Jigsaw (1949) User Reviews

I am crazy about film noir, but ....

[Handlinghandel · 5/10 · 6 November 2007]

... There has to be a limit. This movie is pretty much a mess. It doesn't feel like New York City, of which I am a native and almost-lifetime resident. It has too many plots going at once. They add up but only with force on the part of the writers.

It starts out as a sort of Northern "Storm Warning." (Now, there we have a superb, underrated movie!) I guess the racist posters that set off the plot are symbolic of the beginning of the McCarthy witch-hunts. If they aren't, they don't make any sense: OK, granted: According to my parents Manhattan at that time was not always friendly to people other than Caucasians. But were there actually plots and mobs? I can't believe it.

The casting gives it some noir cred. I'm not talking about the brief cameos by big stars. Nor,really, about Franchot Tone. He is OK but he isn't exactly a noir staple and he's maybe a bit old for the role.

But we have Jean Wallace. We have Marc Lawrence.

For me, the single best feature of the film is the presence in a fairly small but significant role of an actress I had never before tonight heard of: Winifred Lenihan.

I see that she was the first person to play the title role in Shaw's "St. Joan" on Broadway. She is in very different territory here. But whoever cast her did so with genius: She is absolutely perfect.

Also, I wonder about the character played by Hedley Rainnie. He's ambiguous in many ways. He wears a beard and maybe that's meant to signify his foreign origins. I wonder, though: Is he intended to be gay? The way the character is portrayed reminds me of the intentionally creepy go-between for the Senator and his ex lover in the better known and overrated "Advise and Consent" almost a decade later.

It isn't a good movie, in sum. And the print I saw was really bad. But watch it for Ms. Lenihan. In a very quiet way, she's brilliant!

I found it a tedious disappointment

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 14 September 2018]

Film noir fans seem to be ready to watch just about anything that their favorite genre provides, very much including minor efforts of which few have heard. This particular one has been available from various public domain sources for years, but it will probably prove to be a tedious disappointment.

Franchot Tone plays a district attorney who begins an investigation into the suicide (?), which the audience knows from the opening scene is a murder, of a press printer for a hate group. Soon the D.A.'s reporter/buddy on the same case is also murdered.

This murky, confused, badly edited film's narrative is a challenge for anyone to follow. That's not particularly uncommon for film noirs, of course, but the film (especially with the various PD prints) also lacks any distinctive visual interest or directorial style, making for a pretty dull going that, for this viewer, at least, couldn't end soon enough. Prints of the film may vary. The one I saw was 74 minutes.

The most curious aspect of this low budget production are the various three to five second cameos made by a number of "A" list stars. There's Burgess Meredith as a bartender, Henry Fonda as a waiter, John Garfield as a newspaper reading street guy and Marlene Dietrich as a patron leaving a nightclub, that nightclub appropriately called "The Blue Angel." I also spotted Marsha Hunt and Everett Sloane.

Exactly why these stars briefly appear I'm not quite certain, though in the case of Garfield it was as a favor for pal Franchot Tone. It was probably much the same kind of thing with the others.

If you're a hardcore noir fan (there is one murder sequence done at a low camera angle that perks the interest a little), there are various prints of dubious quality available of this one on You Tube.

An Interesting Watch

[Corr28 · 6/10 · 8 May 2009]

A different and at times dark and disturbing noir/crime/political drama starring Franchot Tone. Tone plays Assistant District Attorney Howard Malloy who is investigating a couple of strange murders, including that of his friend and newspaper columnist Charles Riggs, that seem to have ties to an underground hate group called The Crusaders. Though it is not ever mentioned by name, the film seems to point towards the emerging dangers of communism. The film is well acted by Tone and his supporting cast including Jean Wallace, Marc Lawrence, Myron McCormick, Winifred Lenihan and Betty Harper. Though only competently directed by Fletcher Markle, there are some interesting camera angles and the finale in a dark, shadowy museum is the real highlight of the film. The movie appears to be filmed on location in New York City and the keen eye will spot quick walk-on and cameo appearances from stars such as Marlene Dietrich, Henry Fonda and Burgess Meredith. A unique, dark, if at times slow film that makes for a real interesting watch.

