MartinHafer Ruth Roman is stuck starring in a rather dopey movie. The acting is generally good and the atmosphere also quite good...but the plot is just stupid.The film begins with a man being re-tried in court for murdering his wife. A holdout of the jury results in a mistrial* and he is let free. In the next scene, a New Yorker, Shelly (Roman), travels to the desert on a vacation to a dude ranch. She arrives and is told the place is closed...but they'll let her stay. The lady in charge was apparently a friend of the accused murderer and was also on the jury at his trial*. She stays for a few days and soon meets the accused killer. Some other stuff happens and soon she's in love with this man for no apparent reason...and then they get married! None of this makes any sense--- nor does what follows. In fact, the ending and the perfect way everything worked out was utterly ridiculous. My problem is that no matter whether or not the acting and direction are any good or not, the story is so full of dumb holes that I found myself just wanting the film to end.*Someone who is a friend of an accused killer would NEVER be allowed on a jury...never. This made even less sense than the other woman almost instantly falling for Richard and marrying him.

LeonLouisRicci Overcooked Melodrama that is Quite Silly at Times and the Plot is Contrived to make things Come Together and the Result is Manufactured Suspense. The Cast is a bit Offbeat with Mercedes Cambridge Chewing the Scenery and Ruth Roman Looking Confused most of the Time. Zachary Scott shows up to make things Interesting but is mostly there to just Paw the Reluctant Lead Actress.It is Heavy Handed Stuff with Thunder Crashes and Telegraphed Terror (a spider on the bed is mistaken for an attempted murder), but it is Professionally done by the Filmmakers. The Result is Standard Stuff and Dime a Dozen Mystery Movie Assembly Line Product. Not Bad, but it is Second Tier Entertainment with Enough Layers of Involvement to make it Worth a Watch. Just don't Expect Anything Out of the Ordinary. Average at Best.

JohnHowardReid A low-budget murder mystery and undemanding time-killer – which is a real shame. Despite the occasional use of actual locations, obvious studio inserts and phony backdrops give the cost-saving game away. With just a little bit more money in the till, these hazards could easily have been avoided. Admittedly, on it's own penny-pinching level, the movie is interesting enough, even if somewhat slowly paced and somewhat short on action. Nevertheless, it's acted agreeably enough to sustain interest, directed with sufficient tautness, and atmospherically photographed. The characters are both realistically written and tautly played by a well-night perfect cast: Richard Todd, in his first American film, plays with customary charm and stolidity – although not always photographed from the most flattering angles, particularly in his reverse shots. Ruth Roman is delightfully sultry even in what – despite the movie's poster art – is decidedly a goody-two-shoes role. Mercedes McCambridge is her usual neurotic character. Zachary Scott makes a late entrance – 60 minutes late to be precise – but proves a diverting red herring at a point in the narrative where interesting was just beginning to flag. Frank Conroy heads up a very able support cast. King Vidor has directed with his usual dramatic tautness and economy. With just a little bit more money up front, this could have been a high-class mystery yarn, even though the identity of the killer is obvious.

robert-temple-1 This is a superb King Vidor film noir, made only two years after his ultimate masterpiece, THE FOUNTAINHEAD (1949). Unless one considers the sultry RUBY GENTRY (1952) a film noir of sorts, Vidor was not really a noir director. But this film shows that when he needed to become one, he could do it in the twinkling of a lens. The female lead in this film was that very fifties woman, Ruth Roman, who appeared in film after film in those days. Seeing her now, she is so much 'then' as a type, that one cannot imagine her in a contemporary setting at all. All of her mannerisms and assumptions positively reek of the Eisenhower Era. The mesmerising performance of Richard Todd is what really makes this film work. His eyes blaze with ambivalent intensity, like two searchlights, as he stares at Ruth Roman and we and she try to guess is he a good guy or a bad guy. Whatever he is, he feels it deeply. Zachary Scott, in sinister lecherous mode, is Todd's friend, or at least Todd thinks he is. Scott keeps 'lech-ing' round Ruth Roman, can't keep his eyes off her, and that goes for his hands too. She's having none of it, because she's a straight fifties gal. The film has a strong, tormented performance from Mercedes McCambridge, in only her fifth role. She had commenced her film career in the hit ALL THE KING'S MEN (1949) only two years earlier, and five years after this she was to play perhaps her best known role of all in GIANT (1956) with James Dean. She was generally considered one of the finest actresses of her generation, which is hardly surprising, since she was originally one of Orson Welles's Mercury Theatre team, and most of them were brilliant. Mercedes was her second name, but she used it as her first, and was called 'Mercy'. In this film, Rhys Williams plays a priest named Father Paul, who is sickly and sanctimonious and likes to call grown-ups condescendingly 'my child'. (Don't over-pious, patronising priests like that make you sick, especially when they have pet Hispanics hanging around to prove how broad-minded they are?) This film is set way out West somewhere, where the desert is threatening. But so are some of the people! This murder mystery is a twister, and it wriggles like a rattler.