Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

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.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

evanston_dad John Bromfield, unknown to me, plays Joe, a drunken veteran who becomes the chief suspect in a series of murders plaguing his home town. The nominal back story implies that he was a once-promising golden boy gone a little bad; still, it seems implausible that everyone would so quickly be willing to turn against one of their own and assume him to be the guilty party on the flimsy evidence the police collect from the crime scene. That evidence consists almost entirely of a school ring, so everyone immediately assumes that the killer must be someone from Joe's graduating class -- apparently the idea of planting evidence never occurred to anyone. Indeed, this plot point becomes an unintentional joke, as suspect after suspect is asked "Where's your ring?" and if they're able to produce it, or merely say they still have it, everyone assumes they can't possibly be the murderer. That's some cracker jack detective work. "Crime Against Joe" has no discernible directing style and no apparent reason for existing other than as a program filler. The screenplay is just too weak, and there's not enough style in the filmmaking to compensate for the story's failings. Julie London is the film's best asset, though mostly because she's so pretty, not because her character, that of Joe's reluctant love interest, generates much interest.There's also a bizarre and somewhat inexplicable story line about a sleepwalking girl and her father's efforts to cover up his daughter's affliction, and how this cover up affects the case against Joe. Was sleepwalking something to be that ashamed of back in 1956?Grade: C

secondtake Crime Against Joe (1956)The point of seeing a B movie like this isn't always to find a great masterpiece in the rough. There are the moments or originality, the bit performances, the style of photography or writing. But there is also the glimpse into a time period that sometimes seems more real exactly because it isn't all polished up and idealized.And this is a pretty interesting, not so bad movie. It's set and shot in Tucson in 1955 (there's a calendar on one wall), a very low point for Hollywood movies, and this is coming from the fringes of that (one of the producers was the "third writer" in "Casablanca). There is one star, of sorts, a white crooner (and looker) named Julie London, who is lovely and sincere and not half bad..John Bromfield is the centerpiece, and if he's a hair clunky, this makes him kind of more believable as a good-looking guy named Joe Manning on the outs. He's an ex-soldier who thinks he's an artist but knows not a very good one. He drinks too much. He wants a woman in his life, and the movie begins with him kissing his wise mother goodnight and he goes out on the town. "Well, I'm looking for a girl," he says to the singer from the bar (another torch singer, Alika Louis, who appears here in her only movie).One of the social revelations of the movie is attitudes toward drinking and driving. Joe gets hammered while sitting in his car, drives to a diner, and is visibly drunk as a couple of cops say hello to him (one even chuckles, as if it's kind of funny). More chilling encounters with the cops come later. A killer is bumbling around town, and it looks like it's either Joe (and we don't know it) or the cops are going to think it's Joe (and it's not). It's a pretty tense situation held back only by some occasional awkwardness.What makes it work, though, is the down to earth acting because it builds up the Hitchcockian mood of a wrong man under suspicion. Witnesses misinterpret things, evidence gets piled up based on presumptions. It's good stuff. And then Joe has to figure out the crime for himself, which he applies himself to with intelligence. (His acting gets better as he sobers up.)And by the end you see why the movie has its title. It's no masterpiece, but it has enough going on to keep a movie lover glue, I'm sure.

Movie Critic B minus... I watched this only because Julie London was in it...unfortunately the movie revealed that she is not nearly as pretty as her record album covers suggest...she has sort of a wedge shaped head what looks like a bad nose job. It didn't help that she was too old for the part she plays. I now understand why she never became a film star of note.Movie: Joe is a 30s something semi-loafer who lives off his mother and paints pictures...some sort of psychopath has been killing women in the small town he lives in. He is suspected of these murders by circumstantial evidence--his year high school pin is found near one of the victims. Julie London is in a love with him (he didn't know) and supplies him with an alibi. The quack psychiatrist who over reads things into poor Joe's past is the most realistic thing that happens in this plot.A sort of living nightmare murder rap against Joe closes in around him. Believable to a degree to any one with experience in these things.In the modern world with DNA evidence and such none of this would have happened (we hope).--but I would not count it out.I suspected the fat cab driver about mid way through the thing although at this point didn't really care as this script is so lame.There is a subplot about a sleep walker and her incestuous father that leads no where. Why was it even put in--to eat up some film time maybe? = B double minus. However gets a 5 because these kinds of judicial/police malpractice and psychiatric nonsense do happen. Also witnesses lying and distorting things. If not for that it deserves a 1. One reviewer said it was filmed in 5 days; I believe it and written on the fly.OK for a quick 60 minute watch.

Jay Raskin This is a strange offbeat little movie. At times it is dumb and clichéd 1950's police drama and at times it is philosophical and quite interesting.In the second scene of the movie, we have Joyce Jameson running at full speed screaming that she's been attacked. It is quite jilting. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie never matches the energy of this scene.The standout in the cast is Julie London. She is best known as a successful 1960's singer of sultry ballads, but she did do a number of acting gigs. Here she plays a car hop named "Slacks." She is in love with the lead character "Joe." However Joe shows only a passing interest in her, as she has dated his good friend "Red." Julie manages to make the character extremely sweet, nice and strong. She is the opposite of a Femme Fatale, a real Penelope standing by her man.Rebecca Blair (from the television series "Daniel Boone")is the only other person in the cast I knew. She literally "sleepwalks" though her part, although she does have one good scene at the end as a troubled teenager confronting her overprotective "Dad." While the sum does not add up to much, some individual scenes are clever enough to make this "Wrong Man" genre piece worth watching. It was apparently filmed in five days, so don't go in expecting great production values. For those who like early Roger Corman movies, you'll probably enjoy the similar style.