A Bit Uneven, But Interesting

[Snow Leopard · 5 July 2005]

Combining elements of a political thriller with elements of a mystery story, "Jigsaw" ends up being somewhat uneven, but certainly interesting enough to make you keep watching. The mystery angle is the part that works the best, keeping you guessing much of the time. Most of the production is strictly B-quality, but the performance of Franchot Tone, some cameo appearances worth watching for, and some interesting plot ideas bring up the overall quality.

The initial story idea is a bit routine, with Tone as an Assistant DA who is concerned about the activities of an extremist political group. While not entirely predictable, this side of it is never all that interesting either. The group remains too vague to seem like more than a small-scale threat. What perks things up is when Tone begins meeting a series of interesting characters from an assortment of backgrounds, with each of them either a potential friend or a potential enemy.

The finale of all this intrigue sets up a very interesting showdown between a number of groups in an art museum. The low production values keep it from being as memorable as it could have been, but it is still a good idea. Likewise, the movie overall never quite comes together as well as it could have, but it does have a number of positive things to offer.

Noir Mercury Theater

[edgeplayer · 7/10 · 12 January 2007]

Many purists will find this film not a noir. A great deal of the cinematography,lighting and camera angles, however, is textbook noir and this alone makes the film worth watching. Jean Wallace plays herself but it's a great play. The main character is sufficiently morally ambiguous--he knows his promotion comes from dubious sources and when he defeats these sources we don't see him disavowing the new job. The political angle doesn't work today in the way it might have at the time; watching this 1949 film today it's worth recalling that this was a period, just before McCarthy and Korea, when everything seemed up for grabs in the U.S. Prosperity was still, for a lot of folks, 'just around the corner' and the film in some ways portrays the fear that Nazis, communists, whoever, had infiltrated social and political elites. The director and others involved were part of the Mercury Theater grouping, associated in various ways with Orson Welles. There's a remarkable sequence in the party scene in the middle of the film where the camera assumes first person position...a bit like the earlier Lady in the Lake by Robert Montgomery, for a few minutes. I found the use of voice-over and first person camera an interesting wrinkle on noir's interrogation if the 'inner subject.' Markle would go on to head the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and had earlier worked as an uncredited screenwriter for Orson Welles.

Such a weak story but it has some good genre moments.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 13 February 2008]

This movie is almost impossible to follow because of its very muddled story and story-telling. I can't even exactly tell you what this movie is really about. It's almost as if the movie is constantly abandoning its own main plot-line. The story-telling also really isn't helped by its wooden and extremely bad and at times even laughable dialog and second grade actors that deliver the lines.

It has some noir ingredients, especially with its visual style, so this movie should also be called a film-noir, even though I wouldn't regard this movie exactly as a full-blood film-noir. As this movie shows, having film-noir ingredients doesn't guarantee that the movie is always a good and intriguing one.

One thing the movie does handle well is its tension. It knows how to build up certain sequences, even though you don't always understand what is exactly happening. This is also due to the poor quality of the print. The movie is real dark and grainy in parts, so you really literally can't see what is happening at times. But because the movie features a couple of good and tense sequences doesn't mean that the movie as a whole is a very exciting one. On the other hand it however also not a complete bore, since the movie always maintains a good pace.

I am not surprised that this movie is not really a better known one. It's a forgettable film-noir attempt, with a weak story and perhaps even worse story-telling. No, not even the biggest film-noir fans shall enjoy this movie thoroughly.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A Hollywood lecture, but it has nice acting jobs by Franchot Tone, Winifred Lenihan and Marc Lawrence

[Terrell-4 · 3/10 · 28 January 2008]

"Even angels can get their wings clipped!" says New York Assistant District Attorney Howard Malloy (Franchot Tone) to good-time girl Barbara Whitfield (Jean Wallace) as he tries to convince her to tell the truth, and of the consequences if she doesn't. Says Barbara, looking him in the eye, "You got the scissors?" It doesn't take long for Howard to trick her into spilling the beans, or at least start to...but Barbara is now scared, really scared. "Oh, Howard," she cries, "hold me, help me..." And these are the good lines.

