I Love Trouble (1948)

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A detective is hired to investigate the real identity of client's wife, leading him into a tangled thicket of leads.So where is Janie Joy. Detective Bailey's having a heckuva time finding out, what with all those luscious ladies parading in and out—not that I'm complaining. But the sorting process does get difficult at times. This is a detective story, and not classic noir, more like Philo Vance than Phillip Marlowe. LA-area locations are emphasized rather than light and shadow. But it is a good look at post-war LA, including the photogenic Buster Buffin's Buffett.As the detective, the slender Tone brings a different kind of appeal. Wisely, the screenplay emphasizes his verbal skills rather than tough-guy brawn. In fact, he almost gets shoved around enough to embarrass fall-guy Elisha Cook Jr. Still, Tone does have a ready smile and easy charm. But that's also a problem for the movie. In short, characters and events lack the kind of grit needed to generate needed menace. Sure, there is a guessing game as to where Janie Joy is, but it's more like a brain-teaser than a fear factor. Plus, screenwriter Huggins clearly knows his way around wisecracks and clever banter. Yet the story's architecture remains murky and plodding. All in all, this is a movie of individual scenes rather than memorable whole.Nonetheless, it's a good chance to ogle the ladies and their 40's fashions, along with Detroit's four-wheel designs, post-war, that is.

Roy Huggins who later wrote and produced and gained a big reputation on the small screen for quality, wrote the mystery novel on which this film is based. I Love Trouble clearly shows the influence of Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler in both plot and characters.Franchot Tone is our protagonist private eye Stu Bailey, a character name that would recur again on the big and small screen. Tom Powers hires him to find his missing wife. On the trail he's aided and abetted by his loyal girl Friday Glenda Farrell who is the most memorable character in the film in a movie chock full of good character performances. A lot of people are interested in this woman including millionaire wife Janis Carter, her 'sister' Janet Blair, sleazy nightclub owner Steven Geray and his henchmen who include John Ireland and Raymond Burr. They're a memorable bunch, but almost as memorable as Farrell are spoiled wife Adele Jergens who makes a big play for Tone and nightclub comic Sid Tomack who is not above a little information peddling on the side that costs him dear.I'm surprised Tone did not do more roles like this. He certainly displayed the proper and expected laconic behavior for a private detective. It was that typecasting he could never get away from. The studio brass wanted him in formal evening wear dispensing bon mots and generally losing the girl in A films to the likes of Clark Gable at his first studio MGM.I Love Trouble is not anything like the Julia Roberts/Nick Nolte film of more recent vintage. Instead it's a nifty noir mystery from Columbia. In fact it's really two mysteries that sort of get jumbled together in Tone's investigation. Hopefully that whets your appetite to see it.

I love film noir and it is among my favorite genres. So, when I had a chance to see "I Love Trouble", it's not surprising I'd watch it. And I am very glad I saw it and I am close to giving the film an 8.The film begins with a private detective following a man's wife. This confused me, as seeing Franchot Tone playing the detective seemed odd. He wasn't exactly the hard-boiled detective sort and his role seemed more like something for Robert Mitchum or even Dick Powell. Now I am NOT saying Tone was bad here--but he physically seemed a little too scrawny for such a role and wasn't quite tough enough to carry it off (like, say, Humphrey Bogart). The reason he's following the lady is that the husband says he thinks she's in trouble--but what sort he isn't certain. And, as Tone follows the clues, he learns that she had an entirely different life in an entirely different town. But, there is MUCH more to the plot than this--and, confusing as it sometimes gets, it's pretty good. The only major problem I had was the need for some exposition by one of the characters near the end to explain the plot--and this is just sloppy writing. But, the film had a nice noir atmosphere, snappy dialog and a fair share of killings and beatings to make it a good representation of this style of film. Worth seeing.Oh, and by the way, you can watch or copy this public domain film for free--just follow the link from IMDb.

For one thing, I didn't find Franchot Tone convincing as a tough private investigator.As the film progressed, I didn't feel that I was gaining any insight into what was going on inside the characters heads. They remained ciphers.The plot, which is more confusing than engrossing, crawls along and never gains any momentum.I found the background music irritating and distracting. If a film is good, why does it need lush music to induce the right mood in the viewer?