Cause for Alarm! (1951) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
83 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
He planned for her to panic
jacobfam16 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I find the handling of George's character very elegant. The first time I saw it I bought it completely--how he was wonderful until illness and despair drove him into psychosis. Upon my second viewing I realized a few things that give his character a different slant.

We see from Ellen's flashback to their meeting and courtship that although he is quite dashing he is also sly, self-serving, manipulative, and somewhat malicious. This is shown by the way he tricks her and takes advantage in the hospital room and then laughs at her. We also see in the beach and airport scenes that he relishes taking her away from his own best friend. Anyone with a real heart--get the symbolism there--would feel a little regret about that.

Later, after he is established as an invalid, his isolation and anxiety become evident as he intersperses rational conversation with sudden flights of mania and paranoia. His delusions seem ridiculous compared to Ellen's obvious devotion and worry, but we do wonder if perhaps he isn't right about the involvement of the doctor (his best friend of old). Maybe the poor doctor is guilty of secretly wishing George into the grave, leaving the way clear to pursue Ellen; or maybe he's too noble to ever think such a thing. Regardless, George believes he does.

There is a lovely scene before he dies where we see precisely what his relationship is to these people and what he has planned for them. He describes for Ellen his childhood toy, the ship in a bottle, and the neighbor boy who touched it when his back was turned and whom he savagely attacks in return. Before his mother can force him to give up the ship in apology he purposely dashes the bottle to the floor, destroying it.

The parallel between the ship and Ellen is obvious--something lovely, fragile, and completely captive. He has contained Ellen within their house without allowing her to form friendships or interests and he expects her to exist solely for him, just as he wanted no one else to touch or look at his ship. Now he believes his friend is secretly planning against him, or maybe he's making that up as a form of justification for what he's about to do. Now that he thinks he's dying, he's furious to be giving up his wife to the other fellow in rather the way he was expected to reward the covetous neighbor boy. Just like the scene in his youth, he acts to damage his rival and ruin the prize. The only difference is that now with maturity he can plot and scheme rather than strike out impulsively. I wonder if he truly believes in their "plot" or if this is his crafty, nasty way of shattering the ship all over again.

The moments with Aunt Clara reinforce the impression that George never was quite normal. She has no trouble believing the lie about George turning against her, thus she immediately retaliates with a remark that indicates a family history overlooking his cruel tendencies. I thought it was very nicely done, and all the more effective because Clara isn't a sympathetic character. We see a resemblance to George in her utter self-absorption.

One wonders how Ellen could be taken in by George, but love is blind. This is evinced by the scenes where she always just misses him at the window. Others notice him, or she detects the swaying drapery, but she never gets the whole picture of him sitting spider-like among webs of curtain lace. She never sees the real George.

The film does a fine job ratcheting the suspense by using mundane scenarios. The almost ridiculous obstacles in her path contrast with just how sinister George's plan is. He must know that an investigation into his death would be inconclusive at best, but a close review of Ellen's activities that day would cast new light on the details in his letter. We see Ellen driven by panic and pent-up stress into behaving less and less rationally, appearing more and more guilty. She certainly seems doomed, and this could only be brought about by the revelation from George. I feel this is further evidence that he has contrived the plot out of malice rather than paranoia or a desire for justice. He knows exactly how her innocent, beleaguered heart will react to the news. In fact, he is counting on it, he has carefully cultivated this moment.

I don't believe for one second that he intends to shoot her. Notice he never points the gun directly at her. I think he means to shoot the woodwork, cementing the impression of self-defense. He wants it to appear she was forcing him to overdose. He knows the drugs he took earlier will add weight to the accusation; he just doesn't expect them to finish him off right then.

The irony of her later shooting the floor herself serves as a tidy little bookend moment.

I love the ironic, abrupt ending that simply pole-axes Ellen and halts her in her steps. It's wonderful how the relentless, pounding pace of her mounting hysteria is like heart palpitations bounding out of control when suddenly it all just...stops. (Rather like George). Another great bookend moment. Delicious.
64 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Suspense Film certainly worth the money
bob_gilmore13 April 2007
After picking up a cut-rate DVD box set containing 100 "mystery" films that have lapsed into the public domain I came across this thriller from 1951 about a dutiful housewife who watches her bedridden husband slip into paranoia. Whether the film possesses film noir bona fidas is not the question; the answer is that the film is quite effective at stirring up Hitchcock like thrills for the picture's final reels. The filmmakers even inject a note of ambiguity at the film's conclusion enough to make you wonder if the film's climax could perhaps be viewed from a different perspective.

