Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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

Claudio Carvalho The artist James "Jim" Vanning (Aldo Ray) meets the model Marie Gardner (Anne Bancroft) in a bar and they have dinner together. When they leave the restaurant, Marie gives her address but the gangsters John (Brian Keith) and Red (Rudy Bond) abduct Jim and Marie goes home. They want information about a wallet with US$ 350,000 and Jim tells that he does not know where it is. They torture Jim, but he escapes and drives to Marie's apartment. He tells that she is in danger and he explains that he was camping in the snow in Moose with his friend Dr. Edward Gurston (Frank Albertson) when they see a car driving off the road. They go to the spot to help the victims but they are subdued by John and Red that kills the doctor and shots him. The criminals believe they are both dead and Red mistakenly takes the doctor's wallet leaving the money behind. When Jim awakes, he flees with the wallet with money but looses it in the snow. Now the criminals are hunting him down while he is also wanted by the police. Meanwhile the insurance investigator Ben Fraser (James Gregory) is also on the track of Jim and curious with his behavior without spending the stolen money and having a simple life. Will Jim prove his innocence?"Nightfall" is a film-noir with a story of coincidences and bad luck. It is an entertaining film with a good villain despite the flaws. The screenplay is intriguing and the viewer only knows the truth after the initial scenes. How could Ben, Jim and Maries go after the killers without a weapon? My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "A Maleta Fatídica" ("The Fateful Wallet")

Harlan Ames As a longtime fan of Out of the Past I was disappointed when I finally saw Tourneur's "other" noir film. Despite excellent cinematography and several good scenes, the movie is sunk by a poor leading man and a hopelessly flawed story. For the latter you can't blame Stirling Silliphant. His script is unusually faithful to the source novel, and therein lies the problem.Noir novelist David Goodis wrote a handful of bleak, pulpy novels published mostly during the 1950s. "Dark Passage" and "Shoot the Piano Player" are two other Goodis movie adaptations. Goodis' novels are tough, fatalistic, and violent with interesting premises and oddball characters, especially the bad guys. His problems, which worsened over time, were a reliance on outrageous coincidence and a tendency to have characters suddenly act in bizarre ways to make the story work out. These flaws lay at the heart of Nightfall's problems.Ordinary guy Jim Vanning (Aldo Ray) and his doctor friend (Frank Albertson) are out hunting when they witness an auto crash. They run to help only to discover two robbers fleeing a bank job. The crooks let the doctor patch them up, then kill him. But instead of shooting Vanning too, they concoct the preposterous notion of handing him a loaded rifle and ordering him to kill himself to set up an apparent murder-suicide. Naturally this gives Vanning a fighting chance. Unfortunately it doesn't pan out. Vanning is shot anyway. As the robbers escape in his car they pull the hoariest stunt in the book: they pick up the doctor's bag instead of the bag containing the loot. Vanning recovers (not dead, just stunned) and flees with the money. But somewhere in his flight he loses the bag. The crooks return to find Vanning and the money gone. The chase is on.The premise is appealing: the crooks hound Vanning to tell them where the money is but he really doesn't know. However the episodic narrative is strung together by coincidences and lapses of logic, beginning with the woman Vanning picks up in a bar (Anne Bancroft), who throws in with him for no discernible reason other than to provide someone for the crooks to menace. The crooks themselves (Brian Keith and Rudy Bond) have interesting conflicting personalities, but their disagreements always seem to arise just in time to save Vanning's neck. An interesting subplot involves an insurance investigator (James Gregory) who has been secretly shadowing Vanning. We learn more about his character than that of anyone else in the cast, but he ends up having little to do with the story's outcome.The final strike against Nightfall is delivered by Aldo Ray. As written Jim Vanning is basically an ordinary guy in way over his head, so scared that he jumps when a newsie suddenly turns on the lights of his newsstand. Vanning tells us he's frightened and weary. Unfortunately Aldo Ray is beefy and tough-looking. His raspy voice, which seems to get even more gravelly in flashbacks, combines with his features to give the impression he could tie the robbers into pretzels without breaking a sweat. Alas, appearance is all in movies, and Ray lacks the acting chops to make us believe this bruiser is an underdog.In conclusion I would recommend Nightfall as a technical exercise--it sure looks good--but there isn't enough substance to make a satisfying movie.

Lechuguilla An innocent man named James Vanning (Aldo Ray) finds himself in a predicament involving bank robbers. How Vanning maneuvers through his predicament is the crux of the film. There are no deep themes here, just a 1950s-style crime story, with a plot that is easy to follow.The story is quite contrived. Improbable circumstances and coincidental timing keep the plot moving. The script is rather talky. And the Anne Bancroft character, Marie, isn't really needed. In addition, there are a number of scenes wherein a criminal points a gun at someone but instead of shooting, the criminal talks and talks and talks. Which conveys the impression that the scriptwriter is padding the script.An unnecessary outdoor fashion show adds further padding. And even with all that padding, the film's runtime is still just a little over an hour. The plot, such as it is, contains minimal suspense and no mystery.Gorgeous nighttime, high contrast, B&W lighting by DP Burnett Guffey gives a wonderful noir feel in the opening credits sequence, and is easily the best element of the film. Yet later, nighttime driving scenes look like they were filmed with a day-for-night camera filter. The film's overall acting is average. I've always liked Aldo Ray. Here, with a weak script, he's merely acceptable. Ditto Anne Bancroft.There just isn't much to the film's story. Take away all that script padding, a character that is not needed, and what's left? Not much.

drystyx What makes a good film? Credible characters in incredible circumstances.That's what we get from Tourneur in this year. This is undeniably Tourneur's best year.Two of the most suspenseful films ever, this one and CURSE OF THE DEMON.This one has a lot of flashbacks. It is the sort of film that begins very ordinary, with a "status quo" effect, but the "status quo" is an illusion. There is nothing "status quo" about this, as we learn later.What works so well is the very thing that makes this a film that would be screwed up today. Indeed, it has been screwed up today. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the same story, only not told as well.Why is that? Both are stories of an "Everyman" who chances upon mob money. Both have an aloof family man investigating the incident, caught up in a case seemingly over his head. Both have a psychotic killer.This one differs in the three dimensional characters. Today, the killers would have to be depicted as "gods" who couldn't be killed except by super humans. By today's standards, this film is the epitome of iconoclastic "blasphemy". It would horrify the beavis and buttheads of today by showing the outlaws to be mere mortals.And that's what makes this special. The two killers are real characters, not some made up one dimensional cutout. Real gangsters are mortals. They have their insecurities. That doesn't go over well today, probably because rich mobsters need to keep the "myth" alive that they are invulnerable.We wind up with five characters in search of....just in search. The five come to a climax, and it's quite credible. It wouldn't go over today, because too many people today have never been outside away from their safe cubicles. In 1957, there were more mature people, people who may not have been better, but certainly had a grasp of reality. Today, movie makers don't have to appeal to this crowd. They only have to appease the brats who have no idea what real danger is like.And that's why this film is a great film. The characters all make mistakes. It's easy to second guess with a rewind button, but real life has no rewind buttons. Real life is insecure.