Solidrariol
Am I Missing Something?
Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Martha Wilcox
It feels as though Burt Lancaster is the tougher man in this film as he gets to punch Kirk Douglas and win. They don't really fight it out like John Wayne and Randolph Scott in 'The Spoilers', and for that reason this film disappoints just like 'Gunfight at the OK Corral'. There is tension between Lancaster and Douglas but their scenes together are just talking heads. Lancaster wins the physical war with his fists, whereas wins the intellectual war of words by outsmarting Lancaster. It is unsatisfactory because they would continue to be talking heads in 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' and 'Seven Days in May'. This is why it is not a movie, but rather a collaboration between two talented actors who are not maximising their potential together.
dougdoepke
No need to recap the plot. There's one key scene unlike anything in the rest of 40's noir. Frankie (Lancaster) invades Dink's (Douglas) office to muscle in on what he's owed of Dink's big operation. But Frankie's a gangster of the uncomplicated 1930's, while Dink's a white-collar criminal of the coming 1950's. So. By the time Dink's accountant Dave (Corey) is through answering each of Frankie's threats with another layer of corporate ownership that can't possibly be divided, Frankie's reduced to a bundle of quivering frustration. In short, Dave has beaten all Frankie's assembled thugs with what amounts to a maze of legalese. As a result, piles of paper prove ultimately more powerful than gangs of gunmen in what amounts to a great unexpected scene.All in all. The movie's decent 40's noir, long on atmosphere but too long on talk, at least to my liking. I suspect the screenplay was tailored to showcase producer Wallis's top 3 new stars, especially Scott who gets a lot of romantic dialog along with sultry screen time. The overall result is a movie composed of too many under-blended showcase scenes- - some quite good-- that nevertheless don't really gel into a compelling whole. It's the kind of movie where the stars are more memorable than the story.Scott and Douglas, for example, really shine. Scott does some of the best acting of her career as the conflicted glamour girl. But I especially like Douglas's slimy version of a smooth-talking mastermind who's so self-assured, you can't wait to see him get what he's got coming. Douglas's early career specialized in such compromised types, a revelation to those only familiar with his later, more heroic, career. For his part, Lancaster does well enough with his distinctive looks, but Frankie is a less showy role than the other two.Anyway, one thing for sure—producer Wallis certainly had an eagle eye for new talent, as this movie more than demonstrates.
secondtake
I Walk Alone (1948)Wow, this should have been great. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas alone make a great combination. Throw in Lizabeth Scott, who practically owns the archetype of a film noir leading woman (which isn't to say she's the best at it, for sure). But there are two huge problems. The script, the story, is just too thin and old hat to matter--a club owner, an ex-con, a torch song singer, and some old scores to settle. Could have been a contender, maybe. Looming larger is something you don't always see so clearly--bad direction. It shows in a lot of ways, the biggest being great actors (all three) who are at their worst. It's really a shock, if you like these people. Even the photography varies, sometimes dramatic (there are some great sets, for sure) and sometimes static and functional.Now, it's not a disaster. And there is an interesting angle to the movie that echoes the movies more than real life. There is an attempt to revive the old Prohibition gangster feel. In fact, they work a time warp into the story by having Lancaster play bootlegger who was jailed in the early 1930s, and just got out in 1947. So he still has the old gangster mentality. Douglas avoided jail and for fourteen years has been semi-legit. The clash of eras ends up being the real height of the movie. Even the clash of desires (both men want the compliant singer, Scott) isn't enough to lift those scenes.
bobc-5
"I Walk Alone" is a wonderful example of film-noir cinematography. The high contrast, stark lighting, and interesting angles of film-noir are used very artistically and tastefully without ever calling undue attention to itself. Unfortunately, the movie goes downhill from there. As one would expect, Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster manage to be somewhat entertaining, but they are greatly hampered by a lackluster and painfully predictable script, perfunctory direction, and a leading lady who isn't capable of creating the type of tension and chemistry which her role requires.
