young thug is arrested for the new murder, Pidgeon represents him again since this was a crime for which he was not guilty. But, the young thug is convicted, and Pidgeon decides he (Pidegeon) must pay the price...and still get the young thug to pay a price for the murder he did commit, but was acquitted of. So he goes to the thug's jail cell, gives him the weapon used in both murders, confesses to the thug that he was the murderer in the last crime, then turns his back on the thug and the thug stabs him to death...while Pidegon is reading from the Bible. Thus both murderers pay the price (since the thug will now be convicted of killing Pidgeon). Oh my god.Would someone really set up a situation that would allow him to be stabbed to death? Anything is possible, but this is pretty far-fetched.Admittedly, the writers of the screenplay made everything that happens possible, but so unlikely that it ruins the film.Nevertheless, there is some good acting here. Along with Pidgeon, Ann Harding as his wife puts in a strong performance. Barry Sullivan, not usually a favorite of mine, does very nicely here as the DA. Lewis Stone is just perfect as a judge, though some of the dialog he is given is questionable. Eduard Franz has a small but interesting role as the head of the crime syndicate. The one misfire, at least in my opinion, was Keefe Brasselle as the young thug (although ironically, there were many stories alleging that Brasselle actually had definite connections to the mafia).I still have a great deal of respect for the long acting career of Walter Pidgeon, but this film proves that not every role he took on was a gem. Maybe worth a watch one single time.

MGM made some excellent film noir. People are surprised but it turned out some excellent and very dark ones, notably "The People Against O'Hara." This bears certain plot similarities to that Spencer Tracy movie. However, it is unfortunately not a very good MGM noir.Walter Pigeon, not one of my favorite actors, turns in a decent performance. Ann Harding, who could be exasperatingly grand in her 1930s RKO starring vehicles, has a small part as his wife. She's fine, though.Keefe Brasselle as the young hotshot Pigeon defends is not up to the task. He doesn't ring remotely true as a sleazy kid on the take for whatever he can get and loving what he does get.Barry Sullivan is one of the staples of the best of noir, however, and he is in his usual fine form as the district attorney who goes up against Pigeon in court. The movie, which seems to have needed it, has a voice-over narration by Sullivan. (I say it may have needed it because he speaks right over characters we see moving their mouths and acting out scenes.) It's rather predictable. Pigeon's Biblical recitation is interesting and casts the movie in a light that suggests it could have been much better than it is.

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.