If the price is right, and I'd say no more than $3.99 used is the right price, Jigsaw will give you an earnest, disorganized ethics lecture disguised as a crime story. It has two good points. First, you'll have Franchot Tone to watch, an actor I've always considered one of the best in Hollywood. Tone could make even a mundane and slightly ridiculous character seem interesting. He had class, charm, screen presence and top-drawer acting ability. Unfortunately, he had a private life that shredded his dignity. (He got in a fight with actor Tom Neal over Barbara Payton and wound up beaten into a coma with a smashed cheek bone. Payton married him when he recovered and then left him seven weeks later for Neal.) He also was one of those actors, like Gary Cooper, who simply didn't age well. But he was such a classy actor he could even bring some interest to weak tea like Jigsaw, as well as to a number of lesser but intriguing movies like Phantom Lady. Second, you can play the amusing Hollywood game of Spot the Star Cameo. In unbilled bits that last a second or two are such luminaries as Burgess Meredith, John Garfield, Marsha Hunt, Everett Sloane and, I'm told, Henry Fonda and Marlene Dietrich. I must have blinked when the last two were on and I'm not about to watch Jigsaw again just to verify them.

Why would these stars do walk-ons in such a clunky, disjointed movie as this? Probably because they had no idea it would turn out so poorly. Primarily, I suppose, because Jigsaw is a Hollywood lecture on the need to fight extremism. Remember, this movie was made in 1949. The anti-Communist fear-mongers were crawling out from under America's beds to frighten any who didn't believe they way they were told to believe. The Hollywood studio bosses were easily and quickly intimidated; the blacklist which ruined the careers of many actors, screenwriters and directors was gathering steam; and people were being called on to defend before Congress who their friends were, how they voted and what organizations they may have supported or joined. Jigsaw delivers a lot of verbal shots, however heavy-handed, at the reactionary forces. The shots are mind-numbingly preachy. Organizations and people like the Crusaders, says one character to Malloy, "exploit the anti-this and anti-that...and any race or religion they can exploit to use as a scapegoat. Ignorance pays off, and the profits can climb into the millions." He's referring to all the cash that true believers spend on membership fees, annual contributions, badges and T-shirts. All this is true, but the righteousness of the lectures is so earnest it sends us yawning.

The plot is about a shadowy group called the Crusaders, which has been organizing itself into a power center. Its poster shows a handsome Aryan lad against the waving American flag. Their slogan, "Join The Crusaders -- Fight for America!". The implication is clear...the Crusaders will be against anyone who doesn't look, sound or believe the way that Aryan poster boy does. When a columnist is killed while looking into the Crusaders, Howard Malloy finds himself appointed a special prosecutor. He also finds himself in a noxious mess that combines crime, nativism and the reactionary beliefs of some of the privileged few. In the crime category is Marc Lawrence as Angelo Agostini. Lawrence never quite made it out of the journeyman actor category, but he was always good as a crook, a Gestapo agent or a killer. He has a satisfying role in Jigsaw. In the privileged category is Winifred Lenihan as Mrs. Grace Hartley, a smart, saucy and aristocratic society matron, a mover and shaker, wealthy, gracious and...well, don't turn your back on her. Lawrence and Lenihan almost make up for the others.

Very good mystery

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 6 January 2009]

A printer "commits suicide" though we know its murder, not long after a story appears in the paper about how he was printing material for a hate organization, which may only have been a cover for a corrupt money making scheme. The writer of the newspaper story continues to chase after his leads while his friend, an assistant DA, tries to figure out if it really was murder or suicide. When the reporter ends up dead ( another "suicide") all bets are off and the DA begins to pursue the death of his friend, with murder looking more likely when he gets a visit from a man looking to do him harm. This one blindsided me in that I thought it was going to be an average crime story that I could put on and drift off to sleep, unfortunately for me its an above average little thriller that kept me awake when I was trying to fall asleep. I was ready for sleepy time and instead I had to fight to stay awake to follow some of the twists and turns of the story. While its not the best film ever to wander down the pike it is a solidly good one that's worth the effort to see. An added bonus is the fact that the film appears to have been filmed in and around New York so the locations make it all feel even more real. Worth looking for.

