Crack-Up

Crack-Up was worth watching a third time (It has been over a year since I purchased Crack-Up) before reviewing to be sure it made more sense. I’m confident in saying after this ‘further reviewing’ that Crack-Up is well done and the mystery that ensues is psychologically plausible.Pat O’Brien stars opening the movie as a ‘madman’ (based on the story Madman’s Holiday) breaking into a museum and wreaking general havoc. It turns out he works at the museum and is rambling about surviving a train wreck. The police promptly tell Steele there has been no train wreck anywhere and only the people he works with keep him from an immediate cell or padded room.So, the mystery proceeds with the help of a journalist played by Claire Trevor (always noir good) but Steele (O’Brien) has some (mis)trust issues. Herbert Marshall is also available with his always confident intellectual demeanor.What’s going on with this museum and why are paintings being stolen(?) or destroyed?Wallace Ford (slimy in T-Men) is also effectively cast in Crack-Up.Great shadowy cinematography in this one.Great scene when Steele retraces his steps on the train with the same cigarette/candy salesman also giving the movie some needed successful humor (there is flashback scene with a patron artist who raves (like Hitler … huh?) that I think was supposed to be funny but it should have been kept on cutting room floor. The scene actually lowered my review a tenth of a point or two.But more importantly Crack-Up was worth the time and effort .Directed by Irving Reis.Again, camera work a definite black and white plus.4.2 stars worth watching more than once for clarity.

This early (1946) noir film doesn't quite come together. And it lacks power and drive. It seems to me that the leads, Pat O'Brien, Herbert Marshall, et al, are mostly just walking through this film. Their performances are flat. It's like they don't believe in their own characters. This is particularly true of Pat O'Brien; there is no way that he comes off, convincingly, as an art expert and lecturer. And NO competent art expert, in 1946 (or after!), would describe surrealist art as "worthless" or "a joke". For instance, he claims that the work of Salvador Dali is laughable junk. Give me a break. This guy is not a capable or knowledgeable art lecturer. But this is not the only problem with the film. The plot elements are so far-fetched, the motives are so half-baked, and the narrative thread is so thin, that I simply couldn't get caught up in either the story or the action. I just don't buy it. The villains are engaged in this hugely complicated and elaborate set up, simply to make O'Brien appear to be having a nervous breakdown -- solely to conceal their [spoiler alert] scheme to substitute fake paintings for real masterpieces. And they are doing this just so they can display this ill-gotten art work in their own living rooms. You've got to be kidding. This plot not only has holes galore, but it barely makes any sense. It is simply too cheesy, overly complex, and silly to be believable. I will say that the strongest presence in the film, by far, is Claire Trevor. Although she is not up to her usual standard of brilliance, as in such films as Born To Kill and Key Largo, and she is somewhat flat and tepid here, she still outshines everyone else in the movie. The cinematography and editing are pretty effective, I have to say. And the music contributes to a tense and unnerving noir atmosphere. This is why I gave the movie three stars instead of merely two. I wish I could give this film higher marks. I wish it had been an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Unfortunately, though, the pedestrian acting, lack of convincing drama, and the outlandish and far-fetched plot, all combine to sink this ship.

I very much liked this movie though the plot is convoluted and the premise a little hard to swallow. It's essentially a "who do you trust"? that keeps you guessing. There are enough lingering shots on the faces of all the suspects to add that little shade of doubt. Claire Trevor is a little overwrought in some scenes but she is beautiful and her outfits stunning. She does a cute little improv piece as a gum chewing working girl. Lot's of references to returning Service Men, and what today is called PTSD. There are a lot of wonderful individual scenes both humorous and dramatic but they don't make a cohesive whole. Just one more observation... Pat O'brien made it very difficult to root for him. He was at turns petulant, condescending and rude. On the whole I recommend this movie as it is a snapshot of America at a turbulent time in it's history.

The first time I saw this film noir, I found it really circuitous and hard to follow. Maybe I was just sleepy. Upon viewing it again, I easily followed it and thought it just recondite enough! The setting is the world of fine art masterpieces. Why would a trustworthy longtime employee/art lecturer suddenly enter the gallery one night after closing seemingly raving and out of his mind - run amok? The unravelling of this mystery is well done and involves the wonderful "nightmarish" chiaroscuro lighting and camera angles that are typical of Noir and takes place mainly at night. There are some great scenes on the old trains that were common travel for folks in the '40's. Always love to see those.Pat O'Brien, Claire Trevor and George Brent all acquit themselves admirably in this little gem. I was happy to see the DVD available and made haste to add it to my Noir collection.

I bought this because of the remarkable Claire trevor. she was the best she could be with this script and a director who just wanted to finish a movie at no cost. make your own judgements.

This is a great older film with good cast and story. Enjoyed watching it. The quaily of the dvd was good.

averygoodfilm

Good noir

Crack-Up is not all it is cracked up to be. The stressed out hero/veteran is fine, but casting Pat O'Brien is a stretch. He does not have the eyes of an art expert. The art forgery plot js not a McGuffin after all, but the whole enchilada. Herbert Marshall limps on and off to no real purpose. His excuse, that he is seconded from Scotland Yard, is idiotic. Claire Trevor looks distracted and out of place. As soon as one saw the secretary, in black, and much more beautiful than the heroine, there was no surprise left. That "Sergeant Trask" apparently had her in his thrall was also a lot to accept. There was lots of good noir photography and merely efficient direction by Irving Reis.