The garish pastel colors in this mostly unexciting political crime expose overtake all of the melodrama of the two red-headed sisters (Rhonda Fleming and Arlene Dahl) of differing personalities to make for a dull confection. The writer of "Double Indemnity", "Mildred Pierce" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (James Cain) wasn't as well represented on the screen here, and even with a promise of some delicious female bitchery, it is never delivered fully intact. We're supposed to believe that kleptomaniac Arlene Dahl is in her early 20's here, as a cop who follows her to sister Rhonda Fleming's house describes her to be from a description he got from a salesgirl who identified Dahl as the thief of some valuable pearls. She's already recently out of prison for similar crimes, and while it is obvious that she is mentally ill, she is never made to be an interesting psychotic case.Poor Rhonda Fleming, too; Her character is so one-dimensionally goody two-shoes that you forget about her Maureen O'Hara like looks which in earlier films had her delightfully hot-tempered and feisty. Most of her scenes have her fretting over younger sister Dahl and bemoaning the circumstances which got Arlene in trouble in the first place. Today, we'd just call her an enabler, but here, she just seems stupidly naive and used. John Payne is the ruthless politician whom Fleming works for and Dahl sets out to seduce. The only really exciting scene comes when Dahl and Payne are obviously heading for a rendezvous when a hit man all of a sudden corners them in Payne's enormous ocean hilltopped "cottage" after Dahl has pulled the trigger "accidently" on a fishing spear she found on his wall.The other real problem with the film is that it never sets its mood or where it wants to lay the conflict, with Dahl's "bad" sister (who is honestly just boring) or the political mayhem caused by Payne, his cohorts and many rivals. This makes the film sag throughout, and in spite of the colorful layout, it never really meets up with the melodramatic mood promised by its over-the-top musical score. This leads it to be one of the weaker "bad girl" movies made throughout the 50's, where at least a camp element would make it somewhat entertaining.

WOW! here a an unexpected diamond in the rough, a color Noir that slightly surpasses "Niagara" shot in Superscope, that has got a David Lynch feel to it.This Noir is not listed in Spencer Selby's "Dark City - The Film Noir." Its definitely off the radar. First, the film has a weird juxtaposition of color, light & shadow. Its this Lynchesque look that is sort of indescribable, unless you've seen it, the the set designer, flamingly went overboard, (even in the extremely noirish segments) and filled the screen with a pallet of colors, its like "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" meets "Blue Velvet, except where Blue Velvet and Niagara used color, the colors were somewhat muted, in this film they basically run riot. The film even recalls somewhat the pallet of Warren Beatty's comic book film "Dick Tracy". Second, Rhonda Fleming and Allene Dahl playing two gorgeous, smoldering, redhead sisters one "good" the other BAD. I say "good" because Fleming is June, obviously the mistress/secretary of the reformer mayoral candidate living quite lavishly in a perfect "Leave It To Beaver" suburbia with kept woman undertones. Dahl plays over the top kid sister Dorothy just of of prison for a kleptomania relapse, she's also a bit of a nymphomaniac but one excusable flaw in the screenplay is that this is not hinted at sooner. It's supposedly a big improvement over Cain's novel where the Dorothy character is almost an afterthought. For the film I can understand that for the fifties the revelation of her tendencies must have been quite extraordinary, but looking back through the prism of time, realistically she should have been shown more open about it, as it is, its hinted at symbolically, i.e. in one scene Dahl flicks a lighter on under the palm of Payne's hand in another she brandishes a spear-gun. There is even a scene with huge phallic banister in the background while the sisters fight over Payne.Regardless both actresses are stunning in their beauty and provide quite a bit of eye candy throughout the film and you wonder how each will upstage the other next. Another plus, their costumes, their body language, and the backdrops provide a living pulp fiction magazine/paperback book cover shot extravaganza.Fleming has a sequence in bed where she is wearing the flimsiest nightgown flashing her ample breasts for at least a full minute. Dahl wins though, there is a sequence where she is laying on a couch hidden by its back where she is using a back scratcher on her spread legs, and probably something else. The camera reverses its angle and we see her spread-eagled on the couch dripping for John Payne but when it turns out to be Ted De Corsia who sees the blatant display show she doesn't bat an eye lash. How did that get past the Hays Code, lol.Third, Payne and De Corsia wonderfully reprise (for me anyway, since I've seen their other outings first) some of their rolls in other Noir films so they bring that cinematic memory factor into their characters, some of De Corsia's lines recall William Conrad's in "The Killers", all in all giving that slipping into a comfortable pair of old shoes feel to the film which adds to the mix making Slightly Scarlet what it is.If this film has one major weakness its the score which is a bit too bland. The DVD (rented from Netflix) has some nice special features, a good commentary by writer and James M. Cain enthusiast Max Collins, a James M. Cain bio, a collection of stills from the film, and trailers from other James M. Cain based films. 9/10

