I Walk Alone (1947)

After serving a 14 year prison sentence, Frankie seeks out Noll, his former partner in bootlegging. Noll now runs a fancy nightclub. They had agreed that if one of them got caught, he would be entitled to half of the other's operation after his release. But Noll is not willing to comply to that agreement. Concurrently to that, Noll gets on the wrong side of his girlfriend Kay, a singer at his place, because he is marrying one Mrs. Richardson, allegedly for business reasons. Kay allies with Frankie, to whom she feels attracted. Noll's accountant Dave is disgusted at how badly Noll treated Frankie...

Undistinguished criminal drama, which is passably well made and lets itself be watched without great pains. The 'Frankie' character does not seem very bright. Perhaps the most famous sequence of this movie is when Frankie, along with a few hoodlums he rounded up, demands a share of Noll's business and Noll explains how that would not be possible due to its complex corporate structure. That sequence is interesting, but it does not make much sense, or at least it doesn't to me. One thing is the impossibility to convert a certain asset into money at short notice. But here they seem to be saying that any transfer of ownership is impossible. I find that incomprehensible. I was considerably confused also by how Frankie's men switched to Noll's side instantaneously. Another dubious instance is when, after having extracted Noll's confession, Frankie reveals that he was using a pen in his pocket passing up as a weapon. I do not see how that makes the confession any less invalid, but the IMDB user going by the nickname theowinthrop says otherwise (he gets a certain detail wrong, but the general idea is what matters):

*quote*
He does in a manner that today would not pass muster. He entraps Douglas by pretending to have him at the end of a loaded gun, forcing Douglas to make a confession before the police. Douglas, naturally frightened, does admit information that only the criminal involved in the crime would have known, but at the end, he sneers at Lancaster saying that the confession was gotten under duress. But then Lancaster shows his gun was empty. Civil libertarians today would denounce this trick, saying the confession was tainted. In 1948 it was perfectly legal.
*unquote*

At any rate, this is not a remarkable picture and the points I mentioned above are merely samples of a poorly written script. But the film does have atmosphere and good performances.

Rating: 43