Watch An Act of Murder For Free

A Masterpiece!

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Here Fredric March plays criminal court judge Calvin Cooke who has a reputation as a sort of "hanging judge" so that he has earned the nickname of "old man Maximum". Edmond O'Brien plays a defense attorney arguing a case before the judge. While O'Brien's character looks at the spirit of the law, Judge Cooke looks only at the letter of it and it is obvious from the opening court scene that the two do not like each other. What do they have in common? They both love the judge's only daughter, Ellie.Now this doesn't mean that the judge is a bad guy. He likes his community, adores his wife of twenty years (Florence Eldridge as Catherine Cooke), and loves his daughter.But more trouble is afoot than just a suitor for his daughter's hand that the judge dislikes. His wife Catherine has been having headaches, dizziness, and has been dropping things due to numbness in her hands. She confides in a friend who also happens to be a doctor that she has "a friend" with these symptoms, and the doctor sees through her ruse and says that she should come to his Philadelphia office the next day for a check-up. She does that, but lies to Calvin and says she is going shopping.This is where I do some head scratching. The news is bad - Catherine has a type of inoperable brain tumor that means a certain and painful death. The doctor tells Catherine that everything is fine. Who does he call? After sticking a cancer stick in his mouth to relieve the stress (????) the good doctor calls Calvin, her husband and tells HIM the truth. They both decide to not tell Catherine, the ACTUAL patient, the truth. Later when Catherine finds out, she decides not to talk about it either, even though by the way she found out she must know that her husband knows. Why isn't anybody talking to anybody about this woman's illness? Everybody just goes on pretending. Maybe this is the way it was 60 years ago, and that is one reason I love classic film - it gives you real insight into a bygone era about how people handled life, in this case illness, the fact that doctors routinely smoked, that grown daughters lived at home and pretty much went from the custody of their fathers to their husbands, and that it was acceptable for a policeman to shoot a dog that had been run over by a car in plain view of the general public - a mercy killing. This last incident happens as the judge is walking down the street to get pain medicine for his wife that just isn't doing the job. The implication is that mercy killing is on the mind of "old man Maximum" too. How will all of this work out? Watch and find out.Even though all of the characters in this film are basically "good people" with good intentions, you could almost classify this one as a noir, because there are no easy answers, no possible way to a happy ending. I've seen a restored version of this film on Turner Classic Movies in the last year, so I wish Universal would find some way to get it out to the public. The questions the film raises are still relevant today. Highly recommended.

This movie has fine acting, but the real interest is the moral question around which it revolves: can a man kill another to put her out of incurable misery? As you know, that's a question that is still argued, and probably more argued, today than it was, at least publicly, in 1948 when this film was released.The end, where the former letter-of-the-law judge, Frederick March, decides that henceforth he needs to consider intentions as well as actions, is very moving because 1) March was a fine actor, and 2) the background music opens our emotions.But 1) to what extent can the law take intentions into consideration when passing judgment on acts that break the law? 2) Why did the judge not talk about his intentions to end his wife's life with her and with their daughter? I suspect that would have very much weakened his case if it were to be tried today. The point is brought up briefly in one scene between the judge and his daughter near the end, but then nothing is done with it.It's a well-made movie, but it leaves you with unanswered questions that it doesn't do much to help you consider.

Fredric march is the stern judge here forced to deal with his wife's terminal illness. Interesting to note that at no time in the film does the term inoperable brain tumor spoken despite the fact that this is the problem facing Florence Eldridge, the judge's wife and real life wife of March.Our judge is forced to reexamine his attitude and ethics in this excellent moral dilemma. Eldridge is in fine form as the doomed wife and Geraldine Brooks is perky but on spot as the daughter.The ending may be viewed by some as a cop out once it is revealed how the wife really died. Yet this solution may also cause an ethical dilemma.

This is a rather masterful film with, I think, one flaw.First, considering it was made in 1948, the topic of euthanasia was not one often the topic of a motion picture. This film is definitely before its time (if we're even really at "that time" now). And, for the most part, the director handled the topic in a sensitive manner.The acting here is superb. Although Fredric March is not a name many younger moviegoers may be familiar with, when it comes right down to it, there were few more dependable actors during Hollywood's golden age...and all the way from silent pictures to 1973! My personal favorite is his role in "Inherit The Wind" opposite Spencer Tracy. He doesn't let us down here as a stern judge who commits (or did he) euthanasia. His wife here is played by his real wife -- Florence Eldridge (who appeared as his wife, and not, in several other pictures with him, including "Inherit The Wind". A very fine performance in both films, here as a wife facing a excruciatingly painful death. The third key player here is Edmund O'Brien, a terribly underrated actor, here playing a young lawyer who has come up against the stern judge, but who defends him because he is dating the judge's daughter.Stanley Ridge, as the doctor, and Will Wright have fine roles. I was not particularly impressed with Geraldine Brooks as the daughter, but no significant criticism. There are other character actors you will recognize, as well. Overall a very good cast.I mentioned that I thought there was one flaw, and it is the sole reason I won't give this film an "8". It's a very compelling story, and then in the very last scene -- March's mea culpa for planning to kill his wife to put her out of her suffering -- seems a little sappy, and perhaps whipped together to bring about a quick end to the film. And, it was pretty clear from the beginning that the stern old judge would learn compassion during the story. But aside from that, a truly fine film, and one I'm thinking of adding to my DVD collection when it again becomes available.Highly recommended!