MartinHafer Edmond O'Brien played in quite a few film noir pictures. And, interestingly, they all seem to be excellent...even "Man in the Dark" which you would expect to be a bad picture even WITH O'Brien. Why? Because the film was cranked out in only 11 days AND because there were a lot of cheap 3D tricks in the picture...yet it still turned out to be very, very good. So why would the studio do this in 11 days? Apparently, 3D movies were brand new and they wanted to be the first major studio to make a 3D picture....yet, amazingly, the film doesn't seem rushed or second-rate!When the story begins, a prisoner (O'Brien) is about to undergo some surgery. When he awakens, he has no memory of who he was and is christened 'Steve Rawley' by the doctors. Unfortunately, his old gang doesn't know about the purpose of the surgery--they just know they've got to kidnap him and tell them where he stashed the loot from a robbery. But he really does NOT know where it is nor who he was. His only clues are strange dreams he's been having. Could they point him to the right direction before the gang decides just to kill him and be done with it?As usual, Edmond O'Brien is great. He's tough, mouthy and just the sort of ugly mug you'd expect in a noir picture. And, having Audrey Totter and Ted de Corsia in supporting roles sure didn't hurt! Overall, a nice viewing experience...even with all the 3D gimmicks and use of rear projection towards the end (which I normally hate because it looks so fake).

mmcgee282 Some one had bad mouth this picture labeling it no different than the three stooges film that was in 3D ,Spooks,but, This wasn't.The story was strong The focus on the 3d was the depth.The sepia tones were not restored .It did have few throwing on your face sequence ,but, it was sticking to the plot ,except for the bird sequence.For some reason there were a few shots that were flat.They were only a few seconds .Once again I'm guessing that the left or the right eye version of those shots were missing or have been damaged.It did not mess the whole film up Edmond is having half of his brains removed so he can get out of prison for robbing a security company.It works,but ,as he is recovering ,the old gang shows up and kidnaps him.Back at his ex girl friend apartment ,played by Audrey Totter ,Queen of the Noir flicks,everybody thinks he's the same .The gang individually tries to make him tell where the money is.They even use his girl friend,but, he doesn't remember.It isn't till later after some of his gang beat him up in an attempted to escape, that his girl friend realizes he does not remember.Then he start having a dream which causes him to remember where he had gotten the money, after the gang took him to his old house and he found a sticker number.Then he and Audrey escape the gang into a carnival ,where he had hid the money in a box at a place where you have your stuff deathwatch.He's going to get it and keep it for himself ,instead of giving back to the insurance company .Audrey had reform she mad that he doesn't want to be honest.It's an irony that there is a roller coaster scene where the gang chases him up there .Unfortunately it's screen with props for the roller coaster ride ,so you don't feel the effect .It's very obvious than Columbia took this from the film that was made a year earlier,This is Cinerama,the roller coaster ideal into the plot.Excellent 3D noir. 02/6/12

Michael Klein I recently watched Bluray's 3D release of this for home theaters. Well, when I saw it was directed by Columbia workhorse Lew Landers, I sort of knew instinctively this was NOT going to be a film that could potentially be confused with something directed by say, John Huston. Yes, I was right! Edmond O'Brien is his usually sturdy self (just a year away from winning an Oscar for "The Barefoot Contessa") and any flick with Ted DeCorsia benefits greatly from his menacing presence). The somewhat convoluted plot is made slightly more credible by the earnest cast and swift direction by Landers, but does lag at times.There's a chase on the rooftops between O'Brien and the cops and somehow I just couldn't picture the somewhat stout O'Brien leaping from about from roof to roof and scurrying up and down fire escapes without winding up being on a respirator at the Hollywood Hospital after completing the scenes.Another aspect that confused the heck out of me is O'Brien's flashbacks detailing how he was finally apprehended by the police. There seems to be two versions flash backed, both entirely different.As for the 3D, there is a somewhat startling shot of the surgeons' heads looming in a circle over the camera (methinks Landers used this same composition for a scene in "The Raven", a 1935 horror film he directed with Lugosi and Karloff) and some other nice touches, although the "gag" sequences (i.e., things thrown at the audience) don't always come off well (admittedly, these gags probably worked best on the big screen, not on a 3D television).For example, the goons and O'Brien visit his old house, which has been abandoned and boarded up. Making their way through the cobwebs and dust inside, we are treated to what was either a bird, or a bat, or a hand towel flying out of the screen (it was just BOGUS whatever it was--well, the rubber spider pulled on a string effect, which made the animation on "Gumby" look like "Jurassic Park", was rather jarring as well).The highlight of the film is definitely the climax taking place at an amusement park, but I somehow felt they could have made more use of the location, particularly with the advantage of filming in 3D.A fairly good little film, particularly if you are able to see it as it was originally presented.PS: Not related to the film, but to the Bluray release, as this was not a major movie by Columbia in any way, perhaps they should have added one of Columbia's Three Stooges shorts, namely "Spooks!", which was filmed in 3D. Who knows? Perhaps it did appear on the bill with "Man in the Dark" originally!

John Seal I watched most of Man in the Dark without realising it was originally shot in 3D. At first I thought I was watching a lost Fritz Lang classic---extreme closeups, odd points of view, shattering glass---until I remembered the film had been directed by, ahem, Lew Landers. Now nothing against old Lew, he delivered many a fine B picture, but Man in the Dark doesn't look like your typical Columbia programmer. It's black and white take on the 3D process is more noir than you'd expect and it obviously helped to have Floyd Crosby behind the camera. Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter are good as always, overcoming a pretty hackneyed script that is the film's major shortcoming. Worth seeing for the dream sequence alone, where O'Brien is pursued by policemen in bumper cars!!