Crack-Up

1946 "Could I KILL ... and not remember?"
6.5| 1h36m| NR| en
Details

Art curator George Steele experiences a train wreck...which never happened. Is he cracking up, or the victim of a plot?

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??
SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling
Dorathen Better Late Then Never
Dotbankey A lot of fun.
seymourblack-1 A couple of bizarre incidents in the early part of this mystery thriller get the action off to a great start because as well as being attention-grabbing, they're also very effective in piquing the audience's curiosity about the real reasons for, what appear to be, two completely illogical occurrences. Why did a seemingly respectable art lecturer suddenly act like a thug and then claim that he'd been in a train crash that didn't happen? Finding the answers to these questions becomes extremely dangerous for the lecturer who has to cope with his own fear, paranoia and confusion as well as various other threats before discovering the connection between what happened to him and the existence of an international art forgery conspiracy.George Steele (Pat O'Brien) is the art forgery expert who, after recently leaving the Army, works for an art museum in Manhattan where his populist lectures regularly ruffle a few feathers. One night, looking wild-eyed and agitated, he smashes through the glass entrance doors of the museum before punching a policeman in the face. The establishment's board members, who'd been in a meeting upstairs, quickly come down to the lobby to see what's going on and are shocked to see their colleague in a very confused state and to hear his claim that he'd been in a train wreck. After realising that he's not drunk, board member Dr Lowell (Ray Collins), who's also a psychiatrist, becomes concerned that he may be having a mental breakdown and asks George to recount what had happened to him before he'd arrived at the museum.After being criticised by Barton (Erskine Sanford) the museum director, who hadn't appreciated the controversial nature of his lecture or his intention to use X-ray equipment to show how art forgeries can be recognised, George and his girlfriend, Terry Cordell (Claire Trevor) had gone for a drink. They'd been interrupted when George received a telephone call in which he was informed that his mother had been taken ill and had been transferred to hospital. After explaining the situation to Terry, he'd taken a train to visit the hospital but en route, there'd been a head-on crash with another train. George couldn't then remember anything else until his return to the museum. A sceptical-looking detective lieutenant Cochrane (Wallace Ford) knows that no train accidents have been reported and that George's mother had not been admitted to any hospital. Burton, Cochrane and fellow board member Stevenson (Damian O'Flynn), all wish to avoid George being arrested to preserve the good reputation of their establishment and after English art expert, Traybin (Herbert Marshall) has a few words with Cochrane, the detective agrees not to press charges but puts a tail on George.George (who the board fire from his job) then begins his own investigation and gradually finds that someone is setting him up, before becoming the prime suspect for Stevenson's murder, uncovering a major art forgery racket and discovering the part that narcosynthesis had played in what had happened to him."Crack-Up", as well as having a great title, has a sufficient number of developments happening in quick succession to keep the interest-level high throughout but there's also some unusual things going on between the characters which raise some suspicions as the story progresses (e.g. why is Terry so friendly with Traybin?, why does Cochrane so readily take Traybin's advice ? etc). Overall, the movie's suspenseful and very atmospheric with Robert De Grasse's stunning cinematography playing a huge part in this connection and the acting is consistently good, with Pat O'Brien's sometimes eccentric performance contributing greatly to the entertainment.
utgard14 Pat O'Brien plays an art critic named George Steele who believes he was in a train wreck. The only problem is there's no evidence of a wreck and now everybody thinks he's crazy. So he sets out to investigate the matter himself and get to the bottom of things. Good mystery with film noir touches. Nice direction from Irving Reis. Opening few minutes is exceptional. Pat O'Brien has one of his strongest leading roles here. Herbert Marshall, Ray Collins, Wallace Ford, and lovely Claire Trevor lead the fine supporting cast. Perhaps not cynical or gritty enough for some film noir fans but it's still a good movie. Definitely check it out.
edwagreen A very uninteresting story with Pat O'Brien in the lead and Claire Trevor, of all people, as his girlfriend.If you can believe this one, O'Brien stars as an art critic, so right away you know that he is very much out of his league. He is made to believe that his mother is hospitalized and that he has been in a train wreck. Could anyone possibly tie this nonsense in with the fact that there have been art forgeries? The entire premise is ridiculous including why the detective allowed O'Brien to be a victim here.Another expert in art is the real culprit with a plain Jane secretary who is anything but ordinary. No interesting events in an extremely dull story. Chalk this one up to bad writing.
dougdoepke Art critic O'Brien is menaced by unseen forces and must find out who and why.No doubt about it, that train wreck scene is brilliantly conceived and edited. In fact, the whole train sequence amounts to an atmospheric triumph. Catch the passenger car interior when O'Brien opens the door—it fairly oozes closed-in flesh, along with that shrewish wife scolding her hubby on the evils of drink. Few films manage a truly memorable sequence, but this one does.Otherwise, it's a decent noir, though I agree it's also over-plotted and under-explained. Plus, many of those many narrow escapes are simply too contrived to stick. The movie's more one of compelling parts than a successful whole. Nonetheless, O'Brien handles his part in suitably restrained fashion, besides few actors were better at "drop dead" brush-offs, of which he gets to do several. Looks like the normally fast-talking Irishman was refashioning his image to align with the post-war crime drama craze.But my money's on the great Ray Collins. Was there ever a smoother actor, from Citizen Kane (1941) to TV's Perry Mason of the 50's and 60's. Here, he delivers in sinister spades. Then there's poor Mary Ware as the loyally devious secretary. I'm sure she was cast for her totally innocent demeanor and looks, the better to hook the audience. But then, oh my gosh, she has to speak her lines.The movie's subtext is in line with the war's common effort and everyman spirit. The villains act as properly outspoken elitists, first cousins presumably of the recently defeated Nazi's. At the same time, I thought art critic O'Brien's little lecture on the role of "art is what I like" made good sense.All in all, it's a strongly visual, if somewhat turgid, noir that probably did train travel no favors.