Like so many films of the era there are several things that do raise humorous eyebrows these days. At the onset Loretta Young is doing "housework"; struggling with an unruly vacuum cleaner while wearing an elegant dress that would be more than appropriate attire for a four star restaurant. It really wasn't that long ago that millions of women would have killed for Young's sedate upper middle class existence as a "housewife." The idea that a doctor would make a house-call (let alone two house-calls in one day) is a humorous artifact of a bygone era. Redgardless of the anachronistic humor, "Cause For Alarm" is a pleasant diversion.
35 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It Builds The Suspense Well
sddavis6322 March 2010
In addition to a really good performance from Loretta Young as the increasingly desperate Ellen Jones, I give great credit to director Tay Garnett for the very effective build-up of suspense, which shifts gears partway through the movie but doesn't miss a beat in doing so. As Ellen, Young is playing a woman trying to nurse her gravely ill husband back to health. Unfortunately, George Jones' poor health has led him to become increasingly paranoid, and he's come to the conclusion that Ellen and his doctor are in love and trying to murder him. Ellen tries her best to "put on a happy face" as she deals with her increasingly difficult spouse, and then discovers that a letter she mailed for him was actually directed to the District Attorney, and accused her and the doctor of planning his murder. (As an added complication, George actually dies after the letter is sent.) The movie then shifts from George's paranoia to Ellen's desperation, as, after George dies, she frantically tries to get the letter back before it reaches the DA, but with every more desperate attempt to get the letter she seems to set herself up as more guilty. Where and how will this end?

It's a very well done movie, with a lot of little things that gave it a feel of authenticity: the nosy neighbours, and the neighbourhood kid who pretends to be Hopalong Cassidy showing up at Ellen's house looking for cookies. The opening scenes, explaining how George and Ellen met and their mutual relationship with Dr. Graham, went on perhaps a bit too long. Then, at the end, there is an expected twist (because you always expect a surprise twist in a movie like this) but the expected twist wasn't the twist I was expecting, and it provided a somewhat humorous (and perhaps, therefore, slightly out of place) ending to an overall very enjoyable film.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hoppy Rules!
lawprof1 February 2002
"Cause for Alarm" isn't a great film but it captures the noir cinematic scene of the postwar period fairly well. Loretta Young's frenetic pursuit through hot suburban California streets to retrieve a dangerous missive is well done. Is anyone really convincing in a story of a WWII pilot working in the insurance industry and detouring into paranoia while stricken with a cardiac condition? Nah, probably not. But the movie is a nice visit back to the fifties.

Early in the film Loretta Young walks out to her driveway and encounters - a celluloid ME. Attired in the exact same garb I wore in '51, a black cowboy outfit with two six(cap)-guns and riding a trusty trike, a not particularly adept child actor passes himself off as the one-and-only Hopalong Cassidy (as we grew older he became "Hopalong Catastrophe" but in the early fifties he was our unsullied hero). This kid even has the same toy I remember treasuring.

All that nostalgia aside, this short film is diverting albeit not the finest example of noir cinema. Loretta Young was as beautiful as she was talented. Barry Sullivan is appropriately nuts and most of the rest of the cast give dependable color to their roles.

This film definitely belongs in any noir retrospective.
34 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A gripping thriller...
Space_Mafune21 August 2003
CAUSE FOR ALARM boasts a fine leading lady in the talented Loretta Young who is believable in the everywoman role she plays here. Barry Sullivan as her sick and mentally unbalanced husband George Jones hits just the right note as well. While the film is somewhat dated in terms of the here and now, it has some very gripping and suspenseful moments especially involving the very real panic surrounding the letter George sent the district attorney due to his psychotic delusion that his wife and his doctor (her old friend) were plotting to kill him. In fact the ending here does cast a little doubt in the viewer's mind making this film even more intriguing. Any fan of suspense thrillers should enjoy this one.
24 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could this be Loretta's best performance????
kidboots25 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This may well be Loretta Young's best performance. The undeniable beauty of Miss Young, to me, has always gone hand in hand with a coldness of personality. Even in her pre-codes (the ones I have seen) she always seems to have a "holier than thou" manner.

Directed by the ever reliable Tay Garnett. George (Barry Sullivan) is convinced that his wife Ellen (Loretta Young) and the family doctor, who was an old boyfriend of Ellens, are trying to kill him. He has written a letter to the district attorney implicating them in his murder should anything happen to him. Ellen is innocent but it is not clear at the start if she has something to hide. During

one of his ramblings he has a heart attack and dies. The flashback that occurs showing how they met makes him appear to be a normal fun loving guy but when relating a childhood incident he proves he is anything but.

The rest of the film is quite suspenseful as Ellen tries to retrieve the letter she has just posted from an over zealous postman. I think the film belongs to Loretta. As the "perfect wife" at the beginning of the film she gives way to mounting hysteria as she vainly tries to recover the letter. First appealing to an immovable postman, then to the post office manager, she makes herself look more guilty and suspicious as the time goes on.

