Watch Crime Doctor For Free

Why so much hype?

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Let me start off by saying that I actually like a lot of the old B-movie cheapie film series, like 'Boston Blackie,' 'The Falcon,' 'The Saint,' et.al. - just so you know that I'm not some ADD-addled kid who can't sit still unless a movie is edited like it's been thrown into a blender by Michael Bay.But, c'mon, let's be serious: this is a pretty terrible film, on almost every level.First off, Warner Baxter looks awful. Every time one of the women in the film talks about how he's "good-looking," you have to laugh. I realize that in real life Baxter had had a nervous breakdown and was suffering terribly from arthritis (so much so that he eventually had a lobotomy - ! - to relieve the pain). But then the writers should have either cut the lines where women comment on his looks, or the producers should have cast a different actor in the role.And to be honest, appearance aside, Baxter is a really underwhelming screen presence: his voice quavery, his manner hesitant, his whole demeanor uncommitted. He looks and acts a LOT older than 54. He seems to be barely able look any of the other actors in the eye. (Pretty everyone else in the entire film comes off better than Baxter, in terms of their performances - it's astonishing to think that he once won an Oscar.) I know I should feel sorry for the guy, but that's no reason to let him ruin what might have been a memorable recurring character.The only reason that I didn't give this film a one-star rating is because it DOES have an initially intriguing premise, one that seems to anticipate "A History of Violence," among other more interesting films. But the writers quickly botch any sense of intrigue, completely throwing the story off the rails with all kinds of irrelevant tangents and sub-plots (how can a 64-minute film have this many sub-plots?), like the various criminals (female thief, disgraced Air Force officer) with whom Dr. Ordway deals with in the course of his work. These little side-stories have NO relevance whatsoever to the main story, adding nothing at all to it and, to boot, are uninteresting and insipid. Get back to the amnesia thread, you idiot writers! This is not to mention all of the improbabilities and convenient 'coincidences' that occur throughout the story, further stretching credulity well past the breaking point. (Two of Ordway's former cronies just happening to be in a nightclub where Ordway is with his fiancé, then one of them breaks a glass accidentally, requiring medical attention and, of course, Ordway is the only doctor present - yeah, right.) And why, for example, do Ordway's former partners in crime keep insisting to themselves that Ordway is faking the amnesia? For TEN YEARS he keeps up this charade, goes through medical school, gets a psychiatry degree, sets himself up in private practice, instead of just absconding with the loot and skipping town - say WHAT? How in the hell does that make any sense at all? I'll only mention in passing how poorly directed this film is, especially in regards to the pacing in the dialogue. Actor A, for example, says something, Actor B ponders these words for what feels like an eternity, then eventually, slowly responds - aaaarrrgh! Another reviewer has said that this is actually the least of the 'Crime Doctor' series, so maybe I'll give the next installment a chance (I recorded a bunch of them off of TCM), although I am not overly sanguine, and I still think that Warner Baxter is TERRIBLE.

Crime Doctor (1943) ** (out of 4) First film in Columbia's Crime Doctor series has a man (Warner Baxter) thrown out of a car, which leaves him with amnesia. Not knowing who he is, the man decides to start a new life as a doctor but then learns that in his previous life he was a gangster. This was the first film from the series that I watched and I certainly hope they get better. I suspect this film just tells a backstory, which could have been told in the first five minutes of another movie. I found the film incredibly dull and the story itself really wasn't all that involving. Baxter was good in his role but I still wouldn't rank him very high among the countless mystery/detective films of the 30's and 40's.

This film is much better than what one might expect, given the studio that made it and the other films of this type put out at the time. Warner Baxter was a good actor, the supporting cast is able, and the writing is taut, uncomplicated and well-done. Direction, lighting and photography are professional. In short, there are few, if any, faults, and the film is well worth a watch. Leon Ames makes an early appearance in a somewhat far fetched sequence involving the rehabilitation of a hardened, bitter convict, but this is a minor, minor flaw in an otherwise very well constructed film. As another reviewer wrote, there are, thankfully, no dumb cops or simple minded assistants, just a well thought out plot and good acting.

I recently saw all of the Crime Doctor movies on Turner Classic Movies. I'd sure like to see these made available on DVD, but it doesn't seem that they're available on ANY medium yet. I rather enjoyed all of the movies of the "Crime Doctor" series. I have a particular affinity for detective stories and crime dramas from that time period, in both the movie and radio formats. I consider them to be at least the same caliber as the "Thin Man" series, although "Crime Doctor" tended to be more cerebral, while Nick Charles was rather more flamboyant and party-hardy, and I suspect that Asta was smarter than he was!If the Crime Doctor is made available on DVD, perhaps they might at least be released on CD as an audio series. Perhaps I might even be able to find some of the original issues from Detective Comics.