I tried to make this short but there is a lot to be said about this very interesting tail-of-the-cycle noirish yarn. It may seem that I discount this film as nothing more than an conceptual experiment gone awry. The use of color photography is so far misplaced it actually folds back onto the film like some Einsteinien cosmic quilt and provides a surrealism that in some ways compliments the noir attitude. However interesting that may be, it really is about as far as the overly saturated color gets in terms of complimenting the overall film. I have made some effort to find out if Alton actually felt that Slightly Scarlet should have been filmed in color or not and have found nothing readily available that says either way. I'm inclined to fantasize that in pre-production sessions there were gun blazing arguments about how the color would enhance or distract from the effect of the story and I can only imagine that Alton must have been virtually unarmed.My first comment that this is noirish, not film noir, is not solely because of the color but because the film lacks too many of the classical tenets of film noir to be considered anything more than an urban crime drama. Only with respect to the Ben Grace character and his seemingly chameleon ability to go with the flow does it provide the moral ambiguity that is inherent in all films noir. Make no mistake, he is a very nasty fellow. All other character moralities are easily discerned as good-guy bad-guy; that includes Dorothy who is what she is because of a psychological illness and not because of decisive moral indiscretion.There are some terrific noir moments while watching Solly and his henchmen strong-arm their way into city government which leaves no doubt that these guys are gonna burn in hell. But that is not enough for me to toss the accolade of film noir. The narrative, while very watchable and with enough twists to keep interest high, does not allow fate to intervene as it does so fluidly in films like Out of the Past and Double Indemnity. Don't misunderstand, if your looking to watch a film noir and you have seen all the heralded classics, this is not a waste of your time. It is a notable film and deserves far more recognition than it gets. I give it 4 outta 5 stars.Of course a theatrical screening at the Egyptian in Hollywood would be the preferred venue but on DVD we have full control of the color guns on our video sets. Fortunately with the DVD we can have our cake and eat it too. I strongly suggest that you view this film at least twice before you make any decisions about its quality. Watch it in its intended colorscape then watch again in B&W. First in point, it is one of only a handful of films by Alton that is available on DVD in anamorphic wide screen. That alone is important and contributes to the overall luscious appearance of this DVD release. Secondly, after viewing the film in its – yes – very garish color, you can enjoy an almost entirely different film by turning the color off on your set and reviewing simply for the classic Altonesque photography. You will be amazed at the contrast in the overall feeling of the film. Not just because it is B&W but more so because of the mise en scene and deep focus that makes film noir so interesting. So as to film noir or not film noir, that is a consideration I'll leave to individual viewers and their own interpretations. I doubt it will be argued by anyone that the cinematography by Alton - when viewed in B&W - is anything but glorious noir at its zenith and well worth the time spent to view twice.

With the same title. You might think Slightly Scarlet is about Ben Grace: did he change or not? Then again you might think the movie is about June Lyons: did SHE change or not? SPOILERSIf the movie's about June Lyons, the ending isn't ambiguous, and Ben Grace is a hero in more ways than one. And yes, she changed, and definitely for the better.June's been in what we now lovingly call a co-dependent relationship --with her sister. Crazy Dorothy needs professional help, and June's been trying all her adult life to help her, successful only in being manipulated by Dorothy's psychotic reasoning. June keeps trying to do the impossible: make Dorothy's life better. Dorothy's a prop (a McGuffin, except we know a lot about her) She moves the plot. She's the agent of Ben's meeting and falling in love with June, and the cause of his becoming a hero. She's always at the wrong place at the right time. Dorothy shows us Ben's true attraction to the good sister through his rejection of her, even at her most seductive in a bathing suit. Dorothy claims she and Ben are alike. Ben shows they're not by his attraction to June. Even when Arlene Dahl steals a scene, as she sometimes does, her Dorothy reminds us of June's worries, June's hopes. We see Ben sinking into villainy, except in his relationship to June and Dorothy, which remains consistent and sincere throughout.June's unable to have a relationship with a man because of Dorothy. June, so loyal, so caring, so worried, doesn't have time even for the man she loves, although that man needs her more than Dorothy does. Dorothy, remember, needs a psychiatrist, not a worried sister.And so, as gorgeous June moves closer and closer toward a hideous spinsterhood devoted to the care of semi-conscious Dorothy, events take a turn for the worse AND for the better. Ben undergoes horrible torture to save June and Dorothy. He's still alive at the end, but we don't know certainly that he'll survive. We do know, in that last glance June gives Janson who's patting Dorothy reassuringly, that June's chosen her man over her sister. June smiles back at Janson and Dorothy (and Janson smiles knowingly at June), as June walks away behind the stretcher. There's someone who needs her and can benefit from her care, someone with a legitimate claim on her love and attention, and June follows him. June has been steadfast in her ethics, although her attention was misguided. We know if Ben lives, she'll help him. If he doesn't live, she's freed herself from her bondage to Dorothy.This engrossing film has a lot of action, both physical and psychological. It's easy to watch but not simple. Oooh, that magnetic energy (great direction) between Ben and June. They can barely keep their faces apart in any interaction. Ben tries to be bad, but isn't making it. In the end he succumbs fully to love. A hero because he not only saves the women's lives, but also because he's rescued June from Dorothy. Could there be such a thing as a noir, chick flick? I think so.