In a Lonely Place (1950)

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Excellent but underrated film

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The chumminess between the suspect, his girlfriend, the detective on the case and his wife stretches credibility. Without the stars and the great direction this would have made a two-bit piece of pulp fiction. The violent reputation of the hero and the fear those around him feel is an unusual premise.

In a Lonely Place is an unendearing film-noir murder mystery.The biggest problem with the film is that the main characters are unlikable. Dixon is smug, rude, controlling and beat people, while Laurel is bland and unrealistic. The second biggest problem is that it's suppose to be a murder mystery, yet we are not following the investigation and we know that Dixon is innocent. The crime is resolved just like that and is of no importance, other than its impact on their relationship.

In a Lonely Place is one of the two successful movies produced by Santana Productions, company owned by Bogart himself and named after his yacht. Humphrey appears in a role of down-on-luck screenwriter Dixon Steele who struggles to write a good script. Without saying anything else that might be considered a spoiler, his acting was highly praised by back-then movie critics and is considered as one of his best movies ever made. I personally don't agree with these critics and found his acting a bit .. weird, maybe because he was visibly getting old and his wild lifestyle started to take its toll on him.What is also important to mention is how did Gloria Grahame get the main role (which later become one of her finest ever)? Well, Laurel Gray was initially supposed to be portrayed by Humphrey's wife (and fine actress indeed) Lauren Bacall but she was contracted to Warner Bros and they decided to not release her of their contract for the movie produced by independent Santana Productions in a fear of becoming a threat to their monopoly. The second option was casting Ginger Rogers (the big star of 30's and 40's) but director Nicholas Ray stepped in and decided to cast his own wife - Gloria Grahame. That later turned out to be one of the few good decisions he has made in regard to this movie. Despite the Gloria's fine acting, her marriage with Ray was deteriorating, ending up with Ray catching Gloria in bed with his 13 year old son.. well, she sure was a man- eater, lol.At last but not least, we have to compare the final version with its novel predecessor by Dorothy Hughes. In a novel, Dixon Steele is only pretending to be a screenwriter, in fact he is just living lavish lifestyle thanks to money from his rich uncle. He is also helping his friend Det. Stg. Brub track a serial killer and is later exposed that the serial killer is no one else but Steele himself. All this that happened in a novel did not happen in a movie itself so if you haven't watch the movie yet, don't worry - the story is a bit different. Writer Hughes describes Steele as a violent psycho and misogynist (back then wide known American social issue) and who knows, maybe Humphrey didn't have to play this part much ;) The ending itself was also changed (thank you Ray!) and in my personal opinion that affected the movie in not exactly favorable way. I won't describe the different but let's say that tragic ending would suit the whole movie better.To sum this up, movie is definitely worth watching. Besides Gloria Grahame, I'd like to point out fine acting of Frank Lovejoy and Martha Stewart whose presence I enjoyed a lot. Altogether 85%.

Ostensibly a story about PTSD before it had that clinical name: an otherwise decent, high-functioning, articulate guy explodes at the drop of a fedora. Scrapes and scuffles -- forgiven and/or passed off as typical post-WWII tough stand-up guy behavior, until the police identify him as the last person to have seen a murder victim alive.For me personally, Bogart as mega-star was a given since I was a tyke watching him on TV, to the point that I find myself not taking him in fully; but his performance here is a revelation: no risk goes unrisked as the man unhinges one hinge at a time. Nick Ray creates a universe where everything and everybody is slightly off, where negative capability -- the promise of very bad things -- is possible at every turn. Bogart the idol is subsumed by Dix Steele, trouble man. In the early scenes there's lots of puerile dialogue wherein that absurdly phallic name is bandied about, to the point of giddiness. This along with slightly more erudite comedy serves to disarm the viewer as we're drawn deeper into the serious subject matter. Like much film noir, it's a comedy about tragedy.The gifted, always-vulnerable Gloria Graham (bless her!) loves the ruffian and brings out his sweetness. Ray's direction (they were in the midst of a tumultuous marriage off-screen) keeps her character smart and strong -- struggling with loving a man she also fears, not afraid to confront her own masochistic tendencies -- peeling back the layers, peeling back the layers . . .Like Ray's 'Born to Be Bad' also released in 1950, 'In a Lonely Place' is so different from other films of its time it appears to be made with different chemicals. Ray does the unexpected with familiar faces and familiar genres, and employs audacious rhythms -- lingering too long here, too briefly there. Both films feel beautifully modern for all that.