Double Indemnity_360P

Double Indemnity_720p(480P)

source: Double Indemnity

Double Indemnity

James M. Cain's 'Double Indemnity' is one greatest crime stories ever written. It's not even novel length, only 80 pages or so, but close to perfect. I approached the movie version with some trepidation. I was aware that it was regarded as a film noir classic, and Billy Wilder is a great director, but I was put off by the casting of Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck in the lead roles. I grew up watching endless re-runs of 'My Three Sons' on TV so MacMurray was the last person I could imagine to play tough guy insurance salesman Walter Neff, and Stanwyck is one golden age actress I've never warmed to, and I don't think she was anywhere near as seductive enough to play Phyllis. However I needn't have worried, both actors are excellent, and screen legend Edward G. Robinson steals every scene he is in. A few things were changed from Cain's original novella by Wilder and collaborator Raymond Chandler, especially the ending, which is nowhere near as dark and pessimistic as the book version, but I have no complaints, as a movie it is close to perfect. 'Double Indemnity' is without doubt one of the best crime movies I've ever seen, up there with 'Rififi', 'Out Of The Past', 'The Killing', and a handful of others. Highly recommended.

Spoilers herein Double Indemnity is another piece of classic film noir with all the classic elements of mystery, plotting, femme fatales and snappy dialogue. I just finished watching it and I have to say it's possibly the best I've seen. Not only is it a beautifully and craftily worked noir story but also a complex fable about greed and revenge, remorse and regret. From the moment it starts you know it's going to hit you, and it certainly does. Fred MacMurray plays insurance salesman Walter Neff, who relates the story to us by leaving a memo for his claims manager Keyes, played by Edward G Robinson. His intermittent voiceovers take the guise not only of the narrator but also of Neff's conscience as he retells the story of his involvement in the murder of his client Dietrichson after he plotted with Dietrichson's wife. They thought it would be the perfect murder, but as Keyes so rightly points out, no murder is perfect. It comes undone sooner or later, and when there's two people involved, usually sooner. Particularly in this case as Mrs Dietrichson and Neff begin to plot against each other. It becomes less about claiming the insurance money and more about which one, if either, gets away with the murder. As you can tell from my clearly blithering attempt to ruin the plot, it's a fantastic film. You come away from it and you want to ruin the ending for someone else because it's just so exciting. Billy Wilder directs with absolute precision, he blends perfectly the romance, frequent suspense, and dramatic irony dispersed throughout the film in absolute drones. The fact that Neff is present in all but one of the scenes in the film is a constant reminder of the irony of the story, the fact that he is involved on all sides and in all facets of the plot. Barbara Stanwyck also plays one of the best femme fatales I've ever seen on screen, it's not only a masterful performance but a masterful character in itself. The success of this film owes a lot to both her performance and the way the script works her in. Fred MacMurray is occasionally overly winsome at the start of the film, however, he definitely pulls his performance together at the end and it is not enough to detract entirely from the overall effect. A crafty, enjoyable and suspenseful film noir filled with anti-heroes, mystery, morals, and just good all-round entertainment. Not quite perfect but about as close as it can come. ****1/2 / *****

From the first time he sees that ankle bracelet, Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) is a doomed man. As Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) descends her California home's spiral staircase, we are as enraptured as Neff. And it takes little time to figure out that being enraptured by this femme fatale is a very dangerous position to find oneself in. Is it accidental that the bracelet is worn around her ankle, as opposed to the more traditional wrist? Is it accidental that the sunlight streaming through the windows cast shadows not unlike bars across the living room? I suspect it's about as accidental as Mr. Dietrichson (Tom Powers) eventually ending up dead along the railroad tracks. We must remember that Billy Wilder is doing more than evoking noir here, he's inventing it. And how brave he is! Beginning the film by all but divulging the ending is hardly the route most directors choose to go when directing a thriller. But as he's well aware, the audience doesn't care half as much about where they end up as they do about the thrill of the ride it takes to get them there. The structure of the film is familiar to anyone who has seen "Body Heat," or any other knockoff. "Double Indemnity" is the original however, and it's intricate plot revels in its complexities nearly as much as Walter and Phyllis do in their convoluted plot to dispose of an unwanted husband. The audience learns only a minimum about the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Dietrichson, but we easily surmise that their union was not out of love. If the marriage was one of convenience, than the murder certainly is. It seems unlikely Phyllis is after the freedom to continue her heady tryst with Walter, and even the money provided by the double indemnity clause of Mr. Dietrichson's life insurance policy seems more like a bonus than a motivation. In other words, Phyllis just wants her husband dead. And Neff obliges. Several times while watching "Double Indemnity," I felt my pulse physically quicken. These scenes were most notably the ones in which it looked as though Walter and Phyllis' trolley car had finally reached the end of its line, and discovery of their crime was inevitable. The scene where Phyllis is forced to hide behind a door, knowing that incrimination awaits if the person on the other side sees her, is unrelenting in its suspense. After all, we want this reprehensible act to go off without a hitch every bit as much as they do. That is the sign of a good film. It also stands to reason, seeing as how we were there when the elaborate scheme was being plotted. That makes us accessories. And if they get caught, God help us, so do we.