Poorly written and confusing....but some very interesting cameos

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 3 August 2009]

I got this film from one of those public domain mega-packs on DVD. While this is not a bad film, I can see why the film makers didn't bother renewing the copyright--it just wasn't all that interesting. Most of the problem seems to be with the writing. The plot seems to bounce all over the place and where the film began seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with where it ended. Had all the dull moments and irrelevant plots been eliminated or polished, I really would have enjoyed the film a lot more than I did.

Franchot Tone plays a prosecutor with the DA's office who is initially looks into the case of a White supremacist who might have been murdered. Whether or not this is the case is uncertain, but when Tone's newspaper friend is killed when he tries investigating (again, it was made to look like a suicide), he knows that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. However, instead of trying to bash heads and get to the bottom of it, he infiltrates an organization that might be behind all this--as well as buying and selling public officials.

As I said, the writing was pretty poor. However, for film nuts like myself, it's still worth seeing for all the strange and unexpected cameos, such as Henry Fonda and John Garfield (among others). Not a good movie but it has enough to it that it isn't a total waste of time seeing it--not exactly a glowing review, huh?!

"They're Just Harmless Lunatics"

[davidcarniglia · 7/10 · 29 October 2018]

Unusual film noir. There's great cinematography, with shots of wind-blown desolate streets, shadowy staircases, and the abstractly-lit maze of the museum. Franchot Tone gives his suave, but tough charisma to his role as assistant district attorney Malloy.

Most of the performances are nicely-done, with layers of snappy 40s dialogue animating every exchange between Malloy and Barbara (Jean Wallace). Winifred Lenihan's Mrs. Hartley and Barbara are shifty operators; Barbara is bait, so to speak, for dissuading Malloy's investigation of the extremist group headed by Mrs. Hartley.

Malloy is also side-tracked from the widowed Caroline (Doe Avedon). It does seem odd that she's ready to fall for Malloy so soon after her husband's murder, although it's established early on that he's the couples' friend. After the masterfully-done denouement in the museum, the tidy, happy ending for Caroline and Malloy overworks the plot somewhat.

The plot's sketchy because it involves deception. Mrs. Hartley, by trying to get rid of anyone in the Crusaders' way, thinks she can compromise Malloy. When that doesn't work, she tries to get rid of him too. If we can buy that the 'fixers' in town can make things happen, then Malloy can certainly be set up as special prosecutor, and lured out of harm's way by Barbara.

The righteous denunciations of the Crusaders are hardly necessary, as it's obvious that the hate-mongers are blowhards. In fact, most of the attention given to the group emphasizes that it's real goal is soaking their adherents. That's the best way to undercut their message. The extremist aspect is more or less a backdrop for the noir atmosphere.

Other than a bit too much focus on the first victim's widow, which slowed things down, Jigsaw is a fast-paced, thrlling noir--almost everyone ends up either injured or killed. Tone's and Wallace's chemistry, and the creepy settings make this worth a look or two. 7/10.

Muddled plot

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 20 July 2005]

Jigsaw was an independently produced film based out of New York City that would have us believe there was an American Fascist movement operating out of New York. A kind of Ku Klux Klan for the northeast.

With New York City's polyglot population it does not exactly lend itself to being a good base for such organizations either now or back in 1949. The American public knew it and for that reason it did not buy what Jigsaw was trying to sell.

One of the gimmicks was to have a few big names in some small one or two line roles. Henry Fonda, on Broadway at the time with Mister Roberts is a nightclub waiter, Marlene Dietrich was an entertainer, and John Garfield as a local tough. Sort of like The List of Adrian Messenger later on, but without the makeup.

Jigsaw needed all the help it could get. The plot is muddled beyond belief and the premise is preposterous to begin with. Franchot Tone and the rest of the talented cast are sadly wasted here.

Who's that guy reading the newspaper?

[sol1218 · 8/10 · 3 December 2004]

***SPOILERS*** Way ahead of it's time movie that disclosed to the movie going public back in 1949 that there's a sub rosa government working independently from the laws that govern all of us. Which it's far more destructive then any outside enemy, like at that time the Soviet Union, ever was.

Hard to follow at first when we see a man Max Von Brog murdered at his printing shop on 506 East 31 st in Midtown Manhattan by a hood known as Knuckles, George Breen. Mr. Borgs wife, Hester Sondergaad, claims that her husband committed suicide. Later she's picked up at the airport trying to flee the country to Mexico City terrified of those who murdered her husband and feeling that she might well be next. Mrs. Von Borg is put into protective custody by Assistant D.A Malloy, Franchot Tone.

