If you've never been played by a woman like a Stradivarius violin, you might not get emotionally drawn in to this film. Don't watch superficially, as the sharp dialog is so witty and quick that it may be missed. Watch it twice, unless you have an excellent memory, because none of the dialog is throw-away - it all has meaning, be it flashbacks by allusion, classic metaphors, anthropomorphisms, and other artful word-play. It's Shakespeare steeped in crude and biting 1920s-1940s vernacular, which gives it the smell of wet city streets. It's intelligently scripted by hard-bitten crime genre aficionados. Don't compare it to the cartoon-like Maltese Falcon, which goes from point A to B to C, with cartoon characters being ushered in and out and blackbirds all neatly tied up in Christmas wrap. That was comic book panels. This has realism and smarmy characters played off against one another. There may have been previous stronger supporting actors, but sameness would keep you from focusing on the story and characters. "My first mistake was letting you sing that song..." From murder, to mayhem, and a femme fatale feline catting a ... mouse? This woman grows in his pocket, but he can't keep her there.

I just watched this movie again and, despite the many derogatory comments about Lizabeth Scott's acting abilities in the other reviews, I have to say that I found her far more interesting to watch than Lauren Bacall of that same period. She was certainly adequate to the role as written. FYI,she was under contract to Hal Wallis at this time (who released through Paramount)and was a last minute replacement for Rita Hayworth, who withdrew at the last minute because she didn't want to play another bad girl after "Gilda". The look of the movie is great, the supporting cast perfect and Bogart, as always, delivers the goods. I sense from some of the other reviewers that they are looking at this mystery (PLEASE, permanently retire that tiresome term, "Film Noir"!)in contemporary terms, rather than through the eyes of 1947 audiences, who generally went to the movies to be entertained, and not to over-analyze what is essentially a mystery. If one wants to have a good time, which was the idea behind movies of that period, you will be. Certainly far more than most of what is produced today, with forgettable faces, dumbed-down plots and questionable taste. I give this movie an 8.

Humphrey Bogart's performance in this film is what makes it rise above a 5 or 6. Columbia is obviously trying to replicate the elements of the types of films that Bogart did so well in the 1940's over at Warner Brothers. The oddest thing about this film is Bogart's dialogue, especially during his voice-overs. At times it comes on so strong as to approach a parody of Bogart as Bogart. If any other actor were speaking this dialogue it might evoke laughter if not confusion, yet Humphrey Bogart makes it work.Here Bogart is paratrooper Rip Murdock, just recently home from the war with Sergeant Johnny Drake, who is to receive the Congressional medal of honor. However, when Drake disappears right before the ceremony, Murdock gets permission from his superiors to find out what happened to his usually reliable friend and fellow soldier. Murdock follows his buddy's trail to Gulf City, a bar and gambling joint there that is run by a mobster, the girl that stole Johnny's heart - young and beautiful - and wealthy - widow Dusty Chandler (Lizabeth Scott), and a trail of clues fraught with mystery and murder. It's rather obvious that Lizabeth Scott is Columbia's answer to Lauren Bacall in this one, and that gangster Martinelli and henchman Krauss are attempting to duplicate the types of roles played by Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre in Bogart's successful Warner pictures. Although these three can't begin to match their Warner counterparts, and at times Scott painfully overacts, they do lend enough credible support to give Bogey a framework in which to play an interesting character in a rather intriguing mystery that has plenty of atmosphere.

I remember John Cromwell's "Dead Reckoning" (1947) for two reasons. The first is that it was my first ever "Film Noir", a genre I now know and love (one of my favourite films of all time is "The Maltese Falcon"). The other is that it was my first film with Humphrey Bogart, an actor who I very much like, having seen him in such classics as "Casablanca". The film has your usual Film Noir traits: femme fatale, seedy night clubs, mobsters, flashback narrative, and paranoia. Also there is some nice black and white camera-work. Bogart is great, Lizabeth Scott is alright if I remember correctly (I haven't seen the film for a while), and most of the supporting cast do everything just right. The plot isn't very original, but it dose it job. A film that most people will like, and its a good introduction to the Film Noir genre.