Movie Review: Double Indemnity
Published August 10, 2008
Oh, don’t you yearn for the good old film noir days? I am one of the unfortunate souls to have been born about 40 or 50 years later than the genre's heyday, but I find myself captivated by almost every one I have seen. Double Indemnity is certainly no different, and perhaps one of the best; a bountifully on edge and significantly savvy thriller from one of the best directors of his time.
A suave insurance representative allows himself to become part of a murder/insurance scam initiated by the wife of a businessman. However the seemingly perfect plan doesn’t exactly go as hoped once the suspicions of another insurance rep are aroused.
It’s kind of an exercise in futility to comprehensibly explain the story of the film in an adequate fashion as you’re never going to be able to catch all the little aspects that make it so well woven together. Even in full-on spoiler mode you still wouldn’t be able to do the movie much justice. With a taut script and a constantly moving pace, Double Indemnity has to indeed be seen to be believed. It’s a kind of film that just doesn’t get made any more, at least not so much that it’s common and definitely so little that it gets pointed out when one does rear its head. It pays attention to details and displays a care for the art of filmmaking that should be cherished.
Now that’s not to say this is absolutely perfect, but I doubt there’s a film out there that is. Yes some of the incidents and certain pieces of dialogue aren’t entirely believable (perhaps that’s something do with its aging and it might not have seemed so back when it was made) and there are some moments of what I imagine was unintended cheesiness but this is easily forgiven when everything else is this good.
These are the archetypal characters who we have come to know and love in films of this sort. Fred MacMurray’s suave and sophisticated Walter Neff is our hero, or perhaps anti-hero is more accurate. He’s someone who murders a man (as the movie strangely points out in the first five minutes, making it different from most other films noir) for money and yet we still root for him, still care what becomes of him. Will he get away with it? Is the woman on his arm exactly what she seems? These are the mysteries that are at the core of these films and Double Indemnity sets the bar considerably high for exploring them.
When watching the film, it wasn’t the well done crime elements, nor was it the compelling romantic element but rather the intoxicating dialogue that had me enthralled. Especially when it is coming out of MacMurray’s mouth, for the most part anyway, the dialogue is exciting, playful, and most of all compelling in a way you’d truly want from a movie where words are just as much of the essence as the action.
What is Double Indemnity? It’s compelling, exciting, and truly memorable filmmaking, a testament to the idea that even a few bumps along the road can’t hinder a great piece of cinema from reaching and entertaining an audience more than 60 years in its future. Director Billy Wilder was the man who gave us the wonderful Some Like It Hot, and although this is completely different in subject matter and tone, the quality is undoubtedly consistent between the two.
- Movie Review: Double Indemnity
- Published: August 10, 2008
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Classics, Video: Suspense and Mystery, Video: Thriller
- Writer: Ross Miller
- Ross Miller's BC Writer page
- Ross Miller's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I guess I forgot to mention those aspects. Make no mistake they are great (particularly Stanwyck's performance) but I just plain forgot (maybe because of my wanting to get a review written soon after watching it).
Cheers.
Indeed, Ross, writing a review of Double Indemnity without even touching on Barbara Stanwyck's performance makes no sense at all. Phyllis Detwiler is the driver and controller of everything that happens in the movie, and she is arguably the greatest and most evil of all femmes fatales.
Perhaps it would have been better to rein in your eagerness to write a review, so as not to gloss over the most important element of the entire film.
Did you want the review written soon after you watched it or published soon after? I agree with Dr. D because what's the need for haste when the film has been out 44 years. Plus, it's been written about so extensively by so many others, it makes your article look woefully incomplete, like writing about "The Wizard of Oz" and forgetting that girl from Kansas.
Woah, woah, guys, calm down. It was a mistake that I made. I still wrote about plenty of other aspects and just because I forgot to mention a couple of names that makes the review incomplete(?).
Well, your bio says you are an aspiring movie critic.
This is a relatively easy movie to discuss, too, so pay attention to what people report back to you about your review. When you get really good you can try something tough, like Kurasawas "Dreams".
I do take on board criicisms and what people have to say about my reviews but it's not like I completely lied about something or did something completely horrible - I simply forgot to namedrop a couple of people.
Okay just to be clear guys - I made a mistake; I forgot to include an important aspect to reviewing the film and I will remember to do so in the future.
Cheers.
Ross, would you mind sticking "http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u=http://" at the beginning of the url to your site? The link won't work otherwise.
Thanks,
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
Do you mean in my profile put what you provided before my website url? If so I did it and it still comes up an error when I click "URL" next to one of my comments.
Hi Ross,
Obviously it is good to correct your profile too, but I mean in the URL box directly above where you enter your comments. This is stored in a cookie on your own computer so I can't do it for you.
Thanks
Er, not exactly. You appear to have copied the code that is under your name above or in the resource box. You should just enter the full url to your site.
What I did was put the url you provided me with BEFORE the url of my own website in the box above where you type your comments. And the problem seems to have been fixed - when I click the url next to my name in my comment it takes me to my website as it is supposed to. I don't get what else you want me to do, it seems to work on my end.
Well, I'll put the raw urls here so you can see the difference.
What you have in the box is this: http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u=http://www.movie-world.moonfruit.com
What you want in the box is just: http://www.movie-world.moonfruit.com
Oh so was it just the "http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=red&u=http://" you wanted me to put before the "www.movie-world.moonfruit.com" I originally had? Okay, hopefully this works.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/79919)
Why do you only mention MacMurray and Wilder? Barbara Stanwyck as Phyllis sets the whole story in motion, so why only refer to her as "the woman"? If "the intoxicating dialogue" is what got you so excited, why don't you credit co-writer of the screenplay Raymond Chandler or the author of the novella James M. Cain?