Local columnist Charles Riggs, Myron McCormick, feels that those who murdered Von Borg, whom he was printing leaflets and posters for, are highly connected in government and that the suspicion of them belonging to some hate group "The Crusaders". A subversive group that his friend and Assistant D.A Howard Malloy thinks are just a front for their real activities. Later when Riggs goes home to his apartment he's murdered by Knuckles and like Max Von Borg Knuckles makes it look like Riggs killed himself by throwing him out the window.

Malloy now with a personal reason to find the killer and those behind him starts making inroads into this group "The Crusaders". Malloy starts by tracking down the person who did the art work for their posters a Mrs. Sigmund Kosterich, Hedley Rainne. It's from Kosterich where he gets the name of a young woman Barbara Whitfield, Jean Wallace, who he's doing a painting of and also seems to be involved with this mysterious group.

Going home one evening Malloy is attacked by Knuckles who he knocks out and disarms. After checking his wallet Malloy finds a business card for a person call "The Angel" Angelo Agostini, Marc Lawrence. It turns out that "The Angel" runs some charity outfit in the city. After Malloy has a talk with "The Angel" everything seems to open up for him where he's appointed Special Prosecutor by the Governor. This after he met with Mrs. Hartley a major NYC political king-makers at a big social party who's also a close associate of "The Angle".

It seems that those in power, Agostini Mrs. Hartley etc. etc., are trying to buy off Malloy to keep him from finding who and whom their working for. But it doesn't work with the brave and honest Malloy and leads to a shocking and bloody final in the movie. It turned out that the group "The Crusaders" were just a cover and a microscopic part of the real power clique that controls the city of New York if not the entire country.

Ground-breaking film who's story has been copied hundreds of times since it's release back in 1949 about those in power who answer to no one but themselves. With both Franchot Tone & Jean Wallace very effective in their parts as the somewhat naive D.A. Who finds out the truth the hard and deadly way. With Jean Wallace as the young singer who also finds out, too late, that she's into something that she had no idea of how dangerous it was.

The movie "Jigsaw" has a number of top Hollywood stars in cameo roles and top NYC news & gossip columnist Leonard Lyon who wrote the popular "The Lyons Den" newspaper column. That showed just how important the movie was to them for them to want to be in it. Only the ending was a bit too contrived and phony but with the Hayes Commission back then controlling the US film industry a happy ending was a must in a disturbing as well as dark Film-Noir movie like "Jigsaw".

The Subjective Camera

[boblipton · 7/10 · 25 December 2018]

Newspaperman Myron McCormick is killed while investigating a complicated racket involving labor unions, so his buddy, ADA Franchot Tone, starts investigating. The governor wants to appoint a special prosecutor, and support for him comes from three sources: his boss, District Attorney Walter Vaughn; politically connected Winifred Lenihan, and Marc Lawrence, a strange character first spotted handing out a thousand dollars. He likes to help people. The thing is, they all know about the others and warn Tone about them.

The most interesting thing about the movie -- besides cameos and uncredited extras for Henry Fonda, Betty Blythe, Marlene Dietrich and John Garfield (it was shot in New York and Tone used his connections to get his stage and screen buddies in) -- is the sometimes absurdly subjective camerawork by Don Malkames. One of the roots of noir is the German expressionist camera, and after about a third of the way into the movie, I got the impression that it was all point-of-view shots, and the watcher was not the audience, but the actual murderer.

The movie is sometimes too free with the tough-hero tropes for someone like Tone, who was a fine actor, but who always gives me the impression he's not really thinking about what he's doing at the moment. Still, it's an impressive noir with a nicely murky plot and something a bit different in the camerawork. I was very pleased to have seen it.

"You're a special something or other, aren't you?"

[classicsoncall · 3/10 · 12 July 2010]

Well I have to say, this was the most interesting mystery flick that made no sense whatsoever that I've ever seen. I actually got more out of viewer posts on this board than the movie itself. That happens every now and then, perhaps one in every three hundred or so films. I'd be willing to give this another go, but it came in a mystery film boxed set of two hundred fifty pictures, and I'm going to get to all the rest of those first.

