Inner Sanctum (1948)

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

When somebody knows the time automatically without even having to look at a watch, they are somebody whose warnings should be heeded. For the female passenger on the seat next to him, listening to his story of a murderer on the run might seem like a minor time-killer, but when destiny calls, you will be there to answer the phone.The story the elderly man tells concerns the killer on the run (Charles Russell) who picks up a ride with a chatty salesman (Billy House) who drops him off at a boarding house run by Nana Bryant. Ironically, staying there is the kid (Dale Belding) who saw Russell drop the body on a departing train, afraid to tell because his rather abusive mother (Lee Patrick in an extremely obnoxious performance) will hit him. Russell hits it off with Bryant's pretty sexpot niece (Mary Beth Hughes), a 9:00 girl in a 5:00 town who longs for life outside the boarding house. Russell, worried that the kid knows more than he's telling, plots to silence him.Some outlandish plot developments diminish what might have been an intriguing poverty row film noir. Belding, the freckle-faced kid, initially comes off as goofy and meddlesome (getting giggles with his toothy grin), but as his dangerous situation increased, he begins to win more sympathy. Veteran stutterer Roscoe Ates only gets to do a bit of his stuttering act for a moment, playing a drunken resident of the boarding house whose obviously had one too many. That's a relief, considering that his over-kill of this schtick from movies of the 30's made this gag tired beyond amusement.There's a brilliant denouncement at the end which wraps up everything neatly and explains everything in short and sweet detail. As far as film noir goes, this bottom of the bill second feature may not be great, but elements of the plot's structure will keep you rivited none the less.

I old B-movies--particularly anthology horror films like the Whistler series. So, when I found this particular film, I was pretty excited. And, while the film starts off pretty good (with a nice creepy intro), it bogs down with plot problems and holes that could have been worked out with a decent editing and re-write.The film begins with an obnoxious lady on a train talking with a weird old guy with psychic powers. He can see the future and the lady, at first, doesn't believe him. However, after his little predictions come true, he then tells her a tale about a nasty woman who is killed due to her nastiness--an obvious allusion to this woman! I liked this, as it was a warning for the woman to mind her ways...or else!The story begins oddly, as the main character (a guy) is described as a nice, ordinary guy. However, his behaviors show that he's NOT nice nor ordinary but a sociopath! It seems this guy is engaged to a horrible woman---a woman who attacks him! In the process, she accidentally stabs herself with her nail file and dies! Hardly a normal death, but one that the guy could probably explain away to the police. Instead, however, he throws her body onto a passing train and then hopes that no one connects him to the death. This is improbable, but possible. BUT, when the guy thinks a kid can connect him to the death, he then wants to kill the kid--this is NOT the act of an ordinary guy at all! Now I must admit that this kids IS one of the more annoying ones in film history--so if the guy had killed him just for that reason, it would have been understandable!! Plus, the kid really DIDN'T see anything and there was no reason to kill him--at least not to a rational person!So, the story seems to hinge on a guy who behaves stupidly and makes irrational decisions (more occur in the story, believe me). Had the guy really been a normal person caught up in circumstances, it really could have been a good film. As it was, it never made sense and the viewer couldn't really connect with the characters. The man was evil, the kid SUPER-annoying and the parents seemed like they were encouraging pedophilia when this strange man came to their home and they suggested he bunk with the kid!! I mean, they didn't even know the guy more than two minutes before suggesting he and the kid share the room! Creepy and nonsensical. With the basic kernel of a story, it sure should have been better. Bad writing, however, undid it.By the way, despite the very silly hole-ridden plot, the film DID have a pretty cool ending...I've gotta give it that!

This black and white movie has many fine moments but it does not have the top box office cast which could have made it a classic. It has a small town feel similar to Picnic with William Holden but it did not have William Holden and Kim Novak.The lead actors do their scenes well. The guy and gal just aren't quite right for a feature film. The female lead is beautiful enough to be in any movie in any role. She also was great in her scenes. But this movie just needs a Bogart and Bacall or Tracy and Hepburn or Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. The rest of the cast is fine.The boy who plays Mike is the best part of this movie. There is a bedroom scene with him and the villain which rings so true for its era. Watch as the male lead plays some word games in the dark with the kid. Innocence and terror side by side. It was common in the 1940s to have two guys sleeping in the same bed in movies, especially in comedies, but also in Alfred Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes. In this movie the guys sleep together in one room but with separate beds.This is a very good movie but it could have been great. This might make a good double bill with Picnic or Strangers on a Train or The Lady Vanishes.I hope Dale Belding (Mike) is still alive and well.

I caught this B film noir quickie on a public domain DVD too, and it held my interest for it's brief running time. Handsome but sinister-looking Charles Russell is the killer on the run from the law who hides out in a small-town boarding house. Trouble is, the only witness to his crime (murdering a woman at a train station, then putting the body on the departing train) is a young boy who is the son of the widowed owner of the boarding house! The kid idolises him first, then grows to fear him as he realises that the nice guy he met at the station is really a killer. The blonde, sultry niece wants him too, but for other reasons.It all runs along neatly, as well as can be expected for a B feature. Russell becomes genuinely frightening as we realise he will do anything to shut the kid up. The real interest of the film, however, is in the beginning and ending. It seems at first as if the events of the film are a flashback, as a pretty young woman listens to a fortune-teller not to hop off the train. But, after we've seen Russell's tale, we go back to the train scene, and we actually end up at the beginning again. The woman listening to the story runs off the train, ignoring the fortune-teller, to her death. But why? Is she so enthralled by his tale that she somehow wants it to happen to her? Is she so spooked that she thinks Russell has already killed someone (he hasn't)? She doesn't know him from a bar of soap, and the poor guy really does seem to have had fate tap him on the shoulder. But is he a ruthless bastard anyway, with his treatment of the innocent young boy? Hmm, fascinating