It would have been very difficult saying no to seeing 'Blood on My Hands'. The title was so wonderfully lurid and attention-grabbing (who could resist such a film title?), the premise was a great one and Burt Lancaster, Joan Fontaine and Robert Newton have all given great performances in their respective careers before and since.
'Blood on My Hands' is definitely well worth the watch and has a lot of good to great elements. Is it a film deserving of more credit? To me it is one of those films. Didn't think though at the same time that 'Blood on My Hands' quite lived up to its title and could have done more with its premise, hence what is meant by my review summary. Much of it was there and correct, it just needed more.
Did think that it could have been more lurid and bolder, parts are a touch tame, like the chemistry between Lancaster and Fontaine that just lacked the intensity it could have done.
Some of the script could have been tauter, but faring the weakest was the ending which didn't ring true and felt rather tacked on. If a bolder ending was initially intended, it should have been intact from personal view.
Can't fault the production values however, with the moody photography being particularly striking. Norman Foster directs with flair and doesn't let the film become tedious while Miklos Rozsa's haunting music score is close to being one of his better ones. The script does intrigue and doesn't get too overly melodramatic, and the story is generally compelling and has tension despite needing more to it.
Lancaster is suitably brooding and charismatic, if not quite disappearing into the role. Fontaine is touchingly sensitive and just lovely to watch. Even better is Newton, he exaggerates at times but he was clearly relishing the role while also being sinister enough.
Overall, worth watching and pretty good, but with such a title and premise there could and should have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox
'Blood on My Hands' is definitely well worth the watch and has a lot of good to great elements. Is it a film deserving of more credit? To me it is one of those films. Didn't think though at the same time that 'Blood on My Hands' quite lived up to its title and could have done more with its premise, hence what is meant by my review summary. Much of it was there and correct, it just needed more.
Did think that it could have been more lurid and bolder, parts are a touch tame, like the chemistry between Lancaster and Fontaine that just lacked the intensity it could have done.
Some of the script could have been tauter, but faring the weakest was the ending which didn't ring true and felt rather tacked on. If a bolder ending was initially intended, it should have been intact from personal view.
Can't fault the production values however, with the moody photography being particularly striking. Norman Foster directs with flair and doesn't let the film become tedious while Miklos Rozsa's haunting music score is close to being one of his better ones. The script does intrigue and doesn't get too overly melodramatic, and the story is generally compelling and has tension despite needing more to it.
Lancaster is suitably brooding and charismatic, if not quite disappearing into the role. Fontaine is touchingly sensitive and just lovely to watch. Even better is Newton, he exaggerates at times but he was clearly relishing the role while also being sinister enough.
Overall, worth watching and pretty good, but with such a title and premise there could and should have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox