Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

marshrydrob The opening scene and music, they are suggestive of a mystery/ thriller. Humphrey Bogart driving in the city at night, is a fitting way to open the viewers to the film. Immediately, we find out Bogart's character; is a screen writer by the name of Dixon Steele. This is a good name for a Humphrey Bogart character. Steele's first stop, is a diner called Paul's. Here we find out that Dixon Steele is a hard- boiled aging man, with an explosive temperament. The first woman encountered by Bogart, a novelist the name of Mildred. as with other roles, Humphrey Bogart is consistent in his acting. he seems familiar in character to many of his other roles. I believe, Bogart puts a lot of himself into his acting. The novelist, after leaving Dixon Steele's residence; is found murdered, and the police focus on Bogart's character as the prime suspect. Gloria Grahme's character, Miss gray; makes her first appearance at the police station, while Dixon Steele is being questioned by detectives. This leads to a romantic interest between Steele and Gray, and the movie moves forward from there. The actors- Humphrey Bogart, and the rest of the assigned talent for the film; they all play well off of Gloria Grahme's acting talent. The ending is unexpected. This film introduces a great gathering of talent, a great story. In a Lonely Place, is a great movie. I would recommend this movie to all fans of classical film.

og_swifty In a Lonely Place is one of the two successful movies produced by Santana Productions, company owned by Bogart himself and named after his yacht. Humphrey appears in a role of down-on-luck screenwriter Dixon Steele who struggles to write a good script. Without saying anything else that might be considered a spoiler, his acting was highly praised by back-then movie critics and is considered as one of his best movies ever made. I personally don't agree with these critics and found his acting a bit .. weird, maybe because he was visibly getting old and his wild lifestyle started to take its toll on him.What is also important to mention is how did Gloria Grahame get the main role (which later become one of her finest ever)? Well, Laurel Gray was initially supposed to be portrayed by Humphrey's wife (and fine actress indeed) Lauren Bacall but she was contracted to Warner Bros and they decided to not release her of their contract for the movie produced by independent Santana Productions in a fear of becoming a threat to their monopoly. The second option was casting Ginger Rogers (the big star of 30's and 40's) but director Nicholas Ray stepped in and decided to cast his own wife - Gloria Grahame. That later turned out to be one of the few good decisions he has made in regard to this movie. Despite the Gloria's fine acting, her marriage with Ray was deteriorating, ending up with Ray catching Gloria in bed with his 13 year old son.. well, she sure was a man- eater, lol.At last but not least, we have to compare the final version with its novel predecessor by Dorothy Hughes. In a novel, Dixon Steele is only pretending to be a screenwriter, in fact he is just living lavish lifestyle thanks to money from his rich uncle. He is also helping his friend Det. Stg. Brub track a serial killer and is later exposed that the serial killer is no one else but Steele himself. All this that happened in a novel did not happen in a movie itself so if you haven't watch the movie yet, don't worry - the story is a bit different. Writer Hughes describes Steele as a violent psycho and misogynist (back then wide known American social issue) and who knows, maybe Humphrey didn't have to play this part much ;) The ending itself was also changed (thank you Ray!) and in my personal opinion that affected the movie in not exactly favorable way. I won't describe the different but let's say that tragic ending would suit the whole movie better.To sum this up, movie is definitely worth watching. Besides Gloria Grahame, I'd like to point out fine acting of Frank Lovejoy and Martha Stewart whose presence I enjoyed a lot. Altogether 85%.

Phillim Ostensibly a story about PTSD before it had that clinical name: an otherwise decent, high-functioning, articulate guy explodes at the drop of a fedora. Scrapes and scuffles -- forgiven and/or passed off as typical post-WWII tough stand-up guy behavior, until the police identify him as the last person to have seen a murder victim alive.For me personally, Bogart as mega-star was a given since I was a tyke watching him on TV, to the point that I find myself not taking him in fully; but his performance here is a revelation: no risk goes unrisked as the man unhinges one hinge at a time. Nick Ray creates a universe where everything and everybody is slightly off, where negative capability -- the promise of very bad things -- is possible at every turn. Bogart the idol is subsumed by Dix Steele, trouble man. In the early scenes there's lots of puerile dialogue wherein that absurdly phallic name is bandied about, to the point of giddiness. This along with slightly more erudite comedy serves to disarm the viewer as we're drawn deeper into the serious subject matter. Like much film noir, it's a comedy about tragedy.The gifted, always-vulnerable Gloria Graham (bless her!) loves the ruffian and brings out his sweetness. Ray's direction (they were in the midst of a tumultuous marriage off-screen) keeps her character smart and strong -- struggling with loving a man she also fears, not afraid to confront her own masochistic tendencies -- peeling back the layers, peeling back the layers . . .Like Ray's 'Born to Be Bad' also released in 1950, 'In a Lonely Place' is so different from other films of its time it appears to be made with different chemicals. Ray does the unexpected with familiar faces and familiar genres, and employs audacious rhythms -- lingering too long here, too briefly there. Both films feel beautifully modern for all that.

Richard E. Boardman I just finished reading the Dorothy Hughes' novel which this movie was named after and which it supposedly was based. I had not seen the movie so I rented it from iTunes right after putting down the book. I must say I enjoyed them both but also discovered they had almost nothing in common. Okay there was an LA apartment in both of them. The movie uses many of the names from the book but the personalities and roles are completely different. I knew the endings were quite different (i.e. the protagonist is guilty in one and innocent in the other) but I thought there might be one line of dialog taken from the book. No, not one line that I could tell. That aside, the movie should be judged on it's own merits and the acting and directing are excellent. I love seeing the old L.A. scenes. The plot is dated in that it is way more tolerant of male spousal abuse than you would ever see today. The ending in the movie seems to imply that the big breakup was all due to a misunderstanding over the false accusations against Bogie's character Dix. By today's standards leading lady Laurel had more than enough reason to give Dix his walking papers way earlier than she did. I think as a viewer I was supposed to be hoping they would patch things up and get together but I found myself yelling at Laurel, "Get the hell out. Now!!! You don't have to put up with that s***." And I'm a guy. Bottom line: although the book is a bit better, read it AND see the movie. They are two very different animals.