The alienation and isolation of life in 50s middle America is apparent throughout the film. The neighbour, who finally breaks the ice and asks her in for a coffee and the little boy, who calls himself "Hoppy" whose only friend seems to be Ellen.

I would really recommend this film.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Return to Sender!
wes-connors28 August 2007
Loretta Young acts up a storm as a woman (Ellen) married to a terminally ill man (George) who believes she is planning to murder him. Husband Barry Sullivan composes a letter to the District Attorney, explaining how exactly Young will commit the murder…

The film is a showcase for Young, and she delivers a fine performance. The story, however, is very hard to accept. There are many things happening on the screen which needed to be more fully explained. For starters, the husband's illnesses - how does his heart condition affect his mind as manifested on screen? Then, there are several actions Young takes which do not seem to be the choices most level-headed thinking individuals would take. So, maybe she's not exactly a level-headed thinking individual?

****** Cause for Alarm! (1951) Tay Garnett ~ Loretta Young, Barry Sullivan, Bruce Cowling
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A great time capsule of 50s middle America
AlsExGal31 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The first frame takes you from the outside of this Stepford Wives worthy Leave It To Beaver neighborhood with its picket fences and neatly trimmed lawns into the house where things are not well at all. George Jones (Barry Sullivan) is upstairs suffering from an unnamed heart condition. He is tormenting his wife Ellen (Loretta Young) with his foul words and foul mood. And this is where Young just gets so Stepford wife like - "I have to remain cheerful for George"... "Even the housework was drudgery" she says. OF COURSE it's drudgery! If it wasn't drudgery MEN would want to do it!

George believes his wife is cheating on him with his doctor and planning his early demise. His wife and the doctor were dating before George came along. So he is writing a letter to the DA saying that if he dies suddenly that it was probably poisoning from the medicine they gave him and to look into it. He waits until Ellen gives the letter to the mailman - with her thinking it is work for his job - and then he tells her what he just did. He gets a gun and prepares to kill Ellen himself and leave the good doctor to the DA, when he has a heart attack and dies, the gun still in his hand.

At this point Ellen just freaks out and does everything wrong. Rather than realizing that the coroner will see it was natural causes with the gun in his hand proving that George went unstable, she just draws the shades and leaves George's body in the room while she goes franticly looking for that letter. First the pedantic postman will not return a letter to her written by her husband, then she goes downtown - first stopping to dress up and put on the perfect hat ??? - where she gets denied and patronized some more. Did I mention she removed the gun from George's hand - it went off in the process - and put it in a drawer. Now if they check it has HER prints on it and they can prove SHE fired that gun.

She would have continued to spin out of control if not for the doctor reappearing and getting her to stop and think and calm down. The last twist at the end that resolves things - I'll leave one surprise for you anyways.

And don't feel too sorry for old George. The flashback by Ellen showing when she met George during WWII indicates he was, even during the good times, manipulative and possessive. Then there was that little speech he gave about a ship in a glass bottle he had as a child and how he almost beat a kid to death who touched it. And George's aunt had a few choice words to say about him too.

What doesn't happen? Young finally settling down realizing awful George is dead, realizing she is in for a sizable life insurance payoff, kicking off her shoes in relief, lighting up a cigarette, when there is a knock at the back door. It's Robert Mitchum. They embrace and he says "You did it baby". No, instead, this was supposed to be exactly what it was - a short drama that plays out in a fashion suitable for TV, gauging whether or not Loretta Young is ready for that jump from film to TV.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"I did everything wrong. Just like he said I would."
utgard148 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Loretta Young plays a woman whose husband (Barry Sullivan) has a heart condition and is bed-ridden. She doesn't realize it but her husband believes she is having an affair with his doctor and longtime friend (Bruce Cowling). He mails a letter to the district attorney, telling a wild story about how the two are plotting to kill him. He then tells Young what he has done and promptly keels over of a heart attack! Young is panic-stricken and desperate to get that letter back before she is wrongly accused of her husband's murder.

I'm not sure why this movie has always stood out to me but it has. I enjoy it tremendously. Loretta Young is terrific, especially when she starts to freak out. But even before that she has this nervous quality about her performance that makes the later panic seem in keeping with her character. Some have criticized her character as being unduly stupid in order to service the plot. I don't feel this is true. Everything hits her quickly. Within a matter of minutes she hears what her husband planned and then he dies, so naturally she wouldn't be thinking clearly. Barry Sullivan gives one of his best performances as the crazy husband. Contrary to what some reviews have stated, he did not exhibit a sudden change of behavior from nice guy to psycho nor was his psychosis brought on by his heart medicine. The film shows in flashbacks that this man is self-serving, possessive, and manipulative. Further, Sullivan tells Young a story from his childhood that paints a clear picture that he has always been disturbed.