Double Indemnity is one of the most famous film noir classics of all time, but I absolutely hate the beginning! Fred MacMurray, bleeding and panting, stumbles into his office and turns on a recorder. He starts his confession, and then the film goes back in time to relive his story as he tells it. I've never liked movies that go back in time because I've never been able to forget the beginning that has pretty much ruined the ending. It was in the back of my mind that Fred MacMurray will do something terrible and get very badly wounded-so the suspense of the flashback was killed for me. While there's nothing wrong with Fred MacMurray's or Edward G. Robinson's performances, Barbara Stanwyck was terribly miscast. I think she's a fantastic actress in many different roles, but an irresistible femme fatale is not one of them. Lana Turner, yes, or Linda Darnell, but Barbara Stanwyck just doesn't pull off sexy in this movie as she did in other films like Clash by Night. Plus, her haircut in this film is bad enough to turn any man away, not attract them! I don't know why those ridiculous bangs were ever popular. However, if you've never seen this classic and you like femme fatales, corny voice-over narration, and stupid men who are easily swayed to the dark side by a pair of legs, you should probably watch Double Indemnity to see where it all began.

Wow--this movie had the absolute snappiest dialog of any Film Noir movie in Hollywood history. For dialog alone and Fred MacMurray's voice-overs, this must rank as one of the best Noir films of all time. The words they say are all so carefully chosen and magnificent--the writers really did their work well. And, the acting and direction are excellent as well. About the only reason I don't score it a 10 (and it sure came very close) was that, for Film Noir, there wasn't a whole lot of action or even suspense in the movie--considering you KNOW that MacMurray is making a confession so he isn't going to get away with the murder plot. Still, these are VERY minor complaints--the film is simply great. I suggest after seeing this film you watch an episode of MY THREE SONS and see the two extremes in Fred's work--the absolute apex and the absolute nadir (if you don't know what those words mean, look 'em up yourself, ya mug).

Spoilers herein. Filmviewing is like most things in life: there are a few predefined roles among which it is convenient to pick. Once you define who you are in the world of cinema, it determines a lot of what you think about what you have just experienced. One of these roles is the type who by watching a film becomes part of its original audience, or rather a stylized nostalgic notion of what that audience was. Thus the film is a mere trigger, not necessarily important itself. There seem to be lots of these, people who consider this film as not only enjoyable, but the apogee of film noir, which itself is (in this view) the most movie-like of movies. Noir, romances and musicals attract these folks, as do legendary celebrities. You may be one of these types, but I am not. I expect the film to transport me to its own world, not the world of original viewers. As a noir classic, it fails for me. I do think the dictaphone framing is very effective, and the thumblighting of the matches. Also of historical note is the then odd perspective on the detective form: at the beginning you know who did it. You soon learn why. How isn't very interesting. The way the detective gets the scent is purely conventional, but the focus on the hapless perpetrator was relatively novel in its time. The game is one of following this hapless goof through his ensnarement in forces beyond his control. His strong (and we learn misplaced) cockiness, apparent through the aggressive banter is the stylistic spice that is supposed to carry the notion. But that device is pretty thin stuff. And except for the dictaphone bits, the dialog and acting are poor by conventional standards. Stanwyck isn't seductive or particularly deep. I fail to see how the lighting could be considered masterful, when so many other noir masters are around. `Touch of Evil' is excessive, but that's the point with noir -- at least noir that works today. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.