Dead Reckoning (1947)

Absolutely Fantastic

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Dead Reckoning is a film noir that would had benefited from a stronger leading lady and if the film had not followed the strictures of the film noir genre so slavishly.Humphrey Bogart gives a sardonic but tough performance as Captain Rip Murdock (Bogart) who searches for his friend and army buddy Sergeant Johnny Drake (William Prince) who fled when he was told he was to receive a medal after returning home from the war.Murdock goes to a southern coastal town and finds out that Drake has died. As he digs closer, he finds that Johnny was once involved with a femme fatale, singer Coral Chandler (Lizabeth Scott) and got mixed up with murder and a gangster. A reason why Johnny craved anonymity.The plot is perfunctory but does feel a little slippery here and there by being a little too convoluted at times.

"To Have and Have Not" was a déjà-vu of "Casablanca"… with a novelty though, and not the least, it had Lauren Bacall in her first starring role. And she didn't just steal Bogart's thunder; she stole his heart too, revealing herself to be the perfect match for Bogie, in every meaning of the word and both on the screen and in real-life. The genuinely growing chemistry between them during the film was enough to cement the film's legend."The Big Sleep" was a déjà-vu of "The Maltese Falcon" and while it didn't have its colorful supporting cast (no Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre or Mary Astor) it did delightfully on the female casting department. Besides, as a Rubik-cube of plot complexity with one double-crossing, two lies and three false tracks by inches of celluloid that it was, it still had Bacall all the way. As long as she and Bogart ended up embracing, it was worth its ticket's price, the pop-corn box … and the little spot in Hollywood's firmament.Where am I going at with all these comparisons?"Dead Reckoning" suffers from the same déjà-vu syndrome but without any redeeming quality. It only exists on the basis that the stuff film-noir was made on already worked, that all it took was to place Bogart in his tough-guy routine and let him go through it. Well, as much as I admire Bogart, he never did without partners, lovers or fitting antagonists. Here, he carries the film alone, and while it's always a pleasure to watch him as his typical lone rider with a soft spot for a female outcast, there has to be something new we remember the film from. Take "Dark Passage" for instance, it had Bogart and Bacall, it was far from being a masterpiece, but it still had that Hitchcockian vibe sweating out of each frame, it had Agnes Moorehead and the memorable fact that Bogart's face isn't seen for two thirds of the movie. This is where "Dead Reckoning" fails, it has everything to satisfy its audience, except the most important one: something to remember the film for. Granted its contrived plot was easier to follow than "The Big Sleep" but the investigation didn't have that punch-and-guts dynamite style, these brief flirtatious moments (like that slutty sister or that nymphomaniac librarian), it didn't have a sidekick, some comic-relief to drown our bitterness on, it had only Bogart and Lizabeth Scott. But while we care for Bogart, we never really care for Lizabeth Scott, who seems like a poor man's Lauren Bacall. This is not to dismiss her talent or anything, she could pass as a fitting love interest to Bogie and I loved that beatnik fashion she was dressed in, in the last act, but there's an obviously intended physical resemblance to Babe, and it's so blatant it is distracting, you can't help but making comparisons : same blonde hair, same facial features, same husky voice although I hated her accent which made her sound like Kaa the Python. Sssssseeee what I mean? And the director John Cromwell didn't pull much effort to let her exist on another basis than being a Lauren Bacall's second choice.Take the 1950 film, "In a Lonely Place", there was something that Gloria Grahame brought to the screen that only belonged to her, not even to Bacall, she had that dignified look but average beauty, that sadness and melancholy graved in her face, that lack of glamor and superficiality that could make her fall in love with a loner like Dixon Steele. But in "Dead Reckoning", Scott never quite makes it as a potential love interest for Bogie, because she's never given the choice. When she's not Bacall, she becomes Mary Astor-like villain inspiring a "you're good" rip-off (among many other stolen lines) but the tears in her eyes are as artificial as that goddamn rain scene at the end of the confession.Speaking of it, what was the point of even making it a confession when the listener, a priest has nothing else to do than watching the hero disappear before raindrops start falling as if sky was urinating (the lousy effect of a garden hose) Nothing really makes senses from the beginning. Bogart investigates over his army-buddy's disappearance, but is the paratrooper or the taxi-cab owner who does it, in both cases, where did he achieve his Private-eye skills, why not making it a PI movie from the beginning? Never mind, Bogart is good, even very good, but is that enough when the supporting cast doesn't hold a candle to the heavyweights I mentioned, not even Elisha Cook Jr.Morris Carnovsky as the mastermind Martinelli and Marvin Miller as Krause, deliver remarkable performances and it would be unfair to blame them, but I couldn't buy baby-faced Krause as a thug with sociopath impulses, if one thing, it was Bogart who seemed to bully him and we're almost glad when he gets it and Martinelli was just severely underused. But that wasn't even the problem; it's just that the casting didn't help elevating the movie higher than its timid level of entertainment. And I know there's something wrong in the film when I start talking about other movies, and seems like I broke a new record with this one.Well, to conclude on a positive note, at least, there is Bogie, and he's good, but the rest is just an ersatz of all his previous films without something new to hang our hopes on.

