dougdoepke Unusual movie since it's hard to adequately comment without giving away the ending. It's an efficient little suspenser, but nothing more. And that's too bad because the premise has more exciting possibilities than what's there on screen. The problem lies, I think, with the way the project was conceived as nothing more than a low-budget, 70-minute, quickie. It looks like the producers went out and hired a director then making his reputation on just such uncomplicated movie fare, Andrew Stone. He's perfect for the concept with his straight-ahead, documentary style that cares little for artifice or character. The script too plows straight- ahead with little subtlety or ambiguity. Thus a potential that would add the vital extra dimension of mystery or whodunit is eliminated from the outset, resulting in a straight suspense film with no surprises.Now I was slow to catch on. I kept looking for twists or some kind of ambiguity that would open up a mysterious aspect and leave me guessing. But there isn't any. The streamlined screenplay is utterly without artifice, which may have suited Stone, but left me with an ending that's not only badly contrived but also with the feeling that this can't be all there is. It's like taking a sight-seeing trip that keeps you watching, but ends up without any memorable sights to see.Too bad that fine actor Joseph Cotten is wasted in a role that could have gone to dozens of less talented male leads. There is so much room for ambiguity that would have engaged his talent, instead of turning him into a basically one-dimensional bloodhound. I sympathize with those posters who regret that the master of suspense and subtlety, Alfred Hitchcock, didn't get hold of the material first. Jean Peters is fine, and I can see why the notorious womanizer Howard Hughes slapped a ring on her finger if only for a little while. But that final scene of waiting her out is so utterly implausible. After all, what does she gain by risking agonizing death since she's trapped on board ship where a trip to ship's doctor can be easily verified. Once she drinks the cocktail, her fate is sealed, and it's foolish of the screenplay to pretend otherwise.In passing—note how at ease director Stone is with the cop scenes. I detect a Dragnet influence from the TV series, even down to series veterans Phillips and Kruschen. Put that sort of material, such as The Night Holds Terror (1954), in Stone's hands and his single- minded devotion to procedure and plot works really well. Where it doesn't work so well is reducing potentially complex material like Blueprint to routine docu-drama.

ccthemovieman-1 Most of this movie is a "did-she-or-didn't-she-do it?" story. Two family members have been poisoned and it looks like the mother, "Lynne Cameron" (Jean Peters) is the killer, but it's hard to prove. As the film goes on, one has more and more doubts whether she did it. Perhaps the innocent-sounding "Uncle Cam" (Joseph Cotten) is the killer. Hmmmm.....which one is it? Was it the pretty Peters or Cotten?For most of the short movie, it was entertaining. It began to drag a bit in the last third but the film, since it is short, should keep your interest enough to find out who's the killer and how she-or-he did it. I agree with those posters who felt the ending was a bit disappointing. I was looking for something a little more clever than was presented.I'd also liked to have seen more scenes with the two supporting actors: Catherine McLeod and Gary Merrill. Both actors were fascinating. McLeod played "Maggie Sargent," the first character in here to suspect foul play after a child's death. Merrill played her husband, "Fred." He also was "Cam's" lawyer.McLeod is deceptively good-looking and I wish I could see more things she did, but her IMDb resume indicates she mainly acted on television in the 1950s.Overall, this is definitely worth one viewing. It is usually worth seeing the sexy Peters in her prime before she went into retirement a few years later. She did four films in 1953 and three more the next year, several of them being good film noirs ("Pickup On South Street" and "Niagara.")

ryancm While not a great film by any means, A BLUEPRINT FOR MURDER offers some very fine moments of suspense and is a very good B movie. (B movies are usually never over 90 mins). The two stars acquit themselves well, especially Jean Peters, and underrated actress of the 50's and 50's. (See VICKI as well). The pacing is fine, but the ending needed a little more zip. For a while the movie has the viewer coming and going as to what really happened to the husband and little girl, both who died under mysterious circumstances. This makes a fine double bill with the above mentioned VICKI. Being a fan of Jean Peters, Fox should release a couple of other films she made for them, namely TAKE CARE OF MY LITTLE GIRL.

krorie This is a somewhat unusual programmer from 1953. Big name actors with tons of acting ability star in what appears to be a typical B movie, Joseph Cotten, Jean Peters, Gary Merrill. The way the murder mystery is handled by writer-director Andrew L. Stone is also somewhat unusual. The audience has the prime suspect from the very beginning of the film. The questions unanswered to the very end are: Did Lynne Cameron (Jean Peters) really kill her husband and stepdaughter? Is she planning to kill her stepson? Joseph Cotten, who plays Lynne's brother-in-law tries to prove that she did and that she is. The viewer has to answer another question. Is Whitney 'Cam' Cameron (Joseph Cotten) the real murderer trying to put the blame on his sister-in-law? Is he actually playing another Uncle Charlie type character similar to his role in Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt?" This all makes for a nifty little thriller. The movie speeds along at a leisurely pace but never becomes boring. Not a bad way to spend 77 minutes.