This movie was made about the same time, and in about the same way, as 'Casablanca'. (Very quick, in a studio, three or four main sets.) I suspect producers at the time thought 'Laura' was about as good as 'Casablanca'. Well, it's not. If you are interested in movies, you should see 'Laura' to find out why. (Some on this forum have described this movie as a 'film noir'. It is no film noir, but it does have trench coats, fedoras, scotch and cigarettes. Heck, there's even rain behind windows on the set.)
This movie deserves a remake. The story is very, very good. (It could easily be adapted to modern times.) But this specific script is horrible, and its production worse. First example? A prime suspect accompanies a detective in his investigation. (Nevertheless, Dana Andrews is one authentic personage.) Second example? Vincent Price is no gigolo. (But Gene Tierney is beautiful and she can act.) Third example? The movie becomes interesting after 50 minutes. Be patient.
Are you a film aficionado? The movie has good shots. Example? There is a remarkable shot of Dana Andrews dozing in a chair with a bottle of scotch by his head. The camera moves in on Andrews' head, then out. Without a cut, we know time has passed.
This movie deserves a remake. The story is very, very good. (It could easily be adapted to modern times.) But this specific script is horrible, and its production worse. First example? A prime suspect accompanies a detective in his investigation. (Nevertheless, Dana Andrews is one authentic personage.) Second example? Vincent Price is no gigolo. (But Gene Tierney is beautiful and she can act.) Third example? The movie becomes interesting after 50 minutes. Be patient.
Are you a film aficionado? The movie has good shots. Example? There is a remarkable shot of Dana Andrews dozing in a chair with a bottle of scotch by his head. The camera moves in on Andrews' head, then out. Without a cut, we know time has passed.