Supelice Dreadfully Boring

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 31 January 1949 by Roberts Productions, Inc. A joint presentation of the Enterprise Studios and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Released through M-G-M. New York opening at Loew's State on 25 December 1948. U.S. release: December 1948. U.K. release: 4 July 1949. Australian release: not recorded. 7,065 feet. 78 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Joe Morse, lawyer for Ben Tucker's numbers syndicate, has helped arrange for a fixed lottery on July 4, the day when superstitious bettors will always bet on 776. That number has been set to win, which will wipe out the small independent numbers banks and allow Tucker to take over. However, Joe's older brother, Leo, runs one of these small banks, and Joe fears that the strain will kill Leo, who has a weak heart. NOTES: First film directed by Abraham Polonsky, one of the most famous of Hollywood's blacklisted writers. It was 20 years before he was allowed to direct another film: "Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here".COMMENT: Film noir was never flavor-of-the-month at M-G-M. In Australia, for example, the distributor didn't even bother to hold a trade or media screening, let alone notify the trade papers of a release date. "Force of Evil" is of course a gem, a little masterpiece of film noir, with a powerful performance by Garfield and strong support by Thomas Gomez — probably his best performance ever — and Roy Roberts and Marie Windsor. Newcomer Beatrice Pearson is suitably colorless — she made only one more film, Lost Boundaries (1949) — and there's an appropriately seedy roster of character players. Abetted by George Barnes' atmospheric lighting and Richard Day's gritty sets, Polonsky's involving direction drives the hero's predicament home with palm-sweating force. Garfield is ideally cast to engage audience sympathy. The actor's natural charisma combines with Polonsky's tight direction to give a sense of participation that's almost overwhelming.OTHER VIEWS: This film is a dynamic crime-and-punishment drama, brilliantly and broadly realized ... A sizzling piece of work. (Bosley Crowther in The New York Times).

Robert D. Ruplenas I caught this on Turner, drawn by the presence of John Garfield, a fine actor. I expected a run of the mill film noir but was surprised to find that the flick exceeded expectations. The script is extremely well-written, without the purple prose one often finds in this genre. The acting is excellent all around. The direction keeps the story line going. Also worth mentioning is the excellent score, a bit reminiscent of Copland, by one David Raksin. The dialogue contains a few bits of populist and anti-capitalist bluster, but considering the director and writer was a Commie, I suppose it's to be expected. This one keeps your attention throughout, and is well worth watching.

jsteppling Many comments have covered a lot of the film-style aspects of this film, and i only wanted to express a short observation about what a fine a script this is. Its not a naturalistic script, but rather very theatrical and stylized. For some it will take a few minutes to sink into this world, symbolic and dark, almost biblical. The final voice over of Garfield's is simply majestic. A great great film.Polansky was at this point a first time director, so the film is all the more remarkable. The HUAC witch hunts drove him out of the business, but this film remains almost archetypal; it is film noir, yet not much like the stuff from Siodmak or the Chandler adaptations, or Wilder or even Lang. It exists in an almost Brechtian landscape or ideas, while retaining some sense of that noir ethos of menace from the system.

Boba_Fett1138 "Force of Evil" is a movie that always has been regarded as a classic and important movie in the film-noir genre. Quite frankly I can't really see why. Perhaps it's because of the back-story of the movie and not so much because of the quality of the movie itself.It got directed by the blacklisted director Abraham Polonsky, who put some Marxist elements into the movie. It was also sort of fun to notice how Sovjet like the approach of the movie its visual style was at times. It uses some similar shots and framing used in Sovjet period of Sergei Eisenstein for instance.Thing that is pulling this movie down mostly for me is it's cheap look and feel. It makes the movie harder to watch and even a bit clumsy perhaps at times. It's a very low budget and no fancy writing can change this.The writing is good though and a typical example of the genre. It has some well written characters and twists and turns to it. Still it's also missing some of the usual ingredients, which can be seen as lacking but also as being different and more original.I wasn't too impressed with the movie its acting. The low budget can also definitely be seen back in the movie it's casting. First of all it's ridicules to think that John Garfield and Thomas Gomez could be brothers but it's even worse that most of the actors just weren't very good in their roles. Even John Garfield didn't impressed much with his role.It's still simply a good movie for what it is, mostly thanks to its writing but I can't think of any reason why this movie should be regarded as a relevant or classic piece within its genre really.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/