This is a wonderfully subversive suspense film. Here you have this crazy story going on in a typical suburban American home during a decade in which the idyllic picture of American suburbia was born. My advice is to pay full attention to the film for answers to many of the nitpickers' complaints. I can think of far more respected and beloved films with plots that are full of more contrivances than anything in this. In my opinion, this is a real treat that builds slowly then grips you and doesn't let go. One of my favorite films of the '50s.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good way to pass the time
jem1321 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Loretta Young didn't have much luck with husbands in small towns/suburbia in the movies, did she? They were all trying to kill her! Here it's Barry Sullivan, her paranoid war veteran husband, with a heart condition, who wants her dead. He thinks that Loretta's longtime doctor friend Bruce Cowling (playing the bland hero type), in love with her, is conspiring with Loretta to kill him, so he tries to get in first. This sparks a chain of bad events for Young, and director Tay Garnett (best known for noir "The Postman Always Rings Twice") ramps up the suspense nicely in this brief little potboiler. Obviously low budget, Garnett uses this to his advantage in stripping the action bare down to the frantic Young. While it's no classic in the noir cycle, it's worthy of your time.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Picket fence paranoia!
hitchcockthelegend3 December 2011
Cause for Alarm! is directed by Tay Garnett and adapted to screenplay by Mel Dinelli and Tom Lewis from a story written by Larry Marcus. It stars Loretta Young, Barry Sullivan and Bruce Cowling. Music is scored by Andre Previn and cinematography by Joseph Ruttenberg.

George Jones is suffering from a heart condition and confined to his bed. An aloof and suspicious man, he assumes his wife and doctor, the latter a good friend, are conspiring to poison him and outlines his suspicion in a letter to the District Atttorney. Getting his wife to pass the letter on to the postman, he gleefully tells his wife what he has done. So when he actually does die, shortly after, wife Ellen panics and sets about retrieving the letter.....

Slight plot but well acted, Cause for Alarm! is an efficient pot boiling thriller. Tagged as a "suburban noir," it's a film that has had an up and down experience in terms of critical appraisal. What we can say now is that it does carry with it a degree of ambiguity, where once back in the day it was seen as a straight forward narrative, with Young's ever increasingly fraught wife trying to correct a wrong she hasn't in fact done; now it's quite possible that her telling of the story (via narration) is "arguably" a hokey smoke screen for a dastardly deed. It's the ambiguity, to me at least, that gives the film watchable value. For without it the film just plays out as a chase and deceive movie, one with a couple of colourful characters inserted in for plot suspense enhancement, and featuring a clumsy character thread about parental yearning.

Production (in 14 days) and cast performances are good. Young engages by exuding genuine sweaty stress, and supporting turns from Margalo Gillmore and Irving Bacon, as annoyingly talkative aunt and postman respectively, leave favourable marks. Direction from multi genre helmer Garnett is nicely on the simmer, while Ruttenberg's photography brings shadows and light to this twitchy part of suburbia. But the ending, if indeed there are no tricks being played, is a thoroughly unsatisfying outcome. There are those who have delved deep in search of meaning and explanations of character motives and reactions, with that the film has an aura of mystery about it. Certainly there are more questions than answers unfolded during the relatively short running time, and that's OK, we like that Sullivan's bile based husband courts no sympathy. However, it may well be that the film was merely just meant to be a suspenseful little ole race against time drama, a tale about a woman who just married a less than honourable man.

It's watchable and the paranoia elements do indeed bring it into the film noir realm, but your enjoyment of it may depend on if you side with the theory that there is more than meets the eyes and ears. Personally I have my doubts, and the thought of having to watch it again is about as appealing as painting Loretta's picket fence on the hottest day of the year. 5/10
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
You don't need fancy cinematography!
ablu27221 October 2004
When I came across this film on PBS I wasn't going to watch, but it has an attractive quality that sort of sucks you in. Once things started rolling I was glued. It proves that you don't need expensive sets and/or effects to make a great film.

"Cause for Alarm" is suspenseful, and creative, and the only film of it's kind that I have ever come across. I'd recommend it for anyone who doesn't mind watching a black & white with a better plot and better acting than most movies made now-a-days.

I wouldn't be surprised if some big-shot producer somewhere came along in the next few years or so to remake this film. They do it to anything good. It's too easy to take something that's already good, put some frills on it, and release it in theaters as the beautiful banal junk that plays in theaters now. I'm not about to stand on a soap box and go off on a tangent.

So... I recommend that you check this one out! It's worth your time.
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Loretta goes postal
blanche-214 June 2006
Loretta Young was 38 when she made "Cause for Alarm" and the actress, who started in silent films, was a couple of years away from beginning her highly successful television series. Because Hollywood back in the golden era didn't have much use for actresses over 30, and no use for actresses over 35, Young, like many of her counterparts, had descended into B films by the time the '50s hit. This is one. Her costar is Barry Sullivan, who plays her bedridden husband. Ill with a heart condition, the troubled man has given into his paranoid instincts and become convinced that his best friend, a doctor, and Young, who was once his nurse, are trying to kill him. He writes a letter to the district attorney and gives it to his wife to mail. When he later tells her what's in the letter, she spends the rest of the film trying to get it back. Irving Bacon is quite funny and irritating as the talkative, whiny postman.

