Memorable, crazy movie

Did you people see the same film I saw?

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

A woman entices two strangers to her home to fulfill an unusual Chinese prophecy, granting a wish... in this case, a horse race ticket that they hope to be a winner. With a screenplay by John Huston and appearances by Lorre and Greenstreet, and a figurine as a major plot device, you might expect a MALTESE FALCON retread. But this is a very different story. I hesitate to call it noir, although it does have some of the visual stylization and explores some of man's darker impulses. But it's really more of a triptych character study. The three represent different moral stances: Fitzgerald is conniving and ruthless, Greenstreet does something wrong but at least has enough decency to be conflicted about it, and Lorre is simply a carefree drunk who trusts the wrong people. I didn't count the minutes, but it felt like Lorre got the most screen time, and deservedly so. I don't know if I've ever seen a better performance from him, certainly not a more likable one. He's a charming character with a thoughtful outlook on life. His story also has the benefit of wonderful turns by Peter Whitney and especially Joan Lorring, a very appealing actress I've never seen before, but I'm delighted to see appears in a few more noirs I intended to see. Greenstreet's and Fitzgerald's plot threads are interesting as well, and the way all they come together and resolve at the end is satisfying. It's a quirky film with a very good script, quite fulfilling.

Geraldine Fitzgerald recruits two strangers -- Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet -- from the foggy streets of Victorian London and asks them to her flat. She asks them to chip in for a sweepstakes ticket and sign a document that they are equal contributors and none will sell his third of the payoff to anyone else. Maybe I should explain because this confused me. The sweepstakes isn't a random drawing of a number. It's horse race. The favorite horse is announced just before the race, so suddenly anyone who happens to own a ticket with the name of the favorite on it -- in this case "Corn Cracker" -- finds himself with a bird in the hand. He can sell his ticket (or his share in the ticket) to someone else at a higher price than what he paid. But the document with three signatures forbids this. So we already know this is a set up for later conflict.As a matter of fact, the three signators are all up to illegal or unethical doings. Geraldine Fitzgerald is a wife whose impulsiveness has alienated her husband, a Member of Parliament who is now in love and in bed with a Canadian woman. A scandal would be calamitous to his career. She squeals on him out of spite.The bibulous Peter Lorre has been involved in a stick up in which a bobby was killed by his partner. He barely escapes hanging.Greenstreet, a Mount Everest of blubber, has been embezzling funds from the trust fund of one of his agreeable but ditzy elderly female clients. When she insists on an imediate audit just before the race, Greenstreet becomes desperate and needs to sell his share of the ticket in order to make up the loss. He rushes to Fitzgerald's flat where he finds her and Lorre. Conflict ensues.All the way through, I wondered how the screenwriter, John Huston, was going to pull these three disparate narrative threads together because, after that first adventitious meeting, they never meet again until the resolution.Well, he does a pretty good job, and the director, Jean Negulesco, doesn't let the script down. Both the writer and director add something to what otherwise might have been a pedestrian story of suspense and murder and intrigue. The sets help too. Who can not be enthralled by the foggy streets of London where each shadow might hide a mysterious figure -- perhaps with a RAZOR? I kind of like it, especially the mountainous Sydney Greenstreet with his quivering lips and darting eyes. Great heavy.

The story may get confusing, even muddled, but the visuals continue to shine. This is the golden age of black and white photography from the studios. There's a dreamy quality to the low key lighting that keeps the eye riveted even when the story line falters. Ace director Jean Negulesco certainly knows how to put a sheen on even difficult material.Scripters Huston and Koch appear to be following on 1941's Maltese Falcon with Lorre and Greenstreet and a statuette with perhaps mystical powers. The format is unusual for its time. The screenplay interweaves three story lines using the statuette and a sweepstakes ticket as an axis. None of the three story lines, however, really gels. Perhaps it's the editing or the script that gives the shifting back and forth a disjointed quality that's sometimes hard to follow. But none of the three strands follow-up well on that intriguing initial scene in Fitzgerald's apartment. (Note her clinging gown in that scene. I'm surprised it got past the censors.)Anyway, it's always a treat to watch such stylish presences as the imperious Greenstreet and the sly-fox Lorre play-off one another. There's been no one like them before or since. And, for once, Lorre gets a sympathetic role and even the girl (Loring). Then too, it's probably not surprising that the dipso character Lorre plays comes-off best since writer Huston was himself a notorious boozer. The scene that lingers for me is where Greenstreet uses his oily charm on the pixilated Lady Beladon (Rosalind Ivan) who turns out to be shrewder than he thought. I gather that the movie's last scene-- in addition to its irony-- intends to say something profound about the role of fate in our lives. I take the point to be that some unseen hand may control the fortune of lottery tickets, but the hand for all its mystical force cannot determine what we do with them. For the fate-obsessed 1940's this was an unusual gesture to the power of free-will. But, metaphysics aside, it's the power of the camera that continues to hold this stylish pastiche together.

This is one fine made movie. It has a greatly written script and a top-notch cast. It sounds like a cliché of course but it's a real shame that movies like these aren't being made and written anymore. At least not on such a commercially large scale and with such fine big name actors in it. Movies like this aren't made anymore simply because movies like this don't really sell, unless they are being made exceptionally good. It's not really a film-noir, although the movie certainly shows similarities to the atmosphere and the story also shows noir tendencies. The movie in the end is perhaps a bit too 'light' to consider it a real film-noir, also because it features quite an amount of subtle black comedy. The story is solidly constructed and focuses on three different characters and plot-lines that of course are all still connected to each other. The fine script was written by Hollywood legend John Huston. It features lots of deeper themes such as greed and jealousy. You really start to care about the characters and their problems. Something that isn't too common for a '40's genre movie. It's not always an easy movie to watch and follow so make sure you watch this movie with a clear head. The dialog might be a bit overlong by todays standards but its so fine written and delivered by the actors that you tend to look past this. The movie gets really carried by the three main characters, that equally share the screen time. I was especially impressed by Sydney Greenstreet, which also might due to the fact that he had the best- or at least most credible plot line. Peter Lorre also played a great role and gave a fine performance. Geraldine Fitzgerald was definitely the least of the three actors and she tended to overact a bit in some of the dramatic sequences. But overall her role was also really a solid one and it says something about the quality of the acting from Lorre and Greenstreet to say that Fitzgerald gave the lesser performance of the movie. Alan Napier also plays a small role. Oh man, it really seems to be that this guy is in about every 'old' movie that I watch lately. Napier received his most fame for playing the butler Alfred in the Adam West "Batman" series from the '60's. The editing of the movie was also surprisingly good and fast. Instead of long single camera sequences, the movie cuts back and forth between different camera positions in the same sequence rapidly. It gives the story speed and helps to keep you interest even during the more slow and dull moments of the movie. The fine little musical score was from acclaimed composer Adolph Deutsch, whose music suited this movie and its atmosphere really well. It's a fine good old fashioned quality movie, made with limited resources but with fine experts involved. 8/10