The poor caliber of most of the supporting cast kills the momentum, but it's a beautifully shot and tightly written piece aside.

Works decently as a straightforward police procedural with an often realistic and gritty atmosphere thanks especially to the great on-location shooting. But the some times awful cardboard characters and overly-done voice over narration doesn't seem to match with the ambition to portray "the city as it is...the buildings in their naked stone, the people without make-up".

Filmed on great way, with Barry Fitzgerald charming acting but goes down little by naive philosophy of movie characteristic in that time.

Nothing amazing as far as plot goes, and the acting can be a little amateur, but it's great to see New York in all of its 1940s glory, especially Jackson Heights.

This dives headfirst into innovative narrative technique and manages to have some success, and it's really interesting to consider the rather neutral position the narrator takes with regard to the murder case. In the climax, he's actively telling the bad guy how he can cleanly get away, and sounds downright dissatisfied that he's too stupid to pull it off. The cinematography trumps all else; New York City is arresting once again. The story tends to drag after a while but it always looks nice.

Love the photography of the city, love the authentic locations, love the verite style, but man, that narration is annoying as shit.

Aside from it just being a pretty great crime/noir movie, I found the odd narration to be strangely endearing.

I really like how this film shows a police investigation in a mostly realistic way.Filming this in New York City was a really good idea and added to my enjoyment of this film.The big negative for this film is the awful voice narration which really needed to be axed.

If only corny dialogue and a mixed bag of performances was this movies only flaw. Its narration felt like a stupid man was holding my hand throughout the entire film and explaining information that was either clearly shown, or could have been through proper technique. Thankfully, the photography is as impressive as claimed. I just don't know how people can rate this or Brute Force so highly in Dassin's work.

i loved the depth with which this movie explored solving a murder, great capturing of a homicide investigation.

Seemed like two movie ideas that never quite converged: a police procedural vs. wry commentary on modern urban life.

If not for Mark Hellinger's unneeded narration (or at least he should have narrated just at the beginning and the end, and not every place in between), this may have been even better. Moves fast-paced, and the achievement of not having shot in a studio, but instead in the streets of NYC, sets it apart from the movies of its times. Barry Fitzgerald was great.

Not a great movie as it has some clear flaws, but it's still pretty entertaining and well shot. The aerial shots are especially stunning and the detective story central to the film plays out quite well. The main problem for me was some of the acting was really silly, almost making it seem like a parody at times, and the narration, while amusing, was really out of place. It's almost like Dassin was going for two completely divergent styles and they don't really mesh together all that well.

Some minor quibbles here and there, but the cinematography and the use of actual New York City locations is pretty impressive.

Not a bad movie, but not exactly thrilling either. As strengths, it's got some really great on-location photography - stark, clean black-and-white imagery that is pleasant to look at and highlights the city of New York, and a fairly engaging murder plot. But the weak narration (great bookends, really unnecessary otherwise), explicit focus on police procedural instead of those involved in the crime, and strict adherence to a straightforward narrative drag it down. Worth seeing, but not much else.

A simple, narrated and explicitly geographic film noir doesnt find strength in its simplicity, narration or immediate location. It's chief inspiration, the hokey Disney documentaries of the 50s and 60s, that detailed the inner working of the rides animatronics, we're unfortunately offered no such insight. Truth aside, its not entirely devoid of merit or merriment. At its heart, it is still an entertaining, and reasonably solid noir from one of the less powerful filmmakers of the genre.

A decent police procedural from decent filmmaker Jules Dassin. To be fair, he's got a good eye... the photography sports some good ideas, and I like the use of real locations. But the movie is hampered by weak acting, uninteresting characters, and especially the annoying narration.

Pretty neat film with police work that seems pretty realistic, but in the end it really hasn't moved you or anything.

Somewhat ahead of its time. The film-noir/mockumentary mash-up probably works for some people better than for others. But the experimental technique, carefree tone and location shooting makes this taste like a Godard film. French New Wave fans would eat this up if it only had subtitles.

Competently made if not earth-shattering noir. The dreadful narration is a big distraction.

Some of the humor was on the silly side but in a charming way. At times the narration was a bit much, but mostly it works, and the film kept my interest as a procedural. Fitzgerald is good.

A noir reminiscent of the city symphony and essay film. The murder mystery and police procedures gets too much attention though; the city's architecture and swarm of people could've gotten more.

One of the better procedurals I've seen. It's a bit more straightforward than most noirs, but its structure is solid as a rock, and as a whodunit it keeps you engaged. Some of the acting is dated and silly, but I really liked Barry Fitzgerald in the lead. A lot of people complain about the narration, and though it is unnecessary it didn't really bother me. Not to mention the absolutely stellar photography. I can't count the number of great shots in this film.

Big disappointment from Dassin. "All filmed on location" - big whoop... just goes to show what happens when you rely on a gimmick instead of good material. The novelty wears off after a couple of years and the film's true worth is exposed.