It's uncanny - the picture holds your attention the whole time, and I had to figure something was going to come out of this to tie the whole thing together. Very mysterious, very sleek, thirty five dollars to bail out the cat - that's it! I'm not going to get pretentious and say I spotted all the future stars in their cameos, just Burgess Meredith as the bartender, and he could have been Leonid Kinskey just as easily.

Clever stuff here - The Crusaders, the Blue Angel, the Mohawk Political Club, and Molloy (Franchot Tone) named the special something or other. What were the papers hidden in the museum art? I don't know. Neither will you. Maybe next time.

Crudely directed and edited political curiosity

[gimhoff · 6 July 2004]

This little, low-budget noir mystery is marred by crude direction, cutting, and editing, reminiscent of and no more polished than most live television productions of the same period, and hampered by a heavy handed political script that leaves huge gaps in plot logic.

Its chief interest is as a rare curiosity. Its paranoid politics and style mirror the anti-Communist films of the period, but it was made by a group of primarily liberal and leftist New Yorkers (exemplified by the famous actors who contributed cameo appearances), who turned the usual premise on its head. Franchot Tone plays a liberal crusading "special prosecutor" who investigates a shadowy secret organization that is menacing and killing its own members, whom they think may expose them. But this organization isn't Communist or leftist; rather it's a vaguely racist group that is really just a financial scam, run only to collect membership dues and gather other profits. As a result, even the political statement turns out to be rather weak compared with films of the period that explicitly opposed discrimination, such as "Pinky," "Gentlemen's Agreement," "Crossfire," "Lost Boundaries," "No Way Out," and so on.

Effective Minor Noir

[ZenVortex · 6/10 · 15 September 2008]

This is an effective minor film noir with some good acting and sharp dialog. Although the quality of the print (Classic Film Noir, Volume 2) and sound track is inferior, the cinematography is good with plenty of well-composed shots. The movie is flawed by clumsy direction and uneven editing but there are many scenes where everything comes together nicely and flows smoothly.

Franchot Tone's suave performance as a special prosecutor is convincing and is supported by a good cast. The rambling convoluted plot about his investigation of a commercial Neo-Nazi "hate-group" business is important social commentary that elevates the movie above the typical crime dramas of that era.

Not a great movie but one with redeeming features.

Decent

[arfdawg-1 · 6/10 · 30 January 2014]

When the owner of a printing shop is found dead, the District Attorney assumes that it was a suicide.

But the Assistant D. A., Howard Malloy, suspects that there is a connection with an extremist political group called the 'Crusaders'.

When a journalist whose articles had attacked the Crusaders is also killed, Malloy is convinced.

With help from the widow of a prominent judge, he conducts an investigation.

As he does so, he meets a peculiar political boss and also an attractive night club singer, each of whom could become either a source of help or a source of danger.

The print I saw this on was OK. Not great but OK. The transfer seems to drag, speed up, drag, speed up as if it was taken off a TV.

It made it hard to watch.

That said, it's a decent foray into Film Noir.

Deserves an 'A' for Effort

[richardchatten · 4/10 · 9 September 2017]

A melodrama about intrepid Assistant D.A. Franchot Tone breaking up a racist 'hate' group called 'The Crusaders'; 'Jigsaw' on paper resembles a rather bold US independent equivalent to Costa-Gavras's Oscar-winning political thriller 'Z' (1969). It also rather recalls Hitchcock's wartime anti-Nazi thriller 'Saboteur' (1942), even down to a memorably sinister cocktail party peopled with wealthy and well-connected reactionaries; plenty of the talk about racism and bigotry still sounds disturbingly topical today. Having made such a bold attack on the far right in their maiden production at the very moment that Hollywood's attention was turning full-time to The Red Menace, it's hardly surprising that the film's producers, the Danziger Brothers, relocated to Britain in 1952.

Unfortunately, even though plenty of people get shot, once the shock of the film's crusading politics wears off, the whole thing proves disappointingly diffuse and uninvolving. Don Malkames provides plenty of good noirish photography (concluding with a splendid nighttime shootout in a museum), but first-time director Fletcher Markle (whose best-known directing credit was to be the Disney adventure 'The Incredible Journey' in 1963) is too often plainly trying too hard.

