It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Blistering performances.

Pat O'Brien is typically known for playing priests, the level-headed foil for James Cagney's explosive gangster. In other words, he's usually the least-interesting character in the film. 'Crack-Up (1946)' marks a welcome change-of-pace for the actor. No longer is O'Brien the calm, collected cleric, but a confused art critic at the end of his rope, doubting his own sanity as he battles murder and conspiracy. He perhaps isn't perfect for the role – the film's lurid moments would have been even more lurid had the lead actor been able to act more deranged – but O'Brien receives good supporting back-up from Claire Trevor, Herbert Marshall and Ray Collins. Director Irving Reis (best known for his "Falcon" series, though he also co-directed the annoyingly manipulative 'Hitler's Children (1943)' with Edward Dmytryk) does well to develop the film's mood, not afraid to dabble in a bit of surrealism to help translate the mental confusion and degradation of his main protagonist. There's also a little Freudian psychoanalysis in there, as was popular at the time, but the distraction it causes to the story is only an afterthought.The role of WWII in shaping the film noir style should not be underestimated. In 'Crack-Up,' combat veteran George Steele (O'Brien) remarks that his greater fear in the trenches was that his mind might unexpectedly snap "like a tight violin string." These combat-related fears are here transcribed into a society ostensibly recovering from the war, suggesting that the shadow of the twentieth century's most costly campaign was still bearing over America, a sinister spectre of uncertainty and disarray. The film's undisputed centrepiece, though it is never adequately explained, is Steele's recollection of a train crash, a sequence that almost suggests an episode of "The Twilight Zone." As Steele watches the blazing beams of an oncoming train, time appears to stand still. He sits transfixed, calm and emotionless, a deer in the headlights. In classic film noir fashion, both he and the audience know what is about to happen, but all are powerless to stop it. The train barrels towards its predestined fate, a blistering collision of light and flames. Or does it?Perhaps drawing some inspiration from Lang's 'Scarlet Street (1945),' this film noir concerns itself with the art of art fraud and forgery. The filmmakers' approach to the topic is strictly populist. At the beginning of the film, art critic Steele gives a lecture that openly denigrates the booming popularity of surrealism and "modern art," dismissing the style as being of use only to snobbish social-climbers {an unfair view, since Hitchcock had employed the services of Salvador Dali just one year earlier for 'Spellbound (1945)'}. It is these very same snobs who have planned an elaborate scheme to replace masterpiece canvasses (titled "Gainsborough" and "The Adoration of the Kings," respectively) with worthless replicas, before destroying the copies – not for monetary gain, but because they're snobs, and would like to have the classic works of art all to themselves. If all of 'Crack-Up' was as lurid as the opening sequence and train-wreck flashback, then Irving Reis would have had a masterpiece on his hands. As it is, we are left with an entertaining if occasionally stodgy thriller.

This film was made relatively late in Pat O'Brien's career and the film is a nice little departure from the standard Warner Brothers roles that he was known for--you know, the "niceguy" characters like priests and football coaches. Instead, this film starts with O'Brien running amok and attacking a police officer--now that's a departure!! From this intense initial scene, it seems that everyone at the museum where he works now thinks that he is crazy and dangerous. However, the film's heart is that Pat has been set up to be discredited. Exactly why isn't super hard to guess once the film gets going, however the details and everything fits so nicely together to make this such an excellent film. You see, Pat behaves rather foolishly at times--blundering into things and acting like he must unravel the mystery alone. However, fortunately, this sort of 'lone wolf' mentality is NOT rewarded in the film. Instead, some logical and intelligent writing is involved that make the story seem believable and interesting. So, instead of the film being one cliché after another, when the clichés look like they are coming, the film takes some unexpected twists that keep the viewer guessing. Now I could tell you more about the film and ruin it for you, so I'll quit yammering. Instead, I'll just conclude by strongly recommending you see this wonderful film yourself.

Pat O'Brien was wonderful supporting actor. Having him as your lead was kind of unusual -- not to mention having him play an expert in art. He does a great job, though, as does the whole cast. Claire Trevor, in a way, is the only major name actor. Ray Collins is good but maybe not up to the pivotal role he plays. In a small part, Mary Ware is very effective.Charlie Chan movies occasionally involved art thefts or forgeries. Of course, there is the black bird in "The Maltese Falcon." But generally, this is an unusual setting for a film noir, which this definitely is.It's tense but maybe not so tense as it might be. I like Hitchcock but do not worship at his feet. Whoever, had he directed this, it could have been a tight, thrilling picture. He'd have story-boarded it all before filming and we'd have been on the edge of our seats as ti played out.He didn't, of course, and it's still a really good movie. It's noir with a highbrow twist, just as "Red Light" -- which I haven't seen in 15 years and wish would turn up -- is noir with a religious setting.

Critics all liked this and got me interested to see it but when I did, it turned out to be a big disappointment. Pat O'Brien was the lead actor in this crime movie involving an art critic. Being a big fan of art, that also drew me to this. Also being a fan of film noir, I expected more in that regard, too. This film just didn't deliver on any of those counts. Claire Trevor and Herbert Marshall also starred, but that didn't help, either.The story is about O'Brien uncovering a forgery scam but he's made to look like a crazy man so that no one can take him seriously. Some parts of this, granted, are really good and suspenseful, but way too much of this film simply drags. It also is not an easy story to follow, at least on the first viewing, and that can turn off people. Film noir....melodrama....what is it? After awhile, one doesn't care.