The Tattooed Stranger (1950)

Sadly Over-hyped

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The Stiff Acting and an Inconsistent Attempt at Cynical Humor do Weigh This One Down Somewhat. What Remains Though are Some Really Downbeat NYC Locations Captured by the Unfettered Realistic Camera.Film-Noir by Definition Brought to the Screen Sleazy Locations Like Greasy Spoons, Tattoo Parlors, and Things Mostly Abandoned by Hollywood's More Glossy and Friendly Output. This One has More than its Share of Norish Subtext.The Visit to the Tattoo Artist, the Subterranean Chase, and the Closing in a Cemetery Add Gravitas to the Movie that the Sometimes Witty but Mostly Sophomoric Second Rate Writing and Truly Bad Acting Can't Hide.Overall, Hampered by Amateurish Thespians and a Forced Light-Hearted Approach the Film Still Manages to be More than Acceptable Because of its Better, More Sustained Grit.

A woman's dead body turns up in New York's Central Park. Two detectives with help from a lab technician track down the killer, using a tattoo and a blade of grass as telltale clues.A few years later and this 60-minutes would be an episode on the TV series Naked City (1958- 63). It's got all the earmarks, including heavy police procedure, location filming, and an elusive killer. One thing the movie is not is noir, contrary to the Film Noir encyclopedia. For example, there're no dark atmospherics, moral ambiguities, or conflicted protagonist. Instead, the narrative amounts to a garden-variety crime drama, likely influenced by 1948's docu- drama The Naked City.Despite the RKO pedigree, the New York filming is clearly done on a shoestring. It's best feature amounts to a good look at tenement areas, circa 1949. Unfortunately, John Miles is shaky in the lead role of rookie detective, and I can see why it was his last film. On the other hand, there's the de-glamorized Patricia Barry (billed as White here), an actress who would later prove so expert at being coy and seductive. But as a lab technician, there's none of that here. Then too, the narrative has gaps, especially the killer's stalking of Tobin (Miles). Nonetheless, some of the staging is imaginative, especially the shoot-out among gravestones, plus the opening sequence in Central Park. But on the whole, the movie's better suited to TV than the theatre.

Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials.

Edward Montagne's Tattooed Stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. Instead, it's a poorly acted, witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. The plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. John Miles, who had a rather thin resume in the industry, grins and guffaws throughout, and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government-made filmstrip about driver safety. The movie anticipates shows like 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best' in its unnaturally wholesome view of New York in 1950. Why, the viewer doesn't even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. The only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by William Steiner. The low budget of the film works in the cinematographer's favor, as the viewer is treated to well-framed shots of New York City's interiors and expansive exteriors. Unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles, I suggest watching practically any other movie.