Movie Review: Crime Against Joe (1956)
Synopsis: Joe Manning a Korean War veteran who lives with his mother while trying to make a living as an artist, goes out drinking and is accused of murdering a woman the following morning. The evidence against Joe is substantial but he can prove his innocence because he was escorting a sleepwalking Christy Rowen home at the time the murder was committed. However, Christy has no memory of the event and her father, Philip, refuses to confirm Joe's story because he fears it will hurt his and his daughter's reputation.
Who's in it? The movie stars John Bromfield, Julie London, Henry Calvin, Patricia Blair and Joel Ashley.
Review: I picked out Crime Against Joe this morning because I was running a few minutes behind, and it was a relatively short film at just over an hour in length. While I wasn't completely sure what to expect from the movie based on the limited description, it ended up being a great choice.
I think the thing I liked most about this film was the mystery surrounding both the murder and an attack on another woman a few days earlier. While the film made it clear Joe (Bromfield) wasn't the one responsible, there was also no evidence that pointed to anyone other than him. This included Joe being seen threatening the murder victim (Alika Louis) only about a half hour before she was killed. Even his own investigative work only resulted in the field being narrowed down to four possible suspects.
The big reveal at the end was also solid as far as this mystery goes. I had my suspicions, and they turned out to be correct. However, thanks to a couple twists and clever misdirection, it wasn't clear if I fingered the right person until the movie was almost over.
The part about Philip Rowen (Ashley) refusing to help Joe was also intriguing, especially when he bluntly lied to the police about not knowing who he was. I know this movie was made nearly 70 years ago and the whole idea of having your reputation tarnished might have meant a bit more back then, but it still seemed like an extreme measure to protect his daughter when Joe was facing the death penalty.
This also made me question if the police had some sort of unspoken vendetta against Joe. I get wanting to build a case against your top suspect but if that suspect gave an alibi that was a bit unbelievable but plausible and was able to give the name and address of a person, I would be somewhat suspicious of the denial. It wasn't as though they were claiming Joe was some sort of master criminal who would have premeditated an alibi. They were saying he was crazy and acted on impulse.
My only real complaint about the movie is I do kind of wish it would have left some doubt about Joe's innocence. As I said, the film makes it clear he wasn't the killer but leaving that possibility open would have made the mystery more intriguing, especially since there would be the question about whether Slacks (London) did the right thing by helping him or would be at risk of being the next victim.
Final Opinion: This is a good movie with an entertaining plot, a solid mystery and a nice mix of drama. I would recommend taking the time to watch it.
My Grade: A
__________________________________________________________
Here are some reviews of other movies from 1956:
Movie Review: Fury at Gunsight Pass (1956)
Comments
Post a Comment