I Walk Alone (1947)

Touches You

Excellent but underrated film

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It feels as though Burt Lancaster is the tougher man in this film as he gets to punch Kirk Douglas and win. They don't really fight it out like John Wayne and Randolph Scott in 'The Spoilers', and for that reason this film disappoints just like 'Gunfight at the OK Corral'. There is tension between Lancaster and Douglas but their scenes together are just talking heads. Lancaster wins the physical war with his fists, whereas wins the intellectual war of words by outsmarting Lancaster. It is unsatisfactory because they would continue to be talking heads in 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' and 'Seven Days in May'. This is why it is not a movie, but rather a collaboration between two talented actors who are not maximising their potential together.

I Walk Alone (1948) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Frankie Madison (Burt Lancaster) gets out of prison after fourteen years and heads to see his old partner Dink Turner (Kirk Douglas). The two men made an agreement when Frankie took the wrap that they'd split everything down the middle while he was in prison but once on the outside he realizes that Turner has double crossed him. Broke and without any hopes for the future, Frankie must get his revenge. There are some terrific performances to be found here but sadly the end results aren't nearly as good as one would hope for thanks in large part to a screenplay that is just way too predictable for its own good. The story itself really isn't anything original and it doesn't take long for you to realize that Lancaster isn't going to be getting what's coming to him and the film takes way too long for this obvious set-up to take place. Once the double cross actually happens things start to pick up but once again you're one step ahead of the characters as none of them ever really see what's going to happen and after a while you start to realize that they're all rather stupid. This is especially true during the ending, which I won't ruin. I will say there's something Douglas does, which is just so silly that you can't help believe the two characters he does it to would be that dumb. With that said, the film is still worth seeing thanks in large part to the terrific cast. There are many legendary actor-actor combos throughout film history but one of my favorites has always been Lancaster and Douglas. It's somewhat shocking to me that their films aren't better respected than they are but this was the first of seven films they made together and that terrific chemistry is on display here. It's rather amazing to see how well they play off one another in their film film but Lancaster was always terrific at playing the wronged tough guy and Douglas is just so snake like that you can't help but love to hate him. Lizabeth Scott is good in her role as the woman in love with Douglas but who quickly starts to fall for Lancaster. There's no question that the director wanted her to "act" like Lauren Bacall but it works well. Wendell Corey is also very good in his role. I WALK ALONE is part noir and part thriller and fans of those two genres will probably want to check it out. The terrific performances make it a film worth watching but it's a shame the screenplay didn't do a better job with the characters.

I Walk Alone (1948)Wow, this should have been great. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas alone make a great combination. Throw in Lizabeth Scott, who practically owns the archetype of a film noir leading woman (which isn't to say she's the best at it, for sure). But there are two huge problems. The script, the story, is just too thin and old hat to matter--a club owner, an ex-con, a torch song singer, and some old scores to settle. Could have been a contender, maybe. Looming larger is something you don't always see so clearly--bad direction. It shows in a lot of ways, the biggest being great actors (all three) who are at their worst. It's really a shock, if you like these people. Even the photography varies, sometimes dramatic (there are some great sets, for sure) and sometimes static and functional.Now, it's not a disaster. And there is an interesting angle to the movie that echoes the movies more than real life. There is an attempt to revive the old Prohibition gangster feel. In fact, they work a time warp into the story by having Lancaster play bootlegger who was jailed in the early 1930s, and just got out in 1947. So he still has the old gangster mentality. Douglas avoided jail and for fourteen years has been semi-legit. The clash of eras ends up being the real height of the movie. Even the clash of desires (both men want the compliant singer, Scott) isn't enough to lift those scenes.

I like I WALK ALONE. It is an interesting example of film noir, but it also has curious slants of it's own. It is also one of the first pairings of Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster in film. Douglas and Lancaster were so well balanced in their movies that they were interchangeable. While in most of them they were allies or buddies (THE DEVIL'S DESCIPLE, GUNFIGHT AT O.K. CORRAL, TOUGH GUYS) they could alternate as the villain against each other. It's hard to find a pair of actors who did this as well or at all. Matthau and Lemmon usually were in comedies (although they both could be at loggerheads on some ethical points or past history). Grant and Ralph Bellamy are normally love rivals (Bellamy being hopelessly outclassed). Crosby and Fitzgerald are usually in a battle of the generations, and a confrontation of two street smart types. And so it goes in other male pairings.SPOILERS AHEAD: Here, Kirk is the villain - he got away with a large stolen cash prize in a crime back in the 1920s/early 1930s. His partner Burt got caught, and was sent to prison for 14 years (actually rather lucky for him - a cop was killed). Burt is now out of prison, and he discovers that Kirk is quite a social success. He took the money and used it to build a gang, but he was smart enough to use his profits to get a legitimate sheen to his image: he's a successful "nightclub" owner with many wealthy friends and customers. One of the best moments early in the film is when Lancaster sees newspapers and magazines that show Douglas swanning with the swells (even wearing top hat and overcoat in a rotogravure shot). Not quite like the good old Dillinger days, or even Al Capone.Other films had touched upon the "legitimization" of mob money as time passed. In THE ROARING TWENTIES, while Jimmy Cagney is building up his hooch empire he invests the money in a legitimate taxi company (an early example of money laundering), only to lose everything when the stock market crashes. Ironically, his untrustworthy second-in-command (Humphrey Bogart) never diversifies but keeps to the illegal activities. He not only survives the crash, but he profits by it (taking over Cagney's property - though he contemptuously leaves him one taxicab). But even he tries to pick up a better public image - you see him practicing his putting in his office at one point.Lancaster confronts Douglas in his nightclub, only to be brought into the modern world of organized crime. All Lancaster really wants is his half of the original money. But as Douglas' accountant, Wendell Corey, says they can't just give him the cash as it has been invested throughout Douglas's financial empire. Lancaster is left without cash, and led a chase as well by Douglas using Lizbeth Scott as femme fatale bait. He ends up getting beaten (by Mike Mazurki). But he remains determined to beat Douglas and get his share.He does in a manner that today would not pass muster. He entraps Douglas by pretending to have him at the end of a loaded gun, forcing Douglas to make a confession before the police. Douglas, naturally frightened, does admit information that only the criminal involved in the crime would have known, but at the end, he sneers at Lancaster saying that the confession was gotten under duress. But then Lancaster shows his gun was empty. Civil libertarians today would denounce this trick, saying the confession was tainted. In 1948 it was perfectly legal.