The beautiful Young is over her head in this drama - she's totally hysterical and the character as essayed by her can't keep control over her panic for two seconds. It's an annoying performance rather than being a sympathetic one. You just want her to calm down. Loretta Young's greatest asset during her career was her great beauty, fashion sense, and the gentle, lovely quality she brought to many roles, such as in "The Bishop's Wife." Playing a frantic, middle class housewife just wasn't her thing.

Sullivan's role is not well drawn; the story had more potential than was able to be explored even in the hands of a fine director like Tay Garnett. All in all, pretty routine.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"I know something about my own sickness".
classicsoncall5 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
With all the positive spin put on this flick by the reviewers on this board I felt I might have missed something. But I think not. There have been film attempts by husbands to drive their wives crazy (1940's "Gaslight" and 1958's "The Screaming Skull"), but here you actually have a crazy husband (Barry Sullivan) trying to implicate his wife (Loretta Young) and personal physician (Bruce Cowling) with an illicit love affair. Something interesting could have been made with this concept, but once old George spills his guts to Ellen about the letter to the DA, the whole thing starts to unravel.

Seriously, the guy was a basket case. All the good Doc would have to have done is put George in the hospital for observation and kept a set of notes. Having wife Ellen go apoplectic over retrieving the letter from the postman on the beat struck me as one of the prime examples of government bureaucracy gone completely out of control. COME ON - this was 1950's small time America. You can cite all the regulations you want, but do you actually believe the mail carrier you know by name wouldn't hand you back a letter you gave him just a few minutes ago? This postman was unbelievable, I mean, WHO WOULD KNOW if he handed her the letter back? The guy carried on like he would be off to the federal penitentiary. This was made even more hysterical later on with the supervisor who wanted all manner of forms and signatures filled out.

But poor old Ellen, she just kept digging her hole deeper and deeper as the story went on. Like trying to pry the gun from George's cold, dead hand. What??? Now her fingerprints are on it, and the gun has been fired! Her goose would really have been cooked if the bullet hit George in the head. Wouldn't that have been something? Even Dr. Grahame would have been running for cover by that time.

You know what had me more amused? The little kid on the bike in the Hoppy outfit. I thought with some certainty that that was Alfalfa from the Little Rascals until I realized the math on his age couldn't have worked. Then who shows up later? Alfalfa Switzer himself helping his buddy fool with the hot rod. How does that work?

Look, I don't want to bad mouth the film too seriously. Loretta Young does a competent job with a loser of a script. But there are an inordinate amount of viewers here calling the picture film noir, and that it certainly is not. This one might better be classified under the heading of Postage Due.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Film Noir for Loretta Young fans
GManfred8 June 2008
This film must be what passed for a 'chick flick' in the 1950's. It helps if you are a Loretta Young fan, and their are many of us. She is ably supported by Barry Sullivan and by the capable direction of Tay Garnett. Maybe 'tense drama' would be a better way to describe this picture as it barely falls under the heading of Film Noir - no violent confrontations, no dark, wet back alleys here, just sustained suspense, especially in the second half of the film. Miss Young is in almost every scene and the production seems almost stage-bound as it takes place mostly in the home of Young and Sullivan, with a few exterior shots thrown in.

Still, Miss Young gives a good performance and the movie holds the interest throughout, and is very worth watching.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One really rough day for this housewife.
cgvsluis5 March 2022
I did not think I was as invested as I was in this film and in Loretta Young's character...but as she lost it at the end sobbing, I actually shed a tear which was a testament to Loretta young's phenomenal acting.

This is the story of a housewife who's husband is ill and in bed. She is working hard to care for him and take care of their home. The film takes place over the course of one difficult day. Her husband's friend and doctor makes a house call and notes that both husband and wife need to rest...then we see the husband's letter to the district attorney in which he paints a picture of victim claiming that his wife and best friend (his doctor) are trying to kill him.

Through the course of the day Loretta Young slowly breaks down. There is an adorable neighborhood boy and an observant...and it turns out kind neighbor, a disgruntled postman and a concerned aunt.

"A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package."-the aunt

This is an interesting and psychological suspense film. I enjoyed this more than I expected and it was in large part due to Loretta Young and her very believable performance. I recommend this film especially in today's error of girl on a train and woman across the street from the girl in the window.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't pick it apart
mollytinkers25 July 2021
Approach this film knowing that sometimes entertainment is entertaining solely for its own sake. There's no truly philosophical theme here. Nothing innovative. No Oscar-worthy components that would fire up engaging conversation among cinema junkies. Just plain fun.

