Crime Against Joe (1956)

So much average

A Major Disappointment

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Entertaining minor programmer. The first part meanders some, so we're not sure where it's headed. The latter part, however, gels into a pretty good whodunit. Joe Manning (Bromfield), an army vet turned ne'er-do-well painter, is subsidized by his mother, and is going nowhere in life. No wonder he drinks a lot; at the same time, the early scenes show Joe in what seems permanent inebriation. Good thing, he's helped along by car-hop Slacks (London) and taxi driver Red (Calvin) or he'd be in the drunk tank. Seems however that two girls have been assaulted and one murdered, mysteriously. Because of his erratic behavior, the cops have him figured as the culprit. Thus, he better sober up and figure things out or he'll be sobering up courtesy the state lockup.Bromfield delivers a lively performance that holds interest. And a good thing since he's in about every scene. Also, this is London before she hit the big time as a sultry torch singer and star of A-features. Here she's really dressed down showing little of those later eye-catching attributes. Too bad. Too bad, too, that glamorous Patricia Blair is wasted in a role she could sleep walk through, which ironically she does! Anyhow, the film comes across as competently done, even though filmed in only five days (IMDB). The 70-minutes may not be anything special, but remains an entertaining slice of industry professionalism.

John Bromfield, unknown to me, plays Joe, a drunken veteran who becomes the chief suspect in a series of murders plaguing his home town. The nominal back story implies that he was a once-promising golden boy gone a little bad; still, it seems implausible that everyone would so quickly be willing to turn against one of their own and assume him to be the guilty party on the flimsy evidence the police collect from the crime scene. That evidence consists almost entirely of a school ring, so everyone immediately assumes that the killer must be someone from Joe's graduating class -- apparently the idea of planting evidence never occurred to anyone. Indeed, this plot point becomes an unintentional joke, as suspect after suspect is asked "Where's your ring?" and if they're able to produce it, or merely say they still have it, everyone assumes they can't possibly be the murderer. That's some cracker jack detective work. "Crime Against Joe" has no discernible directing style and no apparent reason for existing other than as a program filler. The screenplay is just too weak, and there's not enough style in the filmmaking to compensate for the story's failings. Julie London is the film's best asset, though mostly because she's so pretty, not because her character, that of Joe's reluctant love interest, generates much interest.There's also a bizarre and somewhat inexplicable story line about a sleepwalking girl and her father's efforts to cover up his daughter's affliction, and how this cover up affects the case against Joe. Was sleepwalking something to be that ashamed of back in 1956?Grade: C

B minus... I watched this only because Julie London was in it...unfortunately the movie revealed that she is not nearly as pretty as her record album covers suggest...she has sort of a wedge shaped head what looks like a bad nose job. It didn't help that she was too old for the part she plays. I now understand why she never became a film star of note.Movie: Joe is a 30s something semi-loafer who lives off his mother and paints pictures...some sort of psychopath has been killing women in the small town he lives in. He is suspected of these murders by circumstantial evidence--his year high school pin is found near one of the victims. Julie London is in a love with him (he didn't know) and supplies him with an alibi. The quack psychiatrist who over reads things into poor Joe's past is the most realistic thing that happens in this plot.A sort of living nightmare murder rap against Joe closes in around him. Believable to a degree to any one with experience in these things.In the modern world with DNA evidence and such none of this would have happened (we hope).--but I would not count it out.I suspected the fat cab driver about mid way through the thing although at this point didn't really care as this script is so lame.There is a subplot about a sleep walker and her incestuous father that leads no where. Why was it even put in--to eat up some film time maybe? = B double minus. However gets a 5 because these kinds of judicial/police malpractice and psychiatric nonsense do happen. Also witnesses lying and distorting things. If not for that it deserves a 1. One reviewer said it was filmed in 5 days; I believe it and written on the fly.OK for a quick 60 minute watch.

This is a strange offbeat little movie. At times it is dumb and clichéd 1950's police drama and at times it is philosophical and quite interesting.In the second scene of the movie, we have Joyce Jameson running at full speed screaming that she's been attacked. It is quite jilting. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie never matches the energy of this scene.The standout in the cast is Julie London. She is best known as a successful 1960's singer of sultry ballads, but she did do a number of acting gigs. Here she plays a car hop named "Slacks." She is in love with the lead character "Joe." However Joe shows only a passing interest in her, as she has dated his good friend "Red." Julie manages to make the character extremely sweet, nice and strong. She is the opposite of a Femme Fatale, a real Penelope standing by her man.Rebecca Blair (from the television series "Daniel Boone")is the only other person in the cast I knew. She literally "sleepwalks" though her part, although she does have one good scene at the end as a troubled teenager confronting her overprotective "Dad." While the sum does not add up to much, some individual scenes are clever enough to make this "Wrong Man" genre piece worth watching. It was apparently filmed in five days, so don't go in expecting great production values. For those who like early Roger Corman movies, you'll probably enjoy the similar style.