A final credit at the end informs us that it "was filmed with the obvious good will of many famous stars", which explains the bewildering cameo appearances by several Hollywood liberals of the period (two of whom - John Garfield and Marsha Hunt - were later actually blacklisted); Marlene Dietrich, exits a scene set in a nightclub called - what else? - 'The Blue Angel' just as Henry Fonda walks into the same shot playing a waiter. These star cameos ironically vie for attention with a regular cast comprised almost entirely of then unknowns presumably recruited from radio and Broadway, including vivid contributions from Myron McCormick, Marc Lawrence, Doe Avedon (making a charming debut under the name 'Betty Harper), Winifred Lenihan, Walter Vaughan (Robert's father, playing the D.A.) and Robert Gist (later a TV director, including 'Star Trek').

strange and confusing

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 7 August 2016]

Franchot Tone stars with then-wife Jean Wallace in "Jigsaw" from 1949. It's a B movie with lots of cameos from stars, I guess who were friends of the director, Fletcher Markle, or friends with someone: John Garfield, Henry Fonda, Marlene Dietrich, Marsha Hunt, Burgess Meredith, Everett Sloan, and Brenda Frazier, in roles like a bartender, a waiter, a nightclub singer, etc.

This is a real mess of a movie despite the cast. The DA (Walter Vaughn) thinks the death of a print shop owner was suicide, but the ADA (Tone) believes it was murder, connected to an extremist group, "The Crusaders." I think they were supposed to be Communists.

Then a journalist who has attacked the group is killed, and Malloy becomes certain The Crusaders are behind it. Investigating, he meets a strange political boss and an attractive singer (Wallace). Either they can help him or are part of a cover up.

I really couldn't figure out if this group was really subversive or just a money-making scam; the script kind of waffled between the two. The only reason to see this is for the cameos and the cast, although in my opinion, Jean Wallace couldn't act her way out of a phone booth.

At the time of this film she was recently divorced from Tone and would later marry Cornell Wilde. Tone would go on to become involved with starlet Barbara Payton, whose boyfriend Tom Neal would put him in the hospital. In a way, these people's real-life stories are more interesting than this movie.

Confusing storyline but worth watching for the uncredited cameos

[itsruss · 3/10 · 22 July 2010]

Other reviews posted here have discussed this storyline in great detail. If you choose to watch this movie, you will say "Hey, wasn't that.....?" at least 4 times as some major stars from the period have ultra brief face time and speak only 1 liners. For me, the most confusing part of the storyline is when F. Tone tells his DA boss in the beginning of the movie that the bulldog reporter Charlie Riggs is about to become his brother-in-law. After Charlie dies , F. Tone is seen many times hugging and lip kissing Charlie's widow, Caroline Riggs,who by earlier script association is supposed to be his sister!!! Huh?? Also, some scenes are filmed way to dark, and combined with the age of the actual print, may be hard to see on your TV.

reappraised

[Cristi_Ciopron · 8/10 · 23 June 2016]

An indie drama with Franchot Tone and Jean Wallace, and I would say that their acting was unexpected, not as in whimsical, but as in refined, inspired, refreshing and suiting the movie; she has an appealing dynamism, and is very gracious in a scene when she talks with the conspirators.

Franchot Tone looks somewhat like J. Depp (but plays way subtler). After Barbara was killed, Malloy seems a bit heartless, a bit insensitive and indifferent. One of the politicians had defined him as a tough guy, and indeed he does a fight scene, with an intruder whose knuckles he takes and then shows to the providential and populist angel of politics.

I think it looks like an indie movie. I enjoyed it. It's experimental movie-making not only because of the cameos, but also in its style, an intelligent and quirky one: dry, unadorned, effective and graceful.

It also suggests a comparison with European '70s crime dramas.

Anyway, the plot seems vague, the opposite of a '30s crime movie about sinister conspiracies, etc.; the style is ironic and well mastered. This aloofness, the distancing are deliberate, achieving a comic book atmosphere. Tone's performance is vivid, but all the characters, the prosecutor included, are made to seem cryptic. The indoors scenes have a smoldering appeal: the rooms, then the museum.

