Shoot to Kill (1947)<br /><br />Weak and Confusing, Shoot to Kill Yourself<br /><br />You know how you can plop in front of a t.v. and find an old movie and watch it even though you know it's bad. The mood, the clunkiness, the archetypes, the nostalgia all work on you. As long as you have nothing better to do. Say in a motel on a business trip.<br /><br />That's as far as Shoot to Kill will rise. It's fun, it's dramatic, and there are crimes and suspects. It will keep you up more than put you to sleep. To a point.<br /><br />So why actually rent it (or stream it free on Netflix)? <br /><br />Well, there are a lot of nice night scenes, little moments where the camera looks at a door archway or the feet of some people walking, and you might be able to watch this just for that aspect. That fight scene toward the end of the movie, between the reporter (who is a better fighter than actor) and a thug (who is not bad at both), tumbles down a set of stairwas and it's very physical and amazing, actually. The requisite car chase scene(s), less so. There's lots of high contrast light and moving camera, which is pretty standard by the late 40s, but is one of the reasons to watch in the first place. <br /><br />The plot, however, is so full of double crosses it's not worth the effort keeping everyone straight. That might make it a lot of fun for some people, but I was hoping for a clearer line that actually mattered when it got twisted.<br /><br />William Berke, the director, has dozens of films of this caliber to his name, and he cranked them out with no budget. Shoot to Kill is entertaining, yes, and many with more consistent acting, but it clips along so that you just go with it. The woman is less a femme fatale than just a strong willed and duplicitous lead. She's made sympathetic by the end. <br /><br />Maybe the small insert of real music by Gene Rodgers is enough to search for that scene (about 9:40 in), where he plays a nice stride or similar style piano, though probably not miked while filming, since the fingerwork doesn't match up. It's an odd addition that makes no real sense in the plot, but it's given billing in the opening credits, and Rodgers did some good backup work in the 1930s and 40s (including Coleman Hawkins). <br /><br />The only other think I noticed of some small note (and I'm stretching to find things): among all the flashbacks (the movie is basically one big flashback, as well) is at least one case of a flashback within the flashback. Or is that three layers? Brilliance beget by necessity.