ThiefHott Too much of everything

Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

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.

utgard14 Tough and dogged detective George Raft investigates a composer's death. It was ruled a suicide but Raft doesn't buy it. Despite being ordered off the case, he continues to look into it and tracks down some of the women the composer had "relationships" with.George Raft gets a lot of flack for being stiff or playing the same role over and over, but I happen to like most of his movies that I've seen. He had no pretenses about being a Shakespearean actor. He knew what he was good at playing and worked with it quite well. His earlier WB successes in gangster movies and the like were always fun. Here he's playing a film noir detective, which isn't too far removed from those older roles come to think of it. He's quick with a snappy comeback and doesn't back down from anybody. It's a part Raft plays with ease but that shouldn't be taken as a put-down, as is often the case. Several tough female roles in this one. Lynn Bari and Virginia Huston (in her film debut) get the juiciest parts but honorable mentions should go to Myrna Dell as a wisecracking maid and Mabel Paige as Raft's mom, who helps him with his investigation.Good script with some punchy noir lines, interesting characters, and a good ending. A nice fight scene, too. By the way, the film's title refers to the song the composer writes for his latest conquest. The guy wrote songs for all the women he screwed. They had a classier kind of douchebag in the old days, I guess.

LeonLouisRicci As most Fans of Film-Noir are aware, making a "pure" Noir is difficult at best. There seems to be a penchant to include disappointing and diverting Scenes and attributes not befitting the most elusive and interesting of Genres. Here we have an opening Reel much of which could be used as exclamations and examples of Film-Noir at its most compelling. But alas, only some snippets and occasional "bright" spots remain. Some snappy Dialog, lighting, Off-Studio L.A. locations, and brutal Violence are overshadowed by some Matronly Comedy relief, a hollow and forced Lead Performance, and a smarmy Ending Exit that hardly is Noir.There are enough elements here that keep it from sinking under its own convoluted weight and veering too far from Noir, that make it watchable. It is a minor entry in the Pantheon with some things that are intriguing, but still contains enough exacerbations that render this, for the most part, unfulfilled.

andrewgage Anyone who knows me knows I enjoy pre-1960 films that use Los Angeles as a backdrop, and Nocturne is one of 'em. Several scenes were shot off the lot, and one can catch quick (and sometimes elongated) glimpses of Hollywood Blvd., Vine Street, Tom Brenneman's, the Pantages, and the (Hollywood) Brown Derby in their heyday - the exterior of the Derby is used for a scene between Warne and Torp, the oafish thug for hire. One of the places I haven't been able to pinpoint is the location of the Shawn photography studio. It could very well be the area of Sunset Blvd. printed on the photographer's mark in the film... hard to say as the whole area has changed dramatically since the late 1940's. And that's too bad, because the building they used for the exterior shot of the studio looked pretty nice. But I suspect that it's one of those buildings like Mildred Pierce's Glendale house: the actual structure was 1 storey on the outside and the Hollywood set shows it magically to be 2 storeys on the inside. Suspension of disbelief anyone?If you like post-war design as much as I, a couple of the sets are a treat to see - those being Vincent's house (possibly a Neutra-inspired creation) and the Shawn Studio, both of which feature up-to-the-minute trends in styling and decor (that is, for Southern California, 1946). Personally, I'd move into Keith Vincent's house in a heartbeat! It's like a little bit of Palm Springs in the Hollywood Hills.When it comes to performances, Mabel Paige steals the show, especially in the scene where she's having tea with her gambling partner, Mrs. O'Rourke (Virginia Edwards). Her character adds a delightful touch of homespun levity to the story. I'd love to have her as a grandmother!Surprisingly, George Raft's performance is so stiff that Woody Woodpecker was probably eying him for lunch. He kind of traipses through the pic with a strange, wry countenance, and grins at (what strike me as) odd times, like we're all missing out on some behind-the- scenes joke. Raft doesn't strike me as a great actor of the period, the likes of Clark Gable or Edward G. Robinson, but he held his own in movies where he played the bad guy. I don't think he really got the concept of how to play the good guy. Someone else said that Dick Powell should have been awarded the role, and I couldn't agree more. What a great transitional picture that could have been for Powell, the warbler from Warner Bros. turned private dick. Music and murder. But alas...Myrna Dell is a kick. I see her as a kind of a cross between Eve Arden and Joan Blondell. Wish there were more of her in the movie. Her delivery of lines like "I didn't listen to his music. It was icky!" are priceless.The full cast list includes characters in scenes that were deleted. I wonder what the deleted scenes were all about...(POSSIBLE SPOILER FOLLOWS) All in all, I really like this movie. It's got some fun twists and turns as it goes along, and the revelation of the culprit caught me by surprise. I have this film on a commercially-released VHS but have not come across it on DVD yet. Apparently it was released on DVD in the early 90's, so it probably isn't a restored print, and I'd also assume it wouldn't have any decent bonus material (like the deleted scenes). Too bad, because this is a good little film worth watching, all in all.

moonspinner55 Rather dismal attempt by RKO to turn supporting star(and perennial heavy)George Raft into a leading man in the league of Bogart and Cagney. Raft doesn't have the dimensions to be a leading man, here playing a police detective getting into hot water with his superiors while trying to solve the murder of a famous, womanizing composer. The film looks pretty good despite a cramped budget, but it's so lethargic that when Raft comes across a hanging man, he doesn't even react. The plot is convoluted and cluttered up with potential killers that one loses interest in the outcome long before it arrives. As for Raft, he's as unconvincing planting a wet one on the dame as is he portraying a good guy who still lives with Mom(!). It's a second-string murder-mystery without the proper goods. *1/2 from ****