Ed-Shullivan This is not one of Humphrey Bogart's finest films. He plays an architect named Richard Mason who after five (5) years of marriage he has gradually fallen out of love with his wife Kathryn (Rose Hobart) and in to love with Kathryn's younger sister Evelyn (Alexis Smith). To resolve his dilemma Richard Mason executes what he believes to be a perfect murder thus freeing himself to woo his younger sister-in-law Evelyn.The first 30 minutes of the film was suspenseful but after that Richard seems to be haunted by clues that lead him to believe that his poor murdered wife is mysteriously still alive. We the audience are lead on a string of clues that seem to be leading Richard Mason (murderer) into madness until he cannot take it any longer so he resolves himself to get to the bottom of his new dilemma and confirm once and for all if his wife Kathryn is still alive or truly dead since he can still visualize that he murdered her.The latter half of the film was a mixed bag of sudden and unexplained clues that leave Richard stunned that someone is screwing with him. I felt the same way just like how my interest in this film waned very quickly. The ending was less than memorable so I would leave this film on the shelf. I give it a 5 out of 10 rating.

mikerosslaw There are two items which reveal Warner Brothers' cheap-skate stagecraft and lack of continuity among their "pulp" film productions like "Conflict": First, Bogart's wife in pic is wearing the actual same sparkling brooch that Ingrid Bergman wore in her first scene of "Casablanca" - this jewelry is so unique and distinctive (and would be a near-priceless auction item nowadays) that it is as iconic as the film "Casablanca" itself; and Second, - believe it or not - the actual "Maltese Falcon" statuette from the eponymous film is perched on top of a filing cabinet in a scene at police headquarters. Was some wardrobe mistress or grip playing a tasteless joke? Or was WB so stingy that they couldn't afford separate jewelry or props for different films? Did they think we wouldn't notice such visual gaffes? Unpardonable.The Premise of pic is that Bogart's character is a man who sees his temporary incapacity from a broken leg as an alibi in his plan to rub out his shrewish wife and then hook up with her dazzling younger sister. Picture Bogart as a closet Walter Mitty character with pathetic delusions of romantic grandeur. Seriously?Bogart is miscast as the villain, visibly uncomfortable without the armor of his usual dour anti-hero persona. Bogie tricks his wife into going on a trip without him, but later confronts her suddenly on a dangerous mountain road (what a coincidence!), killing her and pushing her car with her body in it over a cliff. Sidney Greenstreet is also miscast as a perspicacious yet compassionate psychiatrist (picture Jabba the Hut from "Star Wars" with a heart-of-gold) who sniffs out Bogart's mendacity about his wife's disappearance, and then goes on to orchestrate an elaborate "Gaslight" plan with the police to trip up Bogart's character and have him tip his hand. Guess who wins?In real life, the younger sister (and I do mean younger - the dazzling Alexis Smith at twenty-four was in her prime and 22 years younger than the aging, sickly-looking Bogart) wouldn't give a second glance to a humorless, gloomy old geezer like Bogart. Bogie finally confesses his love to her during the search for her sister, and then mercilessly cross-examines her about why she should love him when she rejects him. Even the most perverse, masochistic woman wouldn't tolerate Bogie's nasty hectoring. It was like he was trying to verbally beat a confession out of a criminal rather than win the affections of a woman who looked young enough still be in college. Bogart was always miscast as any kind of a ladies' man. This film really shows Bogie's inability to charm anyone, much less either of the two principal leading ladies. Add to this the glistening, disgusting drool he always has in the corners of his mouth, like that of a die-hard chewing tobacco addict. Bogart always comes off as a man totally who is uncomfortable with women - i.e., a real man's man. Bogart doesn't play the villain well either. Besides his heartless demeanor with Alexis Smith as the woman for whom he invented the entire murder plot of his wife, he actually made a woman playing a bit-part scream for help, he was so intimidating. His tough-guy persona informs every facet of all of his performances, however inappropriately, as here.Bogie's man's man image does work wonderfully in guy-flicks like "The Caine Mutiny," "Sahara," his first big movie role, "The Petrified Forest," and Bogie's best performance ever, that of the psychotic gold prospector Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." To bad Bogie didn't stick to the roles that suited him, not ridiculous melodramas like "Conflict" where his character needed to be able to charm a woman.

LeonLouisRicci This Film-Noir has the Typical Odd Feel Often Found in the Genre. It is Aided by the Bogart as Villain Character as the Audience Feels Uncomfortable as Bogey is not Only a Murderer but Hobbled by Physical (a cane and a limp) and Psychological Maladies (guilt, hallucinations, anxiety).There are Odd Looking Side Players like the Rotund Sydney Greenstreet and a Host of Others Like a Hobo, Landlady, and Pawn Shop Owner that are All Strange in Appearance and Add to a Mysterious and Foreboding Feel to the Film.The Nagging Wife has a Scene at the Beginning that is So Uncomfortable for Both Bogart and the Audience that the Off Kilter Ambiance is set in Motion and Continues throughout the Movie. Nothing and No One Ever seems Comfortable and as Things Move Along as the Murderer Becomes Unhinged by Unsettling Events its All Nerves and the Forties Infatuation with Psychoanalysis and Freudian Deduction.The Movie also Looks Nightmarish with Rainy Mountain Roads and Expressionistic Displays that give the Appearance of a World Slightly Out of Whack. This one has the Feel of a Val Lewton Film or some might even say Hitchcock, but one Thing for Sure it is an Odd Role for Bogart, although He did Play the Villain Occasionally, this Film Nevertheless is Underrated and Delightfully Different.

madmonkmcghee On their fifth wedding anniversary a man and wife find out their marriage is a big mistake, and he's convinced her sister is in love with him. If only he wasn't already married.....Since this is a thriller he does the logical thing and pushes his wife off a mountain cliff. But then he gets signs that she may still be alive. Is he losing his mind or is he just a sloppy killer? The whole movie hinges on the fact that the viewer must choose either option as being true. Unless there's a third option, and just about anybody who has ever seen or read a mystery story will figure out soon enough what that is. Oh yes, Sydney Greenstreet's character is a psychiatrist, now what on earth would that have to do with any of this? I wonder...... Apart from the rather obvious plot there's isn't much suspense to make this an effective thriller.Bogart's character seems more annoyed than scared by any of the strange goings-on, like finding his dead wife's jewelry in her safe. And when he finds out his wife's sister rejects him, so the whole murder was in vain he's more unpleasantly surprised than shocked. The ending can't really come as a surprise to anyone. This movie is not without merit, and Bogart and Greenstreet are worth seeing in any movie, but i had higher hopes for this.