The best film noir always features a sultry femme fatal out to get what she wants from a brooding anti-hero, and in the case of this one, she is Lizabeth Scott, the blonde vixen with more than a passing resemblance to Lauren Bacall, the wife of the star here, Humphrey Bogart. At first glance from Scott's profile, you may think if you are unaware that it is Bacall, but that changes once she looks up. Her personality is quite different, too-more pouty, quietly scheming, and in the annals of film noir, much deadlier.Bogart is a parachute specialist on his way to Washington D.C. to get a bravery medal while his pal William Prince is to get the congressional medal of honor. But when the press wants a photo of Prince, he takes off, and very soon, Bogart is out looking for clues to why, even investigating the morgue when he learns shocking truths about his pal's past.This connects him to the widowed Scott, a former nightclub singer with a past connection to Prince, and an unforgettable night in a gambling joint where he gets information on his friend's connection to an old murder case. Waking up next to a stiff, getting beaten up by the thugs working for the gambling house boss (Morris Carnovsky) and romancing the sultry Scott gets him in deeper where he may never escape.While Bogart and Scott are certainly an attractive couple, it is hard to judge their chemistry based upon the whole Bogart/Bacall legend and Scott's similar looks. Bogart is one of the few older actors who looked right with younger actresses, and it doesn't come off as some cheap attempt at expanding an aging actor's ego. There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, and half the fun is sorting them out before it all comes together. While Bogart is an expert at playing characters of mystery, he adds to that here with his cynicism towards women. Scott's smile always makes you wonder what is behind the supposedly happy face as her eyes display elements of craftiness which in most of her film noir appearances are never discovered until it is too late. The ending of this film features some truly violent developments and the fade-out may leave you with chills.

I just watched this movie again and, despite the many derogatory comments about Lizabeth Scott's acting abilities in the other reviews, I have to say that I found her far more interesting to watch than Lauren Bacall of that same period. She was certainly adequate to the role as written. FYI,she was under contract to Hal Wallis at this time (who released through Paramount)and was a last minute replacement for Rita Hayworth, who withdrew at the last minute because she didn't want to play another bad girl after "Gilda". The look of the movie is great, the supporting cast perfect and Bogart, as always, delivers the goods. I sense from some of the other reviewers that they are looking at this mystery (PLEASE, permanently retire that tiresome term, "Film Noir"!)in contemporary terms, rather than through the eyes of 1947 audiences, who generally went to the movies to be entertained, and not to over-analyze what is essentially a mystery. If one wants to have a good time, which was the idea behind movies of that period, you will be. Certainly far more than most of what is produced today, with forgettable faces, dumbed-down plots and questionable taste. I give this movie an 8.