Criss Cross (1949)

One of my all time favorites.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Romantic, obsessive Steve Thompson is drawn back to L.A. to make another try for Anna, his former wife. However, Anna belongs now to the L.A. underworld. Steve believes he can rescue her, ignoring the advice and warnings of people who would try to save him.First of all, I have to say it is great to see Yvonne DeCarlo in something. I don't know if she was a big name before "The Munsters", but clearly she had it in her, so I hope she was a big deal even before that monster hit.But also, this is a great noir. You have to love when a film keeps you guessing about the motives of its characters, even the leading man. Is he a crook or a good guy? Who is his wife loyal to? What is the master plan? Everything is executed beautifully.

To a purist like me "Cross Cross" is not really "film noir" because it lacks some critical elements. The protagonist (Burt Lancaster, just off "The Killers") isn't really seduced into his ill-fated venture by a femme fatale. It may look that way, but in reality the plan to rob the armored car comes from Steve (Burt), not from Anna (Yvonne de Carlo), and not even at her instigation. And Anna is not really a femme fatale who double crosses our hero. In fact she stays wonderfully true to him until she must chose between his life and hers. In most film noir the femme fatale is not merely working for herself but usually with the antagonist (Dan Duryea). In this film she is double crossing Duryea, not Lancaster. There are many noir elements in the film. The urban setting (really nice to see downtown LA in the late 40s), the motley crew of crims, and the off-beat photography are all tried and true noir elements along with the downbeat ending. But many elements are not present, as indicated above, along with the unrelenting rain and lots of night scenes.Putting aside the film noir bonafides, there are some real big plot holes in the film, all of which you will discover for yourself.It's an OK film. You get to see an uncredited Tony Curtis dancing with de Carlo, and trolley cars operating in downtown LA. But don't expect to see your classic film noir. Best case, it is noirish. In reality it is more about the dangers of obsessive love, which is one of the themes in film noir, but usually done better.BTW – if you're a fan of Robert Siodmak this isn't one of his better films – "The Killers" (1946) and "Spiral Staircase" (1945) are my favorites, and for a change of pace his teaming again with Lancaster for "The Crimson Pirate"(1952)

A few things I love about CRISS CROSS-- character actor Percy Helton as Frank the bartender; the sweet relationship between Richard Long and Meg Randall (who were paired in several Universal films); and the on-location filming in Bunker Hill and Union Station. It also looks like the robbery scene was filmed in Long Beach. So there is a lot of historical footage in this picture.But while these pluses make a strong case that CRISS CROSS is a film noir classic, there are some things about the picture that do not work for me.First, I think the ending is a bit overrated. It's effective. But Duryea is not doing anything different here than he's done with his other villain roles before or after. It's one of those everyone-must-die endings, and all he has to do after the fatal bullets are fired is to turn around and look into the headlights. Sirens blare in the background. Camera moves in and pictures fades out. One sequence, however, that does not seem clichéd is the robbery. But while it does contain a lot of action, it's staged in an uninspiring way (corny theatrics, with way too-obvious fake jabs and punches). A bright haze engulfs them from the explosion, but the director does not take advantage of the visual possibilities here. I can almost imagine what Orson Welles would have done; he would have had running shadows cutting through the bright cloud. And he would have done something to illuminate Lancaster's face in this sequence. Or at least with his hand holding the gun. His flesh is too pale and it blends in with the bright cloud of smoke to the point that we can barely see him. Overall, this film is a hodgepodge of ideas from 30s gangster pictures. It steals heavily from THE PUBLIC ENEMY-- the entire last sequence, where he gets kidnapped from the hospital is ripped off from PUBLIC ENEMY. Even the ending, where he dies is copied. The only new angle is that the girl dies alongside him.

This movie is certainly a very interesting movie. For one thing you don't know what's going to happen next because the characters are in a situation that can lead to a very nice and wealthy life, or death. The main male character in the movie came back home to see his family and he found the woman he loved and fell in love with her again. However, she was not for his to have because another man, who was a very dangerous man, had his hold on her. This only made him want her more and after finding out she was being abused he was angry and wanted her to come away with him. However the dangerous man has connections so in order for her to be free, the main lead character in the movie comes up with a plan to get close before having the chance to run off with him.There was only one way in which this movie could end, especially since the leading female only wanted the money and not really the love that the leading male character offered. Although this movie was interesting, if you do not like sad endings I would not recommend it to you.