Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

robert-temple-1 This is an extremely powerful film noir in the guise of an espionage mystery. It contains what may well have been the finest performance by John Garfield in his brief career (he died aged only 39 of congenital heart disease in 1952, though he had by then appeared in 32 films). Garfield plays a man who had fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War but had been captured, imprisoned, and sadistically tortured by Nazis involved in supporting the Franco side. He was held for two more years in prison after that war ended because they were trying to find out from him where he had concealed something. After escaping, he made his way back to America, where he was followed, and Nazi spies continually monitor him and kill his best friend. An ambiguous femme fatale provides the love interest, played with menace and studied elegance by Maureen O'Hara. Is she a Nazi spy or is she not? She tells Garfield she loves him. It is amazing how rapidly film stars fall in love on the screen, in a matter of sentences. Very effective use of sound occurs in this film, the sound of a crippled man dragging his bad foot is continually heard at moments of Garfield's greatest stress, as it was the same sound made by the Nazi official who came once a month to Spain from Berlin to supervise Garfield's torture. Is this man now in New York? Has Garfield met him? Can he survive such a confrontation? The suspense is thick, and Garfield's portrayal of a tough idealist who is on the verge of cracking up under the strain is horrifyingly real. What actor ever twisted his face up as well as that before or since, without looking silly? But we believe Garfield, because he is so convincing and genuine about it. The film is expertly directed by Richard Wallace, a highly talented though uneven director who is insufficiently recognised today. He directed the pathos-ridden SEVEN DAYS' LEAVE (1931, see my review), the impressive THUNDER BELOW (1932) with Talullah Bankhead, Katherine Hepburn in J. M. Barrie's THE LITTLE MINISTER (1934), and the forgotten film noir PAULA (1947) with Glenn Ford and Janis Carter, which has never had a modern release, but should. (He also directed a Shirley Temple film and numerous other light-weight comedies and adventure films.) This film is particularly noted for the sinister and powerful performance by Walter Slezak as 'Dr. Christian Skaas', ostensibly a Norwegian, but as we discover, really someone and something else. He has 'a hold over' O'Hara. Is he really holding her daughter captive somewhere, or is that just a story? As Garfield sweats it out, gun in pocket, sweat on brow, he tries to find the answers, and that ain't easy.

hcanter While this is not the greatest Garfield movie, it contains one of his most gritty and complex performances. While his tough, streetwise characters usually have a tender, caring heart that is in the right place, in this film he portrays a vulnerable, nearly-broken man who really has to work hard to summon the strength to fight and survive. The depiction of what would have been known then as "battle fatigue" or "war neuroses" is superb, and very true to what we now recognize under the rubric of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is worthy of study both as a film and as a kind of clinical document or case study of this condition. The use of expressionistic camera, lighting, and sound techniques to intensify the viewer's grasp of his interior mental/emotional status is quite effective, and I think this is what prompts some to classify it as a proto-Film Noir; this, along with some voice-over narration and duplicitous femme fatale characters might also lend such elements of noir identity. However, I am not too sold on that, any more than I would be to call Citizen Kane a film noir because it uses strong lighting & camera effects or a complex flashback narrative pattern. I think it is a good solid war drama full of some ambitious ideas and novel effects for that time period. As most reviewers note, the plot is convoluted and difficult to piece together, and the loyalty of many characters is dubious, kind of like The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon (now THERE'S a couple of films noir!), and probably contributes to the lesser-known status of this film. I think the focus on the "battle standard" is maybe not something that evokes a visceral reaction in most people either, so it is hard to wonder why everyone is struggling so hard to obtain it. We can all get why the characters want to possess a jewel-encrusted statuette of the black bird--or even some secret microfilm--but the Borgia flag is a little more abstract. All in all, I think the film is strongest in the acting department, and none stronger than John Garfield. I think it should be re-released as soon as possible on DVD in a nice print and with some extra features--it is more deserving than a lot of other things that roll off the assembly line!!

denscul When this movie was made, Stalin had pulled out his support for the Spanish Civil War, had made a pact with Hitler, and took his share of Poland in 1939. Most intellectual Communists in the USA could not acept Communism as its future, and most Americans who fought in the Civil War lost thier passionate fervor. Therefore, the plot on which this movie stands is sheer propaganda made to fit the American view of the world in 1943. As a movie, the acting and dialog are excellent, however the plot is absurd. Of all the dictators and "elected" heads of state in the 20th century, Franco was modestly evil compared to those men who lead the world in the middle of the 20th century.

dexter-10 Unfortunately, this movie dissolves in a simple detective story with nazi spies as the villains. Most of the acting seems stiff and unnatural. Few of the characters can be as morally good or as evil as they are portrayed. The Spanish Civil War angle is interesting, and the relation of Hitler's Germany to Franco's Spain provides some historical base for the plot. There are disjointed scenes, such as those with a murdered friend's mother pleading for justice and the gypsy dance segment, which are only weakly related to the ideas of dangerous spies in a world about to enter World War Two. There also seems to be a chronic problem with 1943 movies about events of 1940 or earlier in that what transpired in the intervening years tends to mangle both time and history. In the final analysis, this movie asks the question "who done it?" Alas, who cares?If you enjoy Maureen O'Hara you may find this movie more palatable, especially because her later screen personality can be detected here to some degree. The movie is worth a look just to view her performance.