Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Tom DeFelice This is a tale of two films. The 2-D version is a decent 1950's film noir. Edmond O'Brien and Audrey Totter, both veteran actors, give superior performances. Production values are solid. But you might scratch your head over some of the strange actions (ex: the scared bird and the position of the scalpels). Such visuals slow down the action. And that brings me to the only way this film can be appreciated for what it is. That's in the 3-D version."Man in the Dark" is the second 3-D movie that had a major film release. It was preceded by "Bawana Devil" and was followed by "House of Wax". It's 3-D they way it was first thought of. Objects fly at the screen. There's a natural multi-layer depth. The all around feel is "it's 3-D, look at me!". And that at times makes it a real hoot.The one disappointment is the rear screen shots. The action in the front is 3-D, but the rear projection is just 2-D which is a bit jarring at first.The 2-D version is fine. But to appreciate "The Man in the Dark", you must watch it in 3-D.

hausrathman Edmond O'Brien plays a criminal who is paroled to participate in experimental brain surgery which will remove his criminal impulses as well as his memory. The problem is that his former partners want their shares of $130,000 he stole before he went to jail. (Big Plot problem: Why would O'Brien agree to participate in this experiment if he knew he had a bundle waiting for him? Wouldn't he just do his time?) This B-crime drama, too light in tone to qualify as a Film-noir (check out O'Brien in DOA if you want to see some real Film Noir), with its paper-thin characterizations and dated tough guy dialog, would be easily forgotten if not for its status as the first Big Studio picture released in 3-D. Check it out: It beat "House of Wax" to the screens by one day. I just had the good fortune to see an excellent print of the film today at the Maryland Film Festival. (I should say prints, since it was projected by two cameras simultaneously.) The 3-D experience more than compensated for any deficiencies in the script. (In the film's defense, it does move along quite quickly in its effort to entertain.) I have seen many of the classic 3-D films in their natural format, and I found the 3-D in this film fabulous. Just seeing the black & white Columbia logo itself was worth the price of admission. Oddly, however, the intentional 3-D effects, amusing as they could sometimes be, distracted from the overall 3-D experience. I found myself fascinated simply by the illusion of depth in simple conversational scenes with the occasional object in the foreground. If I were flipping through the channels and watched a bit of this film flat on television, I doubt I would linger very long on it, but the excellent 3-D made it a worthwhile theatrical experience. Check it out if you ever get the chance.

laffinsal After reading some negative reviews of this film, I expected it to be a pretty stale B-movie about gangsters and stolen dough. However, I found this to be a pretty entertaining B-movie with some humorous 3-D effects, and some wonderful footage of an amusement park circa 1953.The script for this film, is indeed pretty routine with the typical gangster stereotypes seen in most films of the period. Edmund O'Brien gives a very good performance, however. There are also a few other familiar character actors in the film, which make for interesting viewing.The 3-D gimmicks utilized throughout (scalpels, cigars, guns, a flower pot, roller coaster) are fun to spot, and good for a laugh. The greatest asset this film has though, is it's use of location filming. There is an interesting chase across some rooftops which works very well, but best of all are the amusement park scenes, including a roller coaster ride, and some really nice close-ups of the Fun House Laughing Sal figure. If for no other reason, see the film for her presence.

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!!