Diagonaldi Very well executed

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

kijii This was Kazan's third credited movie, his first film noir, and the first time he was able to film totally on location (nothing was filmed in the studio). This was a new experience for Kazan since he started out at a play director in the 30s and 40s and then made his first two movies, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) and The Sea of Grass (1947), totally in a movie studio. The DVD that I have is one of those 20th Century Fox noir movies with a commentary track. In the commentary, they call this movie a 'docunoir' meaning, I suppose, that it is a noir-ish docudrama based on a true story. Although the events depicted in this movie took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut, it was actually filmed in Stamford, Connecticut. So, when you see one of the panels of the opening credits say, 'The story you are about to witness is based on fact. In the interests of authenticity, all scenes, both interior and exterior, have been photographed in the original locale and as many actual characters as possible have been used,' you have to take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, other than the main characters, local people who were non- actors, did most of the other parts. For me, this makes the movie more authentic and seems to represent sort of an 'American neorealism' that may have been influenced by the films being made in Europe about the same time.As the movie opens, we see the murder of one of the town's most beloved citizens, its Episcopal minister, Father Lambert. He is murdered on Main Street in the early evening in front of several people. The people of the town are shocked and want to find the murderer and bring him to a swift justice. Police Chief Robinson (Lee J. Cobb) and his assistant, Detective Lieutenant White (Karl Malden), feel the ripple effect of the town's shock as does the State's Attorney, Henry Harvey (Dana Andrews), and his wife, Madge (Jane Wyatt). Of course, the local newspaper, 'The Morning Record,' and its reporter, Dave Woods (Same Levine), fans the flames of public outrage.Soon, local politics and politicians get involved and corruption is unveiled for us to see: The commissioner of Pubic Works (Ed Begley) desperately wants to see a murderer caught and convicted since his new recreation center depends on its quick resolution. And, as we find out later, his political and personal financial positions are duplicitous and, therefore, corrupt.As the local newspaper and political machine continue to fuel the public fires of the unsolved case, people start to form quasi-vigilante groups to find the murderer. Finally, the police find a possible suspect, John Waldron (Arthur Kennedy), in Ohio. The circumstantial evidence against him is the timing of his exit from town; the fact that he dresses like the murderer (dark coat and light hat), has a medium build, and owns a .38 caliber pistol. Waldron is placed in several police lineups and is constantly recognized by witnesses from the scene of the crime. After several non-stop hours of 'aggressive' questioning by police, he signs a confession.Justice is swift at the Coroner's Inquest. However, when the case is examined at the State Superior Court, State's Attorney, Henry Harvey has some doubts about Waldron's guilt and more actively pursues old leads with his staff. As attention is shifted to Harvey, members of the Reform Party machine both threaten him and promise him the governorship. The movie ends with a good courtroom drama. The movie's epilogue is equally interesting!I highly recommend this crime drama based on an actual case and taken from a Reader's Digest article. It may have been overlooked because Kazan's Gentleman's Agreement was the movie to see in 1947. However, I think this is one of those great crime documentaries like Call Northside 777 (1948) and Mystery Street (1950).

seanparker1942 This is a top-notch Film Noir with some excellent acting all round. It is also helped by a terrific true story line where an accused man is exonerated. And another twist to the story is that the prosecutor assigned to send him to his death is the one who ultimately gets him off. This would not have happened if the local community and its politicians had heir way. As an aside, when Arthur Kennedy is first arrested and is in the police station an officer walks across and places a hand on his shoulder, the man looks like Eli Wallach but there is nothing on his profile to say that it was him Also, he is not mentioned in the cast list for Boomerang. Has anybody else noticed him?

Denis Forster I have seen this film a number of times over my many years of enjoying the greats and this is certainly one of the greats.I was not able to review all the comments to see if anyone mentioned the value of Reed Hadley and his contribution that added authenticity to this film. His voice has been used in many films I am sure because he always provides this air of clarity and authenticity. I have always appreciated his role as narrator and was pleased to see him in visual roles well after I first heard him. I recently revisited W.C. Fields films and spotted Reed in one of them (although a minor role with a kind of French accent no less).

MartinHafer "Boomerang!" features an exceptional cast of actors who might not be pretty but who really knew their craft. Think about it...Dana Andrews, Ed Begley, Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden, Arthur Kennedy and Robert Keith all in one film. You can't help but enjoy watching the film simply so you can get a chance to watch these wonderful but generally unheralded actors exercise their craft. And, with Elia Kazan directing, you can't help but expect excellence.The film begins with a seemingly senseless murder. A beloved priest is shot in the back of the head, execution-style, on the street of a Connecticut town. The killer, dressed in a trench coat and hat, manages to get away and the town is clamoring for the police to catch him. In fact, the local paper pushes hard, very hard, for the police to act. And, as a result, it seems that the authorities try too hard to catch someone...anyone. The man they eventually catch (Arthur Kennedy) does give an inconsistent story but there really isn't much to connect him to the murder other than several eyewitnesses.When the District Attorney (Dana Andrews) gets the case, something bothers him. While everyone around him seems pleased about the arrest, he can't get past the fact that the evidence is tenuous--very tenuous. In fact, instead of prosecuting the case as you'd expect, Andrews manages to systematically prove the eyewitnesses were not the least bit reliable. They, too, were in a rush to judgment or had personal reasons to say Kennedy was the killer. And, following his impeachment of the witnesses, he is able to tear apart his own case--proving the defendant could not have been the assailant. While the idea of a prosecuting attorney working hard in court to DISPROVE his case sounds insane, it is supposedly based on a real case. And it also proves just how horrible eyewitness accounts can be--often VERY unreliable and subject to lots of human error. It has a great point to make AND is quite entertaining and well constructed. Well worth seeing.