Watch Criss Cross For Free

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

To a purist like me "Cross Cross" is not really "film noir" because it lacks some critical elements. The protagonist (Burt Lancaster, just off "The Killers") isn't really seduced into his ill-fated venture by a femme fatale. It may look that way, but in reality the plan to rob the armored car comes from Steve (Burt), not from Anna (Yvonne de Carlo), and not even at her instigation. And Anna is not really a femme fatale who double crosses our hero. In fact she stays wonderfully true to him until she must chose between his life and hers. In most film noir the femme fatale is not merely working for herself but usually with the antagonist (Dan Duryea). In this film she is double crossing Duryea, not Lancaster. There are many noir elements in the film. The urban setting (really nice to see downtown LA in the late 40s), the motley crew of crims, and the off-beat photography are all tried and true noir elements along with the downbeat ending. But many elements are not present, as indicated above, along with the unrelenting rain and lots of night scenes.Putting aside the film noir bonafides, there are some real big plot holes in the film, all of which you will discover for yourself.It's an OK film. You get to see an uncredited Tony Curtis dancing with de Carlo, and trolley cars operating in downtown LA. But don't expect to see your classic film noir. Best case, it is noirish. In reality it is more about the dangers of obsessive love, which is one of the themes in film noir, but usually done better.BTW – if you're a fan of Robert Siodmak this isn't one of his better films – "The Killers" (1946) and "Spiral Staircase" (1945) are my favorites, and for a change of pace his teaming again with Lancaster for "The Crimson Pirate"(1952)

A few things I love about CRISS CROSS-- character actor Percy Helton as Frank the bartender; the sweet relationship between Richard Long and Meg Randall (who were paired in several Universal films); and the on-location filming in Bunker Hill and Union Station. It also looks like the robbery scene was filmed in Long Beach. So there is a lot of historical footage in this picture.But while these pluses make a strong case that CRISS CROSS is a film noir classic, there are some things about the picture that do not work for me.First, I think the ending is a bit overrated. It's effective. But Duryea is not doing anything different here than he's done with his other villain roles before or after. It's one of those everyone-must-die endings, and all he has to do after the fatal bullets are fired is to turn around and look into the headlights. Sirens blare in the background. Camera moves in and pictures fades out. One sequence, however, that does not seem clichéd is the robbery. But while it does contain a lot of action, it's staged in an uninspiring way (corny theatrics, with way too-obvious fake jabs and punches). A bright haze engulfs them from the explosion, but the director does not take advantage of the visual possibilities here. I can almost imagine what Orson Welles would have done; he would have had running shadows cutting through the bright cloud. And he would have done something to illuminate Lancaster's face in this sequence. Or at least with his hand holding the gun. His flesh is too pale and it blends in with the bright cloud of smoke to the point that we can barely see him. Overall, this film is a hodgepodge of ideas from 30s gangster pictures. It steals heavily from THE PUBLIC ENEMY-- the entire last sequence, where he gets kidnapped from the hospital is ripped off from PUBLIC ENEMY. Even the ending, where he dies is copied. The only new angle is that the girl dies alongside him.

Its presumptuous for me to offer suggestions to Siodmak on how to structure or edit a film. After all he was a master. But I believe that structural problems prevent this film from being more memorable than it is. Yes its a good noir but:It seems to me that the heist happens too late in the film. And why all the scenes with Mom and dog- they are well staged but don't add anything. Too much talk with the bartender (although the bartender part is well acted). Too-long scenes of heist planning, and Napier's role is unnecessary- it probably should have been cut altogether to help all the scene clutter involving the heist. Its just my opinion but I believe all the mid-movie clutter could have been cut down for more lean and neat structure.On the plus side, the scenes of Los Angeles are wonderful and atmospheric and the night club is a fun place.Lancaster is physical and is intense. He gives a performance of force and power and is terrific. He and Yvonne DeCarlo have a lot of spark between them and she is smoldering and believable as a classic noir dame. All the performances are good, and once the dragged-out middle of this film is past it rushes to a very brutal noir ending that packs a lot of punch.

Truly, if Burt Lancaster was a fruit, he would be organic. Yvonne de Carlo would be all too ripe. Criss Cross, the simple noir, was very good for my tastes. It's an ingenious title because it's what happens the movie. I love watching my favorite characters get betrayed and tricked throughout the bustling course of the film. Yvonne is pretty in this movie. The ending was all too obvious, I saw it comin from a mile away. My eyes were wide open. If there's one thing I learned from this flick, is don't trust women. All they want is your money. Yvonne had a good heart but it was blocked by greed and evil.Goodnight.