Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

dougdoepke No need to repeat the plot. Prisons are by nature hothouses of repressed emotion. People locked up in unnatural conditions are grist for strong melodrama. When done right, as in Brute Force (1948) or Riot in Cell Block 11 (1953), the results are powerfully memorable. The trouble with this prison film is that it presents the look but none of the feel of hothouse melodrama. Thus, we get actors hitting their marks and speaking their lines, but with one notable exception, without the needed emotion. For example, the movie's dramatic climax is the anticipated revenge killing of the prison stoolie Ponti. It should be fraught with fear and mixed emotion. Now, Faylen as the stoolie delivers fear in spades and is the exception to the generally colorless performances. However, watch killer Mitchell and how the scene is staged—he's expressionless, minus the satisfaction that avenging his friends should arouse. Moreover, he's filmed at an impersonal distance, suggesting that this is simply one more set-up on a tight shooting schedule. Thus, what should be a very personal act causing our imagination to both leap and recoil as the door closes on the stoolie, fulfills only half of the equation.On a less mixed level, there's guard honcho Carl Benton Reid. He speaks his lines well enough and is otherwise an excellent actor. But here his character exhibits none of the intense features the stereotype implies. Now, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with stereotypes. It's really a matter of how well you do them. In Reid's case, his killing at the end again arouses no particular feeling beyond that of one more plot device. At the same time and on a bigger scale, when warden Crawford walks among the yammering convicts in the yard, the protesters look nothing like angry mob of the earlier stock shot, but more like well- fed extras standing around on a set. The point is (without going on) that the movie fails to rise above strictly programmer status, despite some clever dialogue, Frank Faylen, and a civilized dust-up between attorneys Crawford and Winters— and also, a sparkling, but largely wasted, Dorothy Malone.The problem, as I see it, lies with the director (Levin) who's responsible for staging the scenes, rehearsing the actors, and creating moods while pinpointing emotions. Mitchell, Reid, Doucette, and Ford are all fine actors, capable of rising to an occasion when called upon. However, they're not called upon here. I'm afraid Levin's preference for frothy comedy shows up in this situation where the material is comedy's polar opposite. So, my guess is that he took the film as simply another studio assignment and coasted through.In passing—I sympathize with Columbia studios and Broderick Crawford. Someone once pointed out that Crawford's probably the worst actor ever to win a top Oscar, and I think that person's right. He's a car with basically one gear—a blustery fast-forward-- and it does get tiresome. As a result, here he is in 1950, suddenly a big name commodity but without the skills to back it up. He's in an embarrassing spot while the studio wonders how best to cash in. Fortunately for both, serial TV is just around the corner. He makes a game try in this film, but unfortunately his pudgy car is just not geared for nuanced emotions. But then, neither is the movie.

Spikeopath Joe Hufford is an honest and affable man, but during an altercation in a bar, he punches out a man who sadly dies from banging his head on the floor. All and sundry realise that this is a tragic accident, including the prosecuting DA who tries to feed the inept defence lawyer ammunition in which to keep Hufford out of jail. Found guilty, Joe is sentenced to one to ten years in the pen, working hard and buoyed by the support of his fragile father on the outside, Joe gets about doing his time and hoping for parole, but bad news comes his way and pretty soon Joe's term in jail will turn bitter, can the new warden and his pretty daughter be his salvation?Incarceration based films is a favourite genre of mine, so you can imagine how delighted I am when I happen upon a first time viewing. When the said film turns out to be a positive delight, well I'm in incarceration heaven!. Convicted, directed by Henry Levin, adapted by William Bowers from Martin Flavin's play, and starring Glenn Ford, Broderick Crawford, Millard Mitchell and Dorothy Malone {Ed Begley has a cameo}, is not so much underrated I feel, more like under seen and sadly forgotten.One of the erstwhile reviewers here has suggested that this picture offers nothing new and that we have seen it all before! Really? In 1950? Are you sure? Truth is, that in spite of this being an update of Flavin's own 1931 piece, The Criminal Code, is that yes, this film now looks like standard formula, unlucky prisoner forced to join the convict code of ethics, the yellow snake in the grass, tough guards, the planned break outs, the crusty old lag destined to enact revenge for injustice, but few prison based pictures from the black and white era are as tight and as enjoyable as this one. It boasts a wonderfully reined in performance from Glenn Ford as Hufford, with the first quarter, where Hufford is struck by the incredulity of his situation, is particularly memorable stuff from Ford. Then we also get a special effort from Crawford as DA/Warden Knowland, one scene as he fearlessly walks amongst the cons is a genre highlight to me. But both these men are in the shadow of a quite grizzled and effective turn from Millard Mitchell as Malloby, so much so it quickly became one of my favourite bitter lag performances.It's not without failings, the love interest is misplaced and clearly improbable in practicality {tho it should be noted that Dorothy Malone is fine here as Kay Knowland}, and the finale blows out the basis for "solitary" confinement completely. But really to me these are minor quibbles for a 1950 prison based picture. Steadily directed and acted with skill, it also benefits from the considerable talents of Burnett Guffey in the photography department. All in all it's a fine picture that I highly recommend to genre hound dogs such as myself. You can probably knock off a point for my obvious bias, but I'm definitely giving this one 8/10.

whpratt1 Broderick Crawford, (George Knowland) plays the role of a District Attorney and has to bring to justice a man named Joe Hufford, (Glenn Ford) who was drunk and struck a man in a night club and killed him. George Knowland knew that Joe Hufford was a good man who had an excellent military service record and told Joe he should obtain a good lawyer to represent him in a court of law. However, Joe did not obtain a good lawyer and he had to serve one to ten years as a prison sentence. Years go by and eventually George Knowland becomes the Warden of the prison where Joe Hufford is serving his prison sentence. George Knowland shows some mercy to Joe along with his daughter, Kay Knowland, ( Dorothy Malone ) who starts to fall in love with Joe. There is plenty of problems in this prison and lots of surprises. Great 1950 Classic to view and enjoy.

rich52 Broderick Crawford plays a district attorney that reluctantly prosecutes a defendant for accidentally killing a man in a fist fight in defense of a lady's honor. Realizing that Ford was being severely under-defended by his own lawyer, Crawford tries to pass every break in the book to the defense attorney, who's too stupid to pick up on it. In the end, Ford is convicted of murder and sentenced to prison. Later, Crawford is assigned as the new warden and attempts to help Ford further.This is a very good, highly underrated movie. It's worth a look.