Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

zetes Entertaining noir directed by Phil Karlson, who also did the excellent Kansas City Confidential the same year, and based on a novel by Sam Fuller (and the film can be found in a box set of Fuller films Columbia released a while back). Broderick Crawford stars as the editor-in-chief of a scandal sheet. He runs into an ex-wife whom he dumped years earlier, before changing his name and climbing to his current position. The woman wants to spoil his success, so he kills her. Of course, such a sensational and mysterious murder is just the kind of thing his newspaper covers, and the story, much to Crawford's chagrin, makes his paper more popular than ever. Reporters Donna Reed and John Derek are getting closer and closer to the truth, and Crawford, though he tries to throw them off his scent, is basically trapped by his position. Henry O'Neill is also excellent as the broken-down drunk who first uncovers the secret.

secondtake Scandal Sheet (1952)A second rate crime drama with noir overtones. It's a formula picture, really, but it's a great formula, and the twist here is that the editor of the paper, not just the reporter, is part of the main story. He's played by the loud, gutsy, and very convincing Broderick Crawford (known for All the Kings Men), and Crawford really holds it all together. Donna Reed is her usual slightly stiff self, I've never quite gotten her appeal, but she's the other star (several years after It's a Wonderful Life) and she's not given much to do. As a reporter, she isn't really allowed to investigate or do anything, just complain a lot.And this is the writer's fault. The story is based on a Sam Fuller novel. Yes Sam Fuller the renegade director, drawn to unsophisticated potboilers told with bold directness. But he didn't direct here, and as a novelist he goes for big and not always convincing effects. It's maybe amazing that director Phil Karlson, a B-movie specialist at best, pulled this off so well. It's fun, it's got some small moments where people shine, and it has Crawford playing a more subtle role than usual, and doing it very well.

MartinHafer I sought out this film for two reasons. First, it was written by Sam Fuller and I have been trying to watch as many of his films as I can--they are, with only a few exceptions, great films. Second, I have always liked Broderick Crawford, as he had a way about him--portraying unrelentingly tough guys. With my love of film noir, it's a natural that I'd love seeing his ugly mug! Well, after finishing this film, I found that I wasn't disappointed. The writing, direction and acting were all very good.Crawford stars as a man who has been brought in to save a dying newspaper. To make it successful, he gives the public what it wants--scandal, sleaze and violent content. While many of the paper's stockholders can't stand what he's done to make the paper solvent, he has made them rich--and it's hard to argue with success--even at this price.One of Crawford's reporters is John Derek. Usually I don't like him in films, as he's just too pretty. Here, however, he was just fine--pretty, sure...but fine. Derek specializes in sniffing out cases and one new case really intrigues him. An unidentified woman is found dead. It clearly looks like an accidental death but Derek's instincts tell him it was staged to look that way, so he pushes and pushes investigators to dig deeper. Yes, it turns out she was murdered...but WHO did it and WHY is what makes this film very, very intriguing.In addition to Crawford and Derek, the film also stars Donna Reed and Henry O'Neill. Reed plays a woman who is like the voice of conscience in the movie--always appalled at Crawford's methods and making it clear that she wants no part of this degradation of the paper. O'Neill, however, is the more interesting guy. In the 1930s and 40s, O'Neill had very steady work and was a familiar face at MGM in supporting roles (having appeared in 177 films and TV shows during his career). By 1952, his career was on the decline and his output reduced significantly. Here, he makes a bit of a last hurrah AND gets to play a role that stretched his abilities--playing a down-and-out drunk whose character evolves and shows great depth during the course of the movie.Overall, the film is taut and exciting. Whether or not you'd call it film noir is a tough one, as definitions vary tremendously. Considering that the cops are purely secondary characters and there isn't the same criminal atmosphere in the film as noir, I'm not sure I'd call it noir. But, it is at least noir-like and is sure to please anyone who likes the grittier sort of film Hollywood did so well during this era.

Panamint Well paced movie that delivers the drama, noir, tension, etc. Brod Crawford is at his best as his character is seemingly on top of the world, then slowly chipped down by a good plot and script. It is interesting to watch his character desperately scheme and scramble, rather than suddenly falling off his pedestal. Watching Brod sweat it out and mop his brow is priceless.The acting is good by all the cast, but you will especially notice Rosemary DeCamp and also Henry O'Neill as old Charlie. Every second of screen-time and every word of these two performances is carefully studied and masterfully delivered, so if you observe them closely you will be richly rewarded.Intelligently written. Complicated (but still plausible) plot wherein all the pieces fit together nicely.