I will say this is a must for die-hard Loretta Young fans. What she manages to accomplish in a minimal running time is exhilarating, in my opinion. Just follow her facial expressions, and you'll understand.

As far as the debate about its being or not being noir, it's important to remember that noir is NOT a genre, it's considered a style. The components of a noir film differ from offering to offering, and we could argue all day long as to whether a film contains those components or not.

But that's not the point of the film. It's simply a vehicle for Young to transition into the television era of the '50s. Look for a delicious performance by Margalo Gillmore, playing the nosey family member who never shuts up. She was so good, she made me giggle with excitement.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Scatterbrained thriller with a good performance from Loretta Young...
Doylenf7 January 2010
CAUSE FOR ALARM comes across as a TV programmer type of film that has all the earmarks of something made for television in the '50s--despite the fact that it was a theatrical release. Everything about it looks artificial, including the pristine neighborhood. You expect Ozzie and Harriet to appear any moment.

The drama itself is well played by LORETTA YOUNG and her paranoid hubby, BARRY SULLIVAN, who concocts a way to get her accused of killing him with the help of her doctor friend, of whom he is jealous. After his accidental death, every step Young takes is only going to make her look more guilty. Silliest of all is her scene with a by-the-book postman who won't return the letter to her after she chases him across town to catch up with him. The postman is played in his usual goofy manner by IRVING BACON.

But to give credit where it's due, Loretta handles the panicky situation with a convincing lack of poise while making all the missteps that almost land her in serious trouble with the law. The contrived ending gives the story a nice twist.

No more than a B-film, it owes a great deal to Young for making the impossible situations seem reasonable enough.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Neat little thriller
vincentlynch-moonoi12 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Although this is what I think of as a "small" film, it nevertheless is a neat little thriller.

A husband (Barry Sullivan) is suffering from a serious heart condition. His wife (Loretta Young) is doing her best to care for him at home. His doctor is an old family friend who once was interested in Young, himself. The husband is also having a nervous breakdown due to depression, and he begins to think his wife and doctor are intentionally making his condition worse so he will have a heart attack and die and they can run off together. The husband writes a letter to the district attorney, and then decides to kill his wife...but has a fatal heart attack in the process. But the letter is in the mail already. What will the wife do? What will happen to her? Loretta Young is quite good here, though this is past her prime in movies (and not too long before she would begin her popular television program). Sullivan is decent, although I never found him a very compelling actor. The rest of the cast does their job, but don't stand out in any way.

One thing I really disliked about the film was how Sullivan met Young in one of the early scenes of the film. It just seemed foolish. On the other hand, I liked that in many ways this was a story about everyday life, not some exotic story.

Some call this film noir...I disagree...although it is quite a good flick. Recommended...at least once.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The epitome of noir
nickenchuggets8 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Loretta Young was not really known for her appearances in noir films, but she did show up in two that I think are among the best in the genre; The Stranger and this movie. Cause For Alarm is a relatively early noir, made in 1951 when the genre was only a few years old. This film belongs to a subgenre of noir movies I like to call "reverse noir", meaning that the main character is a girl who is put in danger by her relationship with a man. Typically, it's the opposite. The movie focuses on Loretta for most of its runtime, which is less than an hour and a half. Ellen (Loretta Young) is married to George (Barry Sullivan), a former world war 2 pilot, and both are currently living in california. Shortly after, George starts to develop heart problems and is too ill to even leave his bed. Ellen is tasked with looking after him, and soon, he starts to think his wife is plotting with his doctor to kill him by making him take overdoses of his heart medicine. This assumption prompts George to write a letter to the local district attorney which states his belief that his wife and doctor want him dead. Soon, George waits for his wife to feed him breakfast in bed, and while she's in the bathroom, he gets out of bed and locks the door. George holds his wife at gunpoint and says the letter incriminating her is being sent on its way as they speak. Right after this, George dies, seemingly from a heart attack. Of course, the problem now is convincing people that George is not dead, otherwise it will look like Ellen is guilty of something. Ellen knows she is in serious trouble if that letter gets to its destination, so she frantically tries to locate the postman who is delivering it. Upon finding him, she asks for it, and a very awkward conversation follows in which she claims to have wrote the letter, but then says her husband did. The postman tells her he can only give letters back to the people who wrote them, and her request is denied. Meanwhile, George's aunt stops by Ellen's house to say hi to her nephew, and Ellen rushes back to her house just in time to shoo her away. Her ruse is not detected. Meanwhile, Ellen manages to keep more people away from George's corpse by telling people he is too sick to see anyone, and the conversations become even more awkward as the suspicion builds. Later, Ellen has one last chance to stop the letter from being read, and she drives to the post office to see the superintendent. Another confrontational dialogue ensues, and he refuses to let her open the letter without George's say-so. Ellen knows she is finished, and her only option now is to go home. Back at her house, George's doctor is waiting there for her, and she pleads with him not to go upstairs and see how he's doing. He does so anyway, sees George dead, and says his mind was fading anyway. In a brilliant plot twist, the postman shows up at Ellen's house and tells her George's letter was unable to complete its journey because of insufficient postage. Ellen is saved, and burns the letter in an ashtray. Having just watched this, it is already one of my favorite noir films. It is not particularly long, and is easy to understand. The entire thing basically revolves around Ellen trying to stop the letter and save her reputation. I was really surprised by the ending that has the argumentative mailman inadvertently saving the day by returning George's letter to Ellen. If there's one thing this film showcases especially well, it's the fact that even as recently as the 1950s, women had essentially no rights. We see this in the movie because Ellen constantly needs her husband's approval to have the letter handed over to her. Loretta herself didn't seem to care about how subservient to men she was shown to be in this movie. By this time, she was a staunch republican and a big supporter of President Eisenhower, and as such she believed women should focus on creating nice, habitable environments at home rather than working outside. Political views aside, Cause For Alarm is definitely a short noir, but it is a memorable one.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Yes, it IS film noir
mrsastor29 August 2007
While some obviously object to classifying Cause for Alarm! as film noir, that is indeed what this is. This happens to be my favorite genre of film, so I like to think I've learned at least a little about it over the years.

