Good movie but grossly overrated

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

This gets off to a strong start. We have a blackmailing socialite singer (Dowling) get murdered. A guy (Phillips) stumbles into her apartment touching everything in sight including the murder weapon to ensure he is the number one suspect. He gets nabbed and railroaded into a quick conviction. His wife (Vincent) takes up the cause of trying to find the killer enlisting the help of the murdered woman's drunken piano-playing husband (Duryea), who evidently was not at the trial! Peter Lorre, a nightclub owner/mobster, hires the couple as performers in his club and subsequently is suspected by the couple as the probable real killer. One big problem with all of this is the speed of conviction and trial seems improbable. But the other is that there are just no other suspects. We know Phillips isn't the killer. And it becomes all too obvious who is. And the movie drags as the romance between Duryea and Vincent develops. Duryea was far better in bad guy roles. Broderick Crawford is as subdued as I have ever seen him. Wallace Ford has a nothing role. Lorre does a pretty good job for what he has to work with. Constance Dowling was the best part of the movie but she doesn't last long. Fortunately, neither does the movie. So in spite of the good start and noirish atmosphere I can't recommend this.

This film begins with a man named "Martin Blair" (Dan Duryea) attempting to visit his wife "Mavis Marlowe" (Constance Dowling) in her high-rise apartment but being intercepted by the doorman and refused entry. Not long afterward another man by the name of "Marko" (Peter Lorre) is inexplicably allowed access which causes Dan to visit a nearby bar and become quite inebriated. The next morning Dan wakes up in his bed from his drinking binge and is told that his wife has been murdered. Not long afterward another man by the name of "Kirk Bennett" (John Phillips) is arrested and charged with the crime. He is subsequently tried and upon being found guilty he is incarcerated in prison to await execution in the gas chamber. Yet, in spite of all of the evidence against him, his wife "Catherine Bennett" (June Vincent) believes in his innocence and with nobody else to turn to decides to search for clues which might exonerate him. It's at this time that she happens to meet Dan and together they decide to conduct their own investigation which leads them directly to none other than—Marko. But there is a big difference between having a possible suspect and obtaining actual evidence which might free Kirk--and time is not on their side. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I found this movie to rather enjoyable for the most part with several twists and turns along the way. Unfortunately, I didn't care for the ending at all and because of that I have somewhat lowered my rating accordingly. Average.

Seeing this referred to so often as a "noir" raises the question, "What does 'noir' mean?" Usually it suggests a despairing mood, stark lighting and odd camera angles, and a femme fatale. I think that's what the Frogs originally had in mind. But using those criteria rules out films like "Black Angel." True, it was released in 1946, is in black and white, stars Dan Duryea, and involves a deadly serious search for a murderer, but that's about it. If our definitions get too generous, then Charlie Chan movies wind up in the "noir" category too.Roy William Neal, the proficient director who gave us a couple of Universal's Sherlock Holmes, has given us a straightforward murder mystery that lacks a lot of tension because of its weak structure -- Peter Lorre is in this, why? -- and an ending that is a variation on the "it-was-all-a-dream" climax, only in this case a nightmare. I have no idea who or what the title, "Black Angel", refers to. All the women here are perfectly normal. But I suppose there had been a successful "Blue Dahlia," "Black Dahlia", "Blue Gardenia," and "Fallen Angel" -- so, why not? Whatever happened to gardenias, by the way? You never hear about them anymore.I'd never heard of June Vincent, the girl in the case, but whatever her acting talents, she has an admirable bosom. I kind of like Dan Duryea too. If his acting range and this role were part of a Venn diagram there would be considerable overlap. He's not his usual woman-slapping cad, but his whiny voice projects a weakness that fits the character. I also rather like him because he was a graduate of the same college I attended. (Well, what the hell.) There's no particular reason to get into the plot. Duryea and Vincent team up to find out the real murderer of Duryea's wife -- before Vincent's husband is executed after having been mistakenly convicted of the crime. There's nothing shameful about the film. Everything in it is pretty routine.

The main things that personify the film noir genre are dark atmospheres and even darker characters. This film features shady examples of both; but neither is dark enough, which makes Black Angel very disappointing. The film is short at only eighty minutes and obviously didn't have a lot of budget; so as a result the plot is rather thin. We focus on the death of a woman and a man she was blackmailing; who gets blamed for her murder. His wife doesn't believe he did it and so sets out to prove his innocence; enlisting the help of drunken barfly and husband of the murdered woman along the way. June Vincent takes the starring role; but never really convinces as a femme fatale, and this brings the film down. She stars opposite Dan Duryea, who isn't particularly gritty as the leading man; and Peter Lorre, who is rather wasted. This film is directed by Roy William Neill; who is best known for his Sherlock Holmes films. This was actually Neill's last feature film before his death later in 1946; and it's disappointing that such a great director couldn't have gone out with something better. The main problem is certainly the plot; which never gets out of first gear and constantly fails to get the audience involved. Overall, this is a disappointing noir effort and I'd only recommend it to completists.