Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

JohnHowardReid NOTES: William Keighley, Best Director of 1948, for The Street With No Name. - Photoplay Magazine Gold Medal Ward. Locations: Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.C. Filming completed: 7 March 1948. Re-made in 1955 as House of Bamboo.COMMENT: Semi-documentary adapted from actual FBI files, shot, wherever possible, in the actual locations and using as many as possible of the actual FBI personnel - so says the Foreword. Of course, when it is boiled down, very few members of the FBI are actually employed in the film, except in newsreel-like shots of the laboratory and fingerprint filing department. Louis DeRochemont didn't produce this one, so it seems likely that a great many of the dialogue scenes were lensed in the studio. One tell-tale evidence of this is the quality of the photography - immaculately smooth and polished with attractively glossy blacks and deep contrasts in what seem to be the studio scenes, whereas the photography is much more rough and ready in what are obviously actual location exteriors (the Center City streets, the ferry terminal). One exception is the climax in the factory (it certainly looks like an actual factory), which is beautifully photographed with noirish, deep-etched, atmospheric lighting. Another clue is that Keighley's direction tends to be more meticulous, more stylish and more polished than other Fox semi-documentary productions like Boomerang and House on 92nd Street.Yet another clue is that the script is more obviously an entertainment subject than a straight documentary recreation of actual events. Take the business of disguising the police informant for instance and then pointing a blatantly obvious finger at the police chief, glasses glinting evilly and face twitching with exaggerated nervousness, as he races off to make telephone calls at important points in the plot. What a cop-out when it is revealed he is not the person responsible and no attempt whatever is made to explain his previous odd behavior and irrational mannerisms!While Reed Hadley still handles the narration, the film is only a semi-documentary on the surface. But who cares? Two thrilling action scenes will thrill the fans, and Widmark's followers will not be disappointed.

Ben Larson Richard Widmark's first film (Kiss of Death) got him an Oscar nomination and a Golden Globe. He followed it up the next year with this film.A classic noir involving the FBI and a plant (Mark Stevens) to get inside Widmark's gang to find out who killed a housewife, and two others.Widmark was excellent as the gang leader, and ruthless when he thought he was crossed, as his wife (Barbara Lawrence) found out.The ending was very good, and provided some great twists. Of course, the FBI always gets their man.

GManfred Oh, alright. After much deliberation I rated this picture a 7, but I almost gave it a 6. Hard to tell 60-odd years later if it was an 'A' or was a second-billed 'B'. It had some 'A' moments but not really enough of them, and the cast was a 'B' cast, with Lloyd Nolan, Richard Widmark and Mark Stevens. Speaking for myself, I never could warm up to Stevens and always found him pleasant but colorless. He lacked charisma, and here he is the lead character which I felt dragged the picture down to a 6.No other complaints. It moves along fairly well but could have been punched up with a little more action. An interesting little movie, all in all, particularly some FBI techniques (which are probably outdated by now), and I always enjoy watching guys in suits and fedoras.Before closing, can I share a secret with you? Richard Widmark plays the baddie but I never found him particularly threatening. Small and fair-haired, he was still living off his psychotic role in "Kiss of Death" which at this point was two pictures ago. Always thought he looked too much like a good guy. Now, take Raymond Burr - THERE was a bad guy.

MartinHafer "The House on 92nd Street" was a terrific no-frills tale of the FBI investigation of a Nazi spy ring in America during the war. Because of the success of the film, Lloyd Nolan returns as the same FBI investigator but this time he's out to smash organized crime. And, once again, the film capitalizes on what made the first one so good--realism. While there certainly are some film noir-like touches (especially the lighting, but also the dialog and type of plot), the movie emphasizes realism over style--much like some of the best of the genre, such as "Naked City".The film begins with a series of brutal robberies in which some of the victims are killed. As a result, Nolan becomes involved. However, he needs a man on the inside to investigate the mob, so he finds a very proficient young G-man to infiltrate. Mark Stevens is this agent and goes to "Skid Row" to be seen by the local riff-raff--hoping to find some mob contacts. I loved how the film used words like "Skid Row" and set one of the crimes in the generic-sounding "Center City"--a cute use of film noir style names and in effort to make a film that could be placed in any big city in America.Eventually, Stevens is able to impress the local mob bit-shot (played by Richard Widmark) when he boxes in a mob-controlled joint. The local favorite, though a strong guy, is an undisciplined boxer and Stevens acquits himself very well in the ring against him. Widmark is impressed and approaches Stevens to feel him out--will this guy be able to make the grade in the mob? Watch it yourself and see! Overall, excellent on all levels. A must-see for lovers of noir and good crime dramas.