A wide variety of factors compose film noir (a term, I might add, that was created retrospectively and not used at the time by the people making these movies). The heyday of film noir would be about 1945-1955, although excellent examples of the form were made both before and after this period. Unlike the western or the musical, no one ingredient of the film noir is essential, with the possible exception of black and white cinematography. It is a much broader genre than others. They are, in general, rather gritty and hard edged stories about highly imperfect characters, often dealing with mishaps of fate or of their own shortcomings. Both accident and coincidence seem to be around every corner. Crime is so frequently a theme that the private investigator is a ubiquitous presence in these films. Happy endings are not required and not always offered. There is extensive use of flashback, and the stories are very often narrated by one of the central characters recalling an event that has now passed. The stories are visually presented in a wide array of unusual and often low camera angles and making enormous symbolic use of light and shadow. The films include suspense thrillers, police and crime dramas, social message pictures, and many a romance gone awry. And while it may appear to the untrained eye the land of film noir is a place where everyone wears a trench coat and it is always night time and always raining, it ain't necessarily so.

The presence of daylight in Cause for Alarm! does not disqualify it as a subject of film noir at all. As all film noir take place on planet Earth, it is no secret that these people experience some degree of sunshine in their lives. Cause for Alarm! meets many of the noir criteria; a conflict born out of human imperfection and malice, narration by a central character, terrific use of the interplay of light and shadow in the interior scenes, the innocent fighting the wrongful accusation. I was at first bothered that the interior of the Jones' home seems infinitely smaller than is suggested by its exterior, but upon subsequent viewings I have decided this was probably a deliberate technique of the film makers to reinforce the sense of stifling oppressiveness in Helen's unhappy home. THAT is film noir.

On to review this picture specifically, I highly recommend it. I have not been particularly familiar with Loretta Young's work, but this is an excellent film. The story is quick, taunt, and engaging. Helen's husband, George, deranged by illness, has set about to frame her for murder upon his impending death. Helen, who has been selflessly devoted to George's care, is horrified to learn of this only moments before he dies, and must retrieve a letter she has just mailed for him (to the District Attorney) or she will surely be accused of murdering him and sent to prison. You feel Helen's panic, the sense of urgency, even the sweltering heat of that "Tuesday in July" (a stereotypical noir touch, by the way). We know very little of Helen and George prior to this, only brief flashbacks dealing solely with their courtship; and this in my opinion serves rather cleverly to make the characters more broadly identifiable.

There are a half dozen ancillary characters; besides the husband there is the doctor and old family friend George perceives as Helen's partner in crime, a concerned neighbor lady, a miserable snotty aunt, an amusing neighborhood boy pretending to be Hopalong Cassidy, and the world's most annoying mailman. Had I been Helen, that damn mailman would have received the thrashing of his life and lay on the sidewalk bitching about his pension plan to the grasshoppers while I walked off with the letter I had forcibly removed from his possession! Like most noir, this film is low budget and has a short running time, but is quite technically competent, well acted, and most entertaining. In our home, we like to assemble weekend "film festivals", four to six films of a similar time period, style, or star; we like to pair this one with Claudette Colbert's "Secret Fury" and a few others for a nice evening of early 1950's Americana-noir.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ludicrous damsel-in-distress thriller for Loretta Young
bmacv4 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Mercifully brief, Cause for Alarm! (that exclamation point is the most exciting thing about it) is a far-fetched and thoroughly foolish damsel-in-distress vehicle for that pair of cheekbones known as Loretta Young. Directed by the overrated Tay Garnett, it resurrects every mouldering old trope about the imperilled woman that had already become laughable by the mid-1930s.