The countless cameos are red herrings, and serve in fact to suggest mirrors, a play of mirrors.

Even today, it's misinterpreted by many, and it deserves a reappraisal; it requires a taste for starkness, for unadorned movie-making (this, despite the misleading offering of cameos). And it makes a welcome treat for those curious to see the leading player in such a role.

Its dismissal is due to the audiences' bad habits (of dismissing what they have been told to); one can question its aesthetics, but not without acknowledging that it certainly has one, as it was not an assemblage of cameos, but an experimental work.

Feels Like A Soap Opera

[Rainey-Dawn · 2/10 · 4 September 2016]

WOW! What a horrible film - now I understand the negative reviews on this one. Yes it's terrible and has a feeling of a bad soap opera instead of a decent film noir or mystery.

Cameos by Marlene Dietrich, Henry Fonda and Burgess Meredith - who cares, you only see them for 2 or 3 seconds! It's not worth your time to watch this terrible film just to see the 3 of them for a couple of seconds in the background. You are much better off watching one of their films instead of this soap opera garbage for cameos.

I'm sorry but this film is confusing and just overall dumb - no real direction or story. The cinematography and acting are that of a child instead of great or even slightly good.

This is one of the most boring and lamest films I've seen in awhile. It gets a big 2 out of 10 ONLY for the cameos.

2/10

Backing Away from Controversy

[dougdoepke · 7 December 2015]

An odd little indie production. It's like the producers don't have the courage of their convictions, resulting in a muddled storyline, as others point out. The aim apparently is to warn viewers about the appeal of rightwing movements during the McCarthyite post-war period. The warning could be understood as a logical reaction to the anti- communist hysteria then gaining strength, particularly in Hollywood. The trouble is the message gets muddled by making the appeal ultimately a scam engineered by criminal elements. Thus the tricky political aspect is overshadowed by the less controversial element of criminality. I suspect a clearer message was expected by the cameo appearances of such principled liberals as Fonda and Hunt, plus a committed lefty like Garfield. So, my suspicion is the movie-makers backed off at the last minute with a hastily revised and ultimately muddled script, rather than risk going against popular currents of the day.

The movie itself is only mildly interesting. The elegant party scene with Tone's revealing voice-over is both novel and perhaps a highpoint. Director Markel shows some imagination with well- timed close-ups, while Tone delivers a nicely modulated performance, perhaps at times too modulated. Stealing the film, however, is unknown actress Winifred Lenihan as dowager schemer Mrs. Hartley, a premier mix of charm and menace. Overall, the movie remains something of an obscure curiosity, perhaps illustrative of the quandary liberals found themselves in during a vexed period in the nation's history.

rather boring anti-commie suspenser

[djensen1 · 3/10 · 13 March 2005]

Franchot Tone is an up-and-coming prosecutor hot on the trail of a shadowy organization called the Crusaders. The acting is pretty good, but the relentless patriotic claptrap makes for a boring diatribe, especially since there's never really much clarity about what the Crusaders are doing and how or why they have political power. And the weird voice-overs and other occasional directorial clumsiness make for difficult viewing.

For those in doubt, this is not film noir. ***Spoiler*** The main character is not disaffected or an outsider in any way. He is never seduced by the shadowy "Crusader" organization that puts him in a position of power (for no apparent reason). He does gets seduced by the femme fatale, but it doesn't even cause him to lose his fiancée. We have a feeling things are going to go bad all along, but the hero isn't under constant pursuit. Those things all make it a suspenser, not a thriller and certainly not film noir.

I need an explanation

[gsoares-16515 · 5/10 · 19 June 2016]

The quality of the picture and the sound of the copy I bought is so bad that most of the time I could not understand the dialogue. I bought this DVD just to see the cameo by Marlene Dietrich, and after her appearance I was somewhat intrigued and decided to watch the entire film. Like other reviews stated the plot is so confusing that it is difficult to follow, and it was not easy for me to watch until the end. Can someone explain to me the final scene? Hope this is not a spoiler!!! What was that woman looking for that was hidden behind a painting in that museum? She kept destroying the backs of the paintings until she finds some papers. And I did not have a clue of what was going on....