Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

James Hitchcock The title of this film is a bit of a mystery. There is no connection with Australia, and boomerangs are never seen, or even mentioned, during the film.In 1924 a priest named Hubert Dahme was shot dead on the streets of Bridgeport, Connecticut. There were no obvious suspects and no obvious motive for the crime; Father Dahme was a popular man with no known enemies. Eventually a vagrant named Harold Israel was arrested and charged with the murder. At first the case against Israel seemed a strong one, but he was eventually cleared through the efforts of a determined lawyer. Surprisingly, this was not his own defence counsel but the man tasked with prosecuting him, the Connecticut state's attorney, Homer Cummings, who later became United States Attorney- General under the Roosevelt administration. Cummings became convinced that the police evidence was unsatisfactory and persuaded the Court to discount it. Israel was acquitted; the true murderer was never found.The film is a fictionalised version of this true-life murder case. The action is updated from the twenties to the forties. Names are changed; the murdered priest becomes "Father George Lambert", the accused man "John Waldron" and the state's attorney "Henry Harvey". The local authorities in Bridgeport, who may still have had a guilty conscience about the way Israel had been treated, refused permission to film there, so the film was actually shot in neighbouring Stamford. As in the real- life case the crime is never officially solved, although the film strongly implies who the real killer is. "Boomerang!" has a lot in common with the James Stewart film "Call Northside 777", another crime drama from the following year. Both films are based on a true story from the twenties or thirties, and both deal with a fight to clear men wrongly accused of murder. In "Call Northside 777" the two men have already been convicted and are serving a sentence in jail; here the defendant is on trial for his life. Both are made in a semi-documentary style, a mixture of documentary realism and film noir, and make use of voice-over. One actor, Lee J. Cobb, appears in both films. There is more to the film, however, than a documentary reconstruction of real-life events. There is also a strong political element. Political control of the town in which the action takes place has recently switched to a vigorous reforming administration, here referred to as the "Reform Party". After Father Lambert is killed, however, this new administration comes under attack from both press and public for the alleged incompetence of the police in failing to find the murderer. Harvey, therefore, comes under a lot of pressure from his political bosses who have a vested interest in ensuring that Waldron is convicted, and his reluctance to press the case is misinterpreted as stemming from support for the opposition faction in the town, who have an equally strong vested interest in ensuring that Waldron is acquitted. Those pressurising Harvey do so from a mixture of motives. At one end of the scale is the relatively decent Police Chief Harold Robinson (Cobb's character), who sincerely believes Waldron to be guilty. At the other end is Paul Harris, an obviously corrupt local councillor who does not care one way or the other about justice, but is desperate to see Waldron convicted because he fears than one of his corrupt schemes will miscarry should he be voted off the Town Council.I was interested in the film because it highlights obvious differences between the British and American (or at least Connecticut) justice systems. A prosecuting barrister in Britain could not drop a prosecution without the consent of those instructing him, generally the police or Crown Prosecution Service. Harvey, however, clearly has much more extensive powers, and mindful of the American lawyers' Code of Ethics, which stipulates that a prosecutor's main duty is not to obtain a conviction but to see that justice is done, he begins to subject the police evidence to independent scrutiny. One by one the key planks of the police case, which originally seems a solid one, begin to crumble. Waldron's confession is shown to have been obtained by oppression. Several eye-witnesses are shown to have been unclear or mistaken about what they saw; the one whose testimony seems firm is revealed to be an embittered ex-girlfriend with a grudge against Waldron. The ballistics evidence which seemed to show that the fatal bullet was fired from Waldron's gun proves to be unreliable.Dana Andrews was not always my favourite actor, especially when he ended up in substandard war dramas like "North Star" or "The Purple Heart", but he is good here as Harvey, an earlier version of Atticus Finch, a man who believes that lawyers must have a conscience and act with integrity, no matter what side of the law they may be on. He receives good support from Cobb as Robinson, a decent but limited man who cannot conceive that supposedly firm evidence can turn out to be flawed, and from Arthur Kennedy as Waldron, who shows that innocent men are not always nice ones, and unsympathetic men not always guilty. "Boomerang!" not just a documentary; it is also a solidly-crafted legal drama with a griping courtroom climax. 7/10