Loretta enters vacuuming her immaculate suburban domicile (judging by the growth of ivy around the door, it's a sedate pre-war suburb, not some tacky tract home). Upstairs, her invalid husband (Barry Sullivan) is supposedly resting but is actually scribbling a screed to the District Attorney, accusing his wife and his doctor of plotting to kill him. The script would have us believe that his dementia emerged full-blown on that very morning. Sullivan gets Young to mail the letter, then turns on her, waving a gun around, at which point she reverts to total imbecility -- her only concern is retrieving that darn letter.

There's a lot of business that adds up to nothing, including a nosy in-law bearing jellied consomme and a neighbor kid in a Hopalong Cassidy outfit who makes Young the present of a toy television which is promptly placed near her husband's bedside. A plot point, surely? It goes nowhere. Despite any evidence, we nourish a furtive hope that perhaps Young and the hunky doctor ARE in fact plotting the murder; that Sullivan is being slowly killed by overdoses of his heart medicine. This, at least, would make a more interesting movie -- and give substance to Young's hysteria (she certainly acts as though she were guilty). Barren of suspense if inadvertently amusing, Cause for Alarm! Is so thin that it's resolution hinges on a case of insufficient postage.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amateur blasé "critics" did not understand
claudg19507 October 2021
Those who dsmiss this film did not undertand in what genre this gem fits in. I can categorize it with two words: Cornell Woolrich.

This is a Woolrich situation, where an innocent person is involved into a problem way over their head, which may end up in an electric chair.

This film has a brilliant first section filled with great snappy dialogues; that is a big plus in itself. Later, every dialogue is buiit to lead to Loretta's frustration; every character is wonderfully irritating, from the postman to the auntie, or ominous, from the nosy neighbour to the imposing notary.

Some critics decry the absence of realism. Of course these thngs do not happen in the real world. They take place in the Woolrich World, where you bite your nails until lights return. This is an expressionistic, overblown universe at the service of suspense.

In that sense (and that is its sole intention) this film is perfect,
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Engaging performance, mediocre story
MerryArtist7 February 2007
A bed-ridden husband convinces himself into thinking that his wife is going to kill him. He writes a letter to the district attorney telling him of his conviction, and his wife unknowingly delivers it to the postman; there isn't really anything new or quite interesting in this, except for the psychological factors involved.

Loretta Young gives another nervous, hysterical performance reminiscent of her earlier work with Orson Welles in "The Stranger," but this time her tension is the absolute focus of the story and the only thing that holds the audience. All throughout the film, she is worried to death about her letter and is trying to escape from the "framing" of her paranoid husband. The movie shows sequences of her trying desperately to get the letter back while under a great emotional and psychological strain from her unhappy relationship with her husband as well as the fear of becoming a suspect of the D.A.

The film is worth taking a look if just for the sake of watching Young's acting, which wholly transcends the mediocre plot. I would also add that this movie is not so much a film noir as a short psychological drama. The film definitely falls into the latter category, despite the frequent citing of sources as the former.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Less noir than blanc
klg192 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Gracious. The most suspense engendered by this weak and unfocused film is whether I would be able to bear watching it to the end.

After a whirlwind WW2 romance, temporary nurse Ellen marries impetuous fly-boy George, despite Dr. Ranney's unspoken love for her. The war over, and George suffering from an unspecified complaint, Ellen finds herself dealing with a cantankerous and paranoid husband, who is certain that she and Ranney are trying to kill him. Confronting Ellen after duping her into mailing a letter incriminating both her and Ranney, George drops dead--and Ellen must try to get back the letter.

So much for plot. Reviewers who have referred to this overwrought trifle as "noir" must have missed the abundant California sunshine that suffuses this picture with light, extending even to the beach scenes during the courtship flashbacks. With nary a shadow to be seen, this hardly qualifies as noir. If anything, it's linked more to the New Realism of postwar disappointment as played out in the *vastly* superior "The Best Years of Our Lives." For example, what IS the mysterious illness that leaves veteran George feeling less than a man? But overtones of New Realism are wholly beside the point, as that aspect of the film is ignored completely. The script is based on a radio play, and those melodramatic roots are showing. As Ellen, Loretta Young seems to get stupider and stupider as the movie progresses, until the viewer half wishes she'd be caught, convicted, and executed, and put us all out of our misery.

The best parts of the film are the fussy and bureaucratic post office workers who drive Ellen to distraction, and the brief glimpse of a teen-aged Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer as one of two boys repairing a hotrod, who give Ellen directions.

The film is short but seems to last forever. Your call.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed