Inner Sanctum (1948)

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

People are voting emotionally.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Despite the odd and rather mystical wraparound segment, INNER SANCTUM is a very ordinary type of film noir with underwritten characters and a distinct lack of drive to keep it moving along. It concerns a ruthless killer who finds himself trapped in a small town one night due to localised flooding. He decides to spend the night at a boarding house only to discover to his consternation that a witness - a young boy - just happens to live there too.Although the plot is an intriguing one, it's the pedestrian execution that lets this film down. It has a strictly workmanlike feel to it, with no suspense and plodding direction from Lew Landers, who once made THE RAVEN with Boris Karloff but who ended up churning out seemingly hundreds of cheap B-movies throughout the 1940s. The cast is undistinguished too, and a film with a bratty kid in it is always going to be a chore to sit through. The only person of note is the cadaverous Fritz Leiber, playing the narrator; his son, Fritz Leiber Jr., would go on to become one of the 20th century's finest writers of science fiction and fantasy.

This film turned out to be more of a lesson for kids: why kids shouldn't go out after dark, "You can get hurt" like Mike's mom kept saying throughout the film to Mike. Also a minor lesson in why young ladies shouldn't fall for the mysterious stranger bad guy image. That's basically how this film was summoned up.This film is a comedy half the time, and a drama the other half. Lots of focus on the kid Mike. Mike likes to go out after dark and he gets in lots of trouble with his mom for doing so. As I said earlier, this film is a lesson on why kids shouldn't go out after dark - mainly.The other focus is Harold Dunlap - the reason we are suppose to be watching this film to begin with. Harold committed murder - really in self defense - and is on the run from the police.You'd think this film would focus more on the "Inner Sanctum" world of Harold with things like hearing his thoughts & odd things he does & says but the film is not like that. Oh he does a couple of odd things throughout the film not like one would think nor do we ever hear his thoughts. It's more of a focus on Mike and Harold's relationship with him.It's an alright film but it does not play out like one would like it to or think it would be. I still kinda like the film.6/10

The framing story is pretty interesting. A dark young lady is on a train and a mysterious older man strikes up a conversation with her. There's something odd about the guy. He stares unblinkingly at her. He doesn't move. He seems to sense things beyond those we're capable of sensing. For instance, he knows the time to the minute without looking at a watch.Then he spins a tale of a woman who got off the train in a small town and was murdered by her fiancé, whom she was to meet at the station. There is a dissolve. The rest of the movie shows us the story being told by the queer old dude, except for the final few minutes. In the old man's narrative, the murderer, Charles Russell, dumps the body back onto the train and then find himself stuck by the agency of a flood in this small town.The movie follows him as he finds a room, chats with the family and their friends, is the object of some moves by a blond who looks like Betty Grable, as so many blonds did in 1948. But Russell acts sinister. He rarely smiles, and then only in a forced manner. The body has been found on the train and some of the towns people begin to wonder about Russell. I won't give away the ending.It's a dull movie. It's inexpensively made, there's nothing of particular interest in any of the characters or their situations. The attempts at humor are lowbrow and dated. Russell himself, whose performance should spark the whole enterprise, does nothing. He's not haunted by the murder or by anything in his past. He simply walks through the part looking grim. There was some potential in the relationship between his character and the wised-up blond, Mary Beth Hughes, but it goes nowhere.It might have made a good radio play, on the "Inner Sanctum" program so popular in the 1940s, but it's a sluggish and uninteresting movie.

Inner Sanctum (1948)A short, bizarre, surprisingly captivating film. It's totally Twilight Zone when you get to the last two minutes, so hang in there for the hour before that. It has a noir quality that makes it moody, and it has some truly artsy expressionist segments montaged in during the flood, partly as psychological metaphor. The director, Lew Landers, has an astonishing 100 plus movies and a lot of early television to his name, and I'm guessing there are some other sterling moments among them.But for the moment we have Inner Sanctum. There is a candid, campy acting throughout that's fresh and entertaining, from the boy who's a convincing sweetie to the reporter who's a total bumbling hoot (watch him cheat at checkers). If it borders on deliberate comedy at times, it's more sustained by its tone of utter innocence among the townspeople, so they joke and make odd comments exactly the way real people would. The candid quality is at odds with the one rather stiff character, the lead man, who carries some kind of weight around beyond even his crime. Such is the film noir lead at its archetypal best, and this is from the height of post-war noir.So, a great movie it isn't but a movie with great qualities it is. No joke.