The 80-minutes has the cast elements of a memorable crime drama—Ryan, Mitchum, Talman, Conrad. Then too, RKO's head honcho Howard Hughes actively participated, along with a narrative of city corruption that's handled in some revealing detail. So why aren't the results more memorable than I think they are. To me, the screenplay is more congested than it should be. For example, Liz Scott's role is clearly there for marquee value, adding nothing to the plot, other than crowding up the many characters and sub-plots. Considering the number of writes, rewrites, and re-shoots (IMDB), perhaps the crowding is understandable. All in all, the number of production fingerprints fail to blend into an impactful whole, leaving a movie of a few memorable parts.
Ryan, of course, is Ryan, scary in his intensity, and wholly convincing in his criminal belligerence. Mitchum, however, is cast against type as the unwavering precinct captain. In fact, Captain McQuigg runs his precinct much like Scanlon's (Ryan) territorial tyrant. Thus McQuigg is more like a competing territorial chief than a neutral enforcer of the law, (note how McQuigg unlawfully tears up a legal writ.). The film's worth watching for its outlining of how corruption works in a city environment. District Attorney Welch (Collins) and Sgt. Turk (Conrad) betray their public trust by allying with the crime syndicate, becoming instrumental as go-betweens and influence-peddlers.
This was a period in the country's history (1951) when organized crime was getting headlines thanks to Sen. Kefauver's investigation committee. So Hollywood's response is not surprising. I just wish the movie had lived up to its potential, but I guess there's a lesson here about too many cooks.
