AnhartLinkin
This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
bensonmum2
Harold Dunlap (Charles Russell) commits a murder on what he believes to be a deserted train platform. However, the platform isn't as empty as it seems. The witness is a young boy named Mike (Dale Belding) who, at first, isn't quite sure what he's seen. Over time, however, Mike understands he's seen a murder. With Dunlap closing in, can he escape in time and notify the authorities before he becomes the next victim.Inner Sanctum will never make it on a "Best of Film Noir" list, but it's a decent little film that I found entertaining. Dunlap (Charles Russell), is a ruthless character, capable of just about anything - even murdering a child. Hiding in plain sight in the same boarding house where Mike lives is a nice touch that leads to some interesting situations. Dunlap makes several attempts to get rid of young Mike - like suggesting he go out at night to see the flooded river. The fact that Dunlap and Mike share a room only adds to the tension. The framing device used to tell the story is also a nice touch. At first I thought having a psychic telling Dunlap's story to a stranger was odd and misplaced, but it all makes sense in the end. At 62 minutes, Lew Landers' direction is snappy with, other than one notable exception - the beer can scene, no wasted minutes. The film moves at a nice pace. The films' technical aspects (lighting, cinematography, set design, etc.) are all more than adequate - falling somewhere between that of a big studio production on one end and a Poverty Row production on the other.While I could probably list a number of things about the Inner Sanctum that bothered me (like the annoying Dale Belding or the misplaced comedy for example), I suppose my chief complaint would be the lack of any real character development. We know Dunlap is a murderer and a killer, but we have not idea why or what motivates him. He's just a murderer - nothing more. He's not a fully fleshed-out, three dimensional person. Another example, when another boarding house tenant, Jean Maxwell (Mary Beth Hughes), falls for Dunlap, there's really no reason for it to happen. She falls for Dunlap because she's expected to fall for Dunlap. While the runtime might have made for a quick moving film, it hurts the overall movie by cutting out the time that might have been devoted to better understanding the characters and their motivations. In the end, the good outweighs the bad and I can easily rate Inner Sanctum a 6/10.
Martin Teller
I picked up the "Midnight Mysteries" cheapo DVD set for some other noirs (THE SCAR, THE RED HOUSE, WOMAN ON THE RUN) but I hadn't seen this one before. A low-budget thriller in which a murderer hides out in a boarding house... but one of the occupants may have witnessed his crime. There's nothing too special going on here, but it has a brisk pace, some snappy dialogue, and Mary Beth Hughes (most famous for THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, or perhaps the Mystery Science Theatre fodder I ACCUSE MY PARENTS) is a steamy presence. Radio star Charles Russell isn't particularly riveting or anything, but he carries the film well enough. Some of the comic relief is kinda stupid, but some of it actually works. The child actor who plays a key role is a bit annoying, but not intolerably so.
secondtake
Inner Sanctum (1948)A short, bizarre, surprisingly captivating film. It's totally Twilight Zone when you get to the last two minutes, so hang in there for the hour before that. It has a noir quality that makes it moody, and it has some truly artsy expressionist segments montaged in during the flood, partly as psychological metaphor. The director, Lew Landers, has an astonishing 100 plus movies and a lot of early television to his name, and I'm guessing there are some other sterling moments among them.But for the moment we have Inner Sanctum. There is a candid, campy acting throughout that's fresh and entertaining, from the boy who's a convincing sweetie to the reporter who's a total bumbling hoot (watch him cheat at checkers). If it borders on deliberate comedy at times, it's more sustained by its tone of utter innocence among the townspeople, so they joke and make odd comments exactly the way real people would. The candid quality is at odds with the one rather stiff character, the lead man, who carries some kind of weight around beyond even his crime. Such is the film noir lead at its archetypal best, and this is from the height of post-war noir.So, a great movie it isn't but a movie with great qualities it is. No joke.
Cristi_Ciopron
INNER … is exactly what it promises to be--yet somewhat better. Mrs. Hughes and Russell are good and even, though morally objectionable, likable leads. It's made with some sense of economy, varied and suspenseful. The supporting characters are well sketched. INNER … starts confusingly, with a succession of scenes given backwards (the descending from the car, THEN the picking, AND THEN the railway station episode); anyway, the device is nice. For its time, INNER … is disturbingly violent; the atmosphere is caught with great gusto, and, if Russell's character remains unexplored and unexplained, blank, as it were, he nevertheless functions in the flick. Thou may not like this kind of movies, so unpretentious and modest; but you can not ask them to be something they are not meant to be.