cbfx Although the real event the film is based on takes place after WWI, the setting around 1945 does a fine job of conveying the essence of the story. Using locations rather than sets in most cases added to the authenticity of the drama. Not "Noir" enough, the harsh lighting attempted on some of the indoor scenes added little effect. The hysteria of the public was overly characterized and the brutality of the police (although close to the truth) could have been much more dramatic.When the DA thoughtlessly opens a book conveniently placed on a side table and reads a guide to behavior, I laughed at the sentimentality.Over all, the film does an excellent job of telling current viewers about the culture of the 1950s. Political power, police ineptness, the position of women, even the unspeakable (what was it the priest could not forgive?). As a morality play, the concept of any doubt of guilt (and hence - innocence) is well established.As for the acting, my vote goes for Jane Wyatt. The newspaper man, Sam Levene (hammering away at the typewriter with two fingers) also had a redeeming quality and humor. The others in most cases were at times either too deadpan or consistently over acted (the wealthy businessman for example).

secondtake Boomerang! (1947)In some ways this is an intensely well made and satisfying film, and when you have Dana Andrews in the lead role combined with Elia Kazan directing, and throw in first rate character actor Lee J. Cobb, you have something worth watching.It's nice early Kazan, but it stumbles at times, and never lifts off, never gels. Here's why.First of all, it's based (very closely) on fact, and sometimes the facts are dramatic but not necessarily good drama. Hamlet, if it were straight documentary truth, would probably shock more and enchant less. And so here, we start with a horrifying crime which takes the viewer quite by surprise. Then, in a continuing voice-over documentary style, we are launched on a huge manhunt. Facts are gathered, suspects suspected, policework unleashed, all acted and congealed very intelligently. A large twist occurs (with something of a stutter, dramatically), and then we are in a different kind of drama, a courtroom battle, with Andrews playing the unlikely role of prosecutor looking for the actual truth in a case rather than a conviction.And then the court battle ends, and the movie sort of drizzles to a stop. And you might well say (as I did), "How like life." Or something equally unexciting. It's not a like a neo-realist hyper real movie, using amateur actors and so on. No, it's just an adapted true life crime story that might have been something more. For two sides to this coin, I'd first mention Kazan's own "On the Waterfront" which uses a real life kind of scenario but turns it into a dramatic masterpiece. And then some harder hitting reality movie like "The Phenix City Story" (1955) shows what a dramatic version of the truth, unchanged, might look like.Of course, Kazan and crew are experts, and this is no dud. Andrews, if he is your taste, is in great form, really, within his shifting role. And the supporting cast does wonders, as cops, and as regular people, which this movie is ultimately about. Recommended, yes, but with expectations in line with, uh, reality.

Spikeopath Boomerang is directed by Elia Kazan, based on a story written by Fulton Oursler (Anthony Abbot), with the screenplay written by Richard Murphy. It stars Dana Andrews, Jane Wyatt, Lee J. Cobb, Arthur Kennedy, Ed Begley & Karl Malden. Plot is based around a true story, a case that even today remains unsolved, where a priest was shot and murdered in Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1924. A vagrant and ex-serviceman (here played by Kennedy) was indicted for the murder. The evidence at first glance seemed solid, but the state attorney (Andrews here) on prosecution duties wasn't convinced and set about deconstructing the evidence. Much to the shock of his superiors and others with vested interests.Gripping melodrama told in semi-documentary style and filmed on location in Stamford, Connecticut (Kazan was refused permission to actually film in Bridgeport). As a crime story it's as solid as it gets, dripping with realism and filling out the plot with may notable points of reference. Political pressures, police procedural, corruption, unstable witnesses, bitter dames and of course an innocent man on trial for his life (we know the latter since it's based on facts and Kazan lets us in on it early on). It's all in there for a taut, suspenseful and noirishly well told story. The acting is top dollar, both from the leads and an impressive supporting cast. While even tho more time should have been afforded the "dodgy dealings" aspects, it slots into place nicely enough to still leave us splendidly agitated at the no resolution outcome. It's all in the build up and execution. 7/10