How sad is this?

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Ruth Roman is stuck starring in a rather dopey movie. The acting is generally good and the atmosphere also quite good...but the plot is just stupid.The film begins with a man being re-tried in court for murdering his wife. A holdout of the jury results in a mistrial* and he is let free. In the next scene, a New Yorker, Shelly (Roman), travels to the desert on a vacation to a dude ranch. She arrives and is told the place is closed...but they'll let her stay. The lady in charge was apparently a friend of the accused murderer and was also on the jury at his trial*. She stays for a few days and soon meets the accused killer. Some other stuff happens and soon she's in love with this man for no apparent reason...and then they get married! None of this makes any sense--- nor does what follows. In fact, the ending and the perfect way everything worked out was utterly ridiculous. My problem is that no matter whether or not the acting and direction are any good or not, the story is so full of dumb holes that I found myself just wanting the film to end.*Someone who is a friend of an accused killer would NEVER be allowed on a jury...never. This made even less sense than the other woman almost instantly falling for Richard and marrying him.

Fun overheated histrionics in the desert with two of the more under-appreciated actresses of the 50's. Ruth Roman is a big city actress looking for a bit of rest in the wilderness and finding little. Right from the get go things in this docile community seem a bit off even though the residents appear friendly. Next thing you know she's neck deep in contretemps with suspected murderers and intrigue! It's all pitched to the higher notes of melodrama but kept grounded by the competence of the cast and no nonsense direction. The movie is a routine Warners programmer but given some snap by the quality performances of Ruth Roman, subtle and dignified, and Mercedes McCambridge, controlled for most of the film but she gets her chance to do some florid emoting later in the picture. Professionally done this is enjoyable in an over the top way especially for fans of either actress.

This is a superb King Vidor film noir, made only two years after his ultimate masterpiece, THE FOUNTAINHEAD (1949). Unless one considers the sultry RUBY GENTRY (1952) a film noir of sorts, Vidor was not really a noir director. But this film shows that when he needed to become one, he could do it in the twinkling of a lens. The female lead in this film was that very fifties woman, Ruth Roman, who appeared in film after film in those days. Seeing her now, she is so much 'then' as a type, that one cannot imagine her in a contemporary setting at all. All of her mannerisms and assumptions positively reek of the Eisenhower Era. The mesmerising performance of Richard Todd is what really makes this film work. His eyes blaze with ambivalent intensity, like two searchlights, as he stares at Ruth Roman and we and she try to guess is he a good guy or a bad guy. Whatever he is, he feels it deeply. Zachary Scott, in sinister lecherous mode, is Todd's friend, or at least Todd thinks he is. Scott keeps 'lech-ing' round Ruth Roman, can't keep his eyes off her, and that goes for his hands too. She's having none of it, because she's a straight fifties gal. The film has a strong, tormented performance from Mercedes McCambridge, in only her fifth role. She had commenced her film career in the hit ALL THE KING'S MEN (1949) only two years earlier, and five years after this she was to play perhaps her best known role of all in GIANT (1956) with James Dean. She was generally considered one of the finest actresses of her generation, which is hardly surprising, since she was originally one of Orson Welles's Mercury Theatre team, and most of them were brilliant. Mercedes was her second name, but she used it as her first, and was called 'Mercy'. In this film, Rhys Williams plays a priest named Father Paul, who is sickly and sanctimonious and likes to call grown-ups condescendingly 'my child'. (Don't over-pious, patronising priests like that make you sick, especially when they have pet Hispanics hanging around to prove how broad-minded they are?) This film is set way out West somewhere, where the desert is threatening. But so are some of the people! This murder mystery is a twister, and it wriggles like a rattler.

This is a bit of a rum do and no mistake. For a start we have the solid mahogany Richard Todd leaving a trail of sawdust in his wake whilst Zachary Scott who can and does act Todd off the screen doesn't even appear until about reel #6 and is woefully under extended. Ruth Roman might have done really well as the femme lead - if she wasn't in the same movie as Mercedes McCambridge - things are tough all over, it would seem. Plot-wise it's as hokey as they come; we open with Todd on Death Row on account of a little matter of murdering his wife then, with no groundwork/back-story to help us he is awarded first a stay of execution and then a re-trial which leaves him a free man. Enter Ruth Roman, actress on vacation/convalescence who falls instantly into fascination with Todd. This leads nicely to the 'doubting' scene, did he REALLY do it, will he do the same to Me, until all is resolved neatly with the real killer not only being unmasked but also paying the ultimate price. This is noir-lite with two excellent performances from Scott and McCambridge, a solid one from Roman and Todd having a laugh.