Criss Cross (1949)
6/10
Noirish but not really film noir
21 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
To a purist like me "Cross Cross" is not really "film noir" because it lacks some critical elements. The protagonist (Burt Lancaster, just off "The Killers") isn't really seduced into his ill-fated venture by a femme fatale. It may look that way, but in reality the plan to rob the armored car comes from Steve (Burt), not from Anna (Yvonne de Carlo), and not even at her instigation. And Anna is not really a femme fatale who double crosses our hero. In fact she stays wonderfully true to him until she must chose between his life and hers. In most film noir the femme fatale is not merely working for herself but usually with the antagonist (Dan Duryea). In this film she is double crossing Duryea, not Lancaster. There are many noir elements in the film. The urban setting (really nice to see downtown LA in the late 40s), the motley crew of crims, and the off-beat photography are all tried and true noir elements along with the downbeat ending. But many elements are not present, as indicated above, along with the unrelenting rain and lots of night scenes.

Putting aside the film noir bonafides, there are some real big plot holes in the film, all of which you will discover for yourself.

It's an OK film. You get to see an uncredited Tony Curtis dancing with de Carlo, and trolley cars operating in downtown LA. But don't expect to see your classic film noir. Best case, it is noirish. In reality it is more about the dangers of obsessive love, which is one of the themes in film noir, but usually done better.

BTW – if you're a fan of Robert Siodmak this isn't one of his better films – "The Killers" (1946) and "Spiral Staircase" (1945) are my favorites, and for a change of pace his teaming again with Lancaster for "The Crimson Pirate"(1952)
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed