You won't be disappointed!

the audience applauded

Such a frustrating disappointment

Sick Product of a Sick System

Copyright 21 April 1950 (in notice: 1949) by Cardinal Pictures Inc. Released through United Artists. New York opening at the Criterion: 30 April 1950. U.S. release: 21 April 1950. U.K. release (on the lower half of a double bill): 29 May 1950. Australian release: 4 August 1950. 7,518 feet. 83 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A vacationing accountant spends his remaining days searching for his murderer after poison is slipped into his drink at a San Francisco nightclub. NOTES: Re-made in 1969 as Color Me Dead, and then re-made again (this time under its original title) in 1988.COMMENT: Edge-of-the-seat excitement delivered by a novel, intriguing and for the most part ultra-taut (the final scene between O'Brien and Britton would have been twice as effective at half the length) script; imaginative shooting in the actual streets, buildings (including the famous Bradbury Building) and transport of Los Angeles and San Francisco; driving direction by Rudolph Mate - the best of his career - as he stunningly forces the camera to track madly along the roadways; and vividly realistic acting by the leads and the entire cast down to the smallest bit player. Superlatively moody cinematography should be added to the ledger. And I liked Tiomkin's score, though many critics complained it was too Mickey Mouse and/or intrusive. I thought it perfect. An emotional romantic theme coupled with suitable mood "pointers" puts the drama across with a vitality that matches the powerful camerawork.OTHER VIEWS: All producer Harry M. Popkin's films are must viewing for connoisseurs. This one is no exception, despite the typically very slow beginning. Edmond O'Brien is not quite able to manage all the dialogue, while Pamela Britton is a bit of a drawback as his lady love, but Ernest Laszlo's camera, brilliantly filming on location in San Francisco is actual buses and sub-ways and warehouses and jazz dives, along with Rudolph Maté's surprisingly vigorous direction (I would certainly rank this as his most powerful film) of Rouse and Greene's riveting script, all adds up to superlatively thrilling entertainment. - JHR writing as Charles Freeman.

Edmond O'Brien is one of my favourite actors of the period, and if you need any startling evidence of why, just check out his performance here in Rudolph Mate's heartily original noir-shocker, 'D.O.A.'. Another great reason to check the film out, the Polish-born director, made a smooth transition from being a great cinematographer, and this is probably his most shining triumph helming a picture.If you have ever wondered why 'film noir' has been considered such a consistently rewarding and enthralling body of cinematic work, like the earlier 'Pre-Code' era, check this one out, and others of its ilk. A sheerly delightful film that holds up well today.Though I haven't checked its 80's remake out, I'm not too curious about it, other than the slight curiosity from its notoriety of it being the film in which Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan met and eventually decided to marry. Other than that, I'm more than content simply watching this.

"Frank Bigelow" (Edmond O'Brien) is a single man who works in a small town in California as an auditor and also and serves as a notary public as well. Anyway, this film begins with him walking into a Los Angeles police station and telling the chief of police that he would like to report a murder. He then goes on to say that he is the victim. Obviously, wanting to hear more the chief asks him to sit down and once he does Frank begins to tell the story of how he was given a toxic dose of poison while at a nightclub in San Francisco which has eventually led him to where he is. Now as far as the overall movie is concerned I thought that it had all of the elements of a classic film noir from the 50's--good mystery and plenty of suspense along with some decent acting by both Edmond O'Brien and Pamela Britton (as Frank Bigelow's secretary "Paula Gibson"). In any case, all things considered I rate this film as above average and recommend it to anybody who might be interested in this particular genre.

The film noir genre threw out plenty of gems during its peak in the 1940s and early 1950s and this is one of them, a solid detective story with a great premise. In it, a man must discover the person responsible for his own murder, a plot point realised thanks to the presence of a slow-acting poison that gives him only a day or two to live.D.O.A. presents a bleak and icy narrative that has a strong degree of pessimism to it, thanks to that excellent premise. But there's more to it than that, as the actual detective story is compelling in itself. The protagonist finds himself drawn into a murky world of smuggling and corporate corruption, while at the same time coming into contact with some decidedly shady characters.The best thing about the film, for me, (aside from that premise) is the presence of Neville Brand's Chester, a character who could have been portrayed as an ordinary henchman but who, thanks to his psychotic nature, becomes the real highlight; Brand effortlessly exudes an air of pure evil in what was his first role. The rest is good too, of course, particularly Edmond O'Brien's tough-but-sympathetic lead, leaving this one of the highlights in a crowded genre thanks to that perfect 'ticking clock' premise.