Not TOO many spoilers but better safe than sorry!
I love James Cagney the actor and was looking forward to seeing something from James Cagney the director. Unfortunately, Mr. Cagney was no Charles Laughton. Since most people interested in this film are probably Cagney fans, I will cover the direction first.
Cagney had one strike against him going into this: he was remaking a popular classic, This Gun for Hire. That film launched Alan Ladd as a star, solidified Veronica Lake's popularity and created a powerful (albeit diminutive) screen team.
(Plot for both films: A hit-man does a job but is double-crossed by his employers by being paid off in hot, marked bills. On the run from the police for a robbery he didn't commit, the hit-man plans revenge. His only lead; a fat man who loves pretty women and peppermints. Meanwhile, a nightclub singer gets caught in the middle, first as one of the hit-man's intended murder victims, then as his hostage and finally as his friend/girlfriend/mother/sister figure.)
Remaking a popular and successful film meant that Cagney had to work twice as hard to meet or surpass the original material. There is not a single scene that works more effectively in this remake than in the original.
However, the movie has flaws that are evident even if you have never seen This Gun for Hire. One of the main problems of this film is the pacing. Suspenseful scenes are rushed along while dull ones are allowed to linger.
A few scenes do have interesting camera work but the novice director seems enamored of this and pushes is a bit too far and long.
Then there is the woeful hamminess and just plain bad acting. The leads aren't terrible, just not that good. Robert Ivers is OK as the hit-man but he doesn't come off as dangerous as he should. Alan Ladd had this frostiness that served him well in tough guy roles. Ivers is less glacial and more petulant. Further, the script waters down his character.
You see, in the original novel, the hit-man had a cleft lip. In This Gun for Hire, it was turned into a disfiguring arm injury, the result of child abuse at the hands of his aunt. This bid to preserve Ladd's handsome face actually turned into a powerful character trait. In Short Cut to Hell, the hit-man's important physical trait is that he is a bit small. That's it. By giving the hit-man a very distinguishing feature, the novel and the original film made his plight more desperate. This was a man who could not just disappear. You can issue a general call for men with cleft palates and mangled arms. Being a small-ish just doesn't cut it. You can hardly have a police dragnet looking for all small-ish men. Robert Ivers was 5'8" according to IMDb. Hardly lilliputian.
As for the heroine, Georgann Johnson acts well enough but her demeanor is too "gosh-gee-whiz" for the dark material. Veronica Lake (Sorry to keep harping on the original but I just can't help it) gave a street- smart performance. Maybe she was never Oscar-worthy but she was certainly believable. Lake always gave the impression of being a pretty girl who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and never lost her toughness (which is what she, in fact, was). This element makes her eventual friendship with the hit-man much more believable. She understands him because she probably had a rotten childhood too. Georgann Johnson's take on the character is more maternal and some of the complexity of the relationship is lost.
Finally, the villain played by Jacques Aubuchon seems rather out of place as well. The original film had the delightfully squeamish Laird Cregar in this role. Aubuchon does a pale impression of Cregar but simply doesn't match him. Cregar's character was fussy, eccentric and way too fond of peppermints but he was also paranoid and it was this paranoia that endangered Veronica Lake's character. Aubuchon, on the other hand, simply follows paint-by-numbers villain motivation.
So, this film is mainly for film buff and Cagney completists. From me, it won a resounding "meh" Would I have liked it better if I had never seen This Gun for Hire? Maybe a little. But not enough for me to give this film any kind of recommendation to general film enthusiasts. Stick with the original.
I love James Cagney the actor and was looking forward to seeing something from James Cagney the director. Unfortunately, Mr. Cagney was no Charles Laughton. Since most people interested in this film are probably Cagney fans, I will cover the direction first.
Cagney had one strike against him going into this: he was remaking a popular classic, This Gun for Hire. That film launched Alan Ladd as a star, solidified Veronica Lake's popularity and created a powerful (albeit diminutive) screen team.
(Plot for both films: A hit-man does a job but is double-crossed by his employers by being paid off in hot, marked bills. On the run from the police for a robbery he didn't commit, the hit-man plans revenge. His only lead; a fat man who loves pretty women and peppermints. Meanwhile, a nightclub singer gets caught in the middle, first as one of the hit-man's intended murder victims, then as his hostage and finally as his friend/girlfriend/mother/sister figure.)
Remaking a popular and successful film meant that Cagney had to work twice as hard to meet or surpass the original material. There is not a single scene that works more effectively in this remake than in the original.
However, the movie has flaws that are evident even if you have never seen This Gun for Hire. One of the main problems of this film is the pacing. Suspenseful scenes are rushed along while dull ones are allowed to linger.
A few scenes do have interesting camera work but the novice director seems enamored of this and pushes is a bit too far and long.
Then there is the woeful hamminess and just plain bad acting. The leads aren't terrible, just not that good. Robert Ivers is OK as the hit-man but he doesn't come off as dangerous as he should. Alan Ladd had this frostiness that served him well in tough guy roles. Ivers is less glacial and more petulant. Further, the script waters down his character.
You see, in the original novel, the hit-man had a cleft lip. In This Gun for Hire, it was turned into a disfiguring arm injury, the result of child abuse at the hands of his aunt. This bid to preserve Ladd's handsome face actually turned into a powerful character trait. In Short Cut to Hell, the hit-man's important physical trait is that he is a bit small. That's it. By giving the hit-man a very distinguishing feature, the novel and the original film made his plight more desperate. This was a man who could not just disappear. You can issue a general call for men with cleft palates and mangled arms. Being a small-ish just doesn't cut it. You can hardly have a police dragnet looking for all small-ish men. Robert Ivers was 5'8" according to IMDb. Hardly lilliputian.
As for the heroine, Georgann Johnson acts well enough but her demeanor is too "gosh-gee-whiz" for the dark material. Veronica Lake (Sorry to keep harping on the original but I just can't help it) gave a street- smart performance. Maybe she was never Oscar-worthy but she was certainly believable. Lake always gave the impression of being a pretty girl who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and never lost her toughness (which is what she, in fact, was). This element makes her eventual friendship with the hit-man much more believable. She understands him because she probably had a rotten childhood too. Georgann Johnson's take on the character is more maternal and some of the complexity of the relationship is lost.
Finally, the villain played by Jacques Aubuchon seems rather out of place as well. The original film had the delightfully squeamish Laird Cregar in this role. Aubuchon does a pale impression of Cregar but simply doesn't match him. Cregar's character was fussy, eccentric and way too fond of peppermints but he was also paranoid and it was this paranoia that endangered Veronica Lake's character. Aubuchon, on the other hand, simply follows paint-by-numbers villain motivation.
So, this film is mainly for film buff and Cagney completists. From me, it won a resounding "meh" Would I have liked it better if I had never seen This Gun for Hire? Maybe a little. But not enough for me to give this film any kind of recommendation to general film enthusiasts. Stick with the original.