Alfa W
Everyone was saying this was a film classic especially becuase it was seen by Martin Scorsee who adapted parts of if for Taxi Driver. Unfortunately it is not a "classic" compared to other Film Noirs. It looks like it was made on a lower budget than most. There are many errors in logic and the music has not been cosidered well at all more like one music stream for the whole film either "on or off". I had to turn the music off during some scenes as it was very distracting.
Although outststanding performances by all the lead actors its let down in the writing and just lack of experienced filmmaking. You could say its a B picture thats done well.
I also saw the 100% rating on Rotten Tomatos and its just not correct.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
11/26/24
Full Review
Glen H
Yikes. There's a reason this one is a "forgotten" noir. Very stylistic and does its very best to be "cool," but keeps prolonging the story into a repetitive snoozefest that really goes nowhere. Just poorly done. Anyone rating this highly is really just brown nosing. It's just not a good film, period.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
11/02/24
Full Review
Audience Member
I understand Scorsese's love for the film, who has impeccable taste in film, but this was definitely more style over substance where its short running time even felt too long. There are some interesting scenes for a character study, but it often falls flat with poor dialogue and questionable motivations. Wouldn't recommend it.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
09/03/24
Full Review
Audience Member
I chose a random movie on Tubi, and was not disappointed. I actually ended up liking this a whole lot more than I thought I would. The way we see him go from emotionless, to this sloppy mistake maker was brilliantly written. My only complaints stem from no soundtrack, and lack or any actual gore. Great writing, decent performances. 4.5/5 stars.
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
08/07/24
Full Review
Matthew B
When it comes to moviemaking, I do not hold the view that small is better, or that independent and low-budget movies are of necessity better or more imaginative than mainstream big-budget movies.
Still there is something admirable about films made on a shoestring budget that are far better than their low costs would suggest. One such example is Irving Lerner's film noir, Murder by Contract. Lerner is not especially renowned for any other movie. Most of the cast in the film are similarly undistinguished. The only familiar name is the main star Vince Edwards, and he is mostly known for TV roles, especially Ben Casey.
Lerner made Murder by Contract in just seven days. It was a B-movie produced in a rush on the cheap, and it was not a great success at the time of its release. There are no stars, and no special effects. The music score is dominated by a single guitar in a manner that recalls the zither used in The Third Man.
Lerner instead makes do with a short, lean story told with deadpan humour and a surprising amount of cynicism for a 1950s movie. Many important plot points are conveyed using brief minimalist images.
Yet somehow the film is more modern than many of the late 50s film noirs made at the same time. Vince Edwards plays a contract killer, Claude, who brings to mind the hitmen or criminals in the films of Godard, Melville and Besson. It is as if the French New Wave began in America, though that is not quite true. There are earlier films in France that anticipate that movement.
Lerner's film provides us with the cool contract killer who moves through a nihilistic world in which there are no real heroes or virtuous people. Instead we identify with our anti-hero's existentialist dilemmas.
We learn little about Claude. His personal life is mostly a mystery, but his deep concern with repressing his feelings may cause us to suspect an unhappy early life. He mentions having a poorly-paid job that he does not seem to like much, but details about this are vague. Claude also appears to have a low opinion of women, but it is unclear where this comes from.
The psychology of Claude then is hidden. He seems like a man with no personality, no feelings, no conscience and no attachments – a hollow man who is priming himself to murder other people in order to make a profit. He wishes only to make money quickly so that he can live a better life and move out of his small apartment into a much wealthier place.
Early killings are portrayed on screen with an impressive economy of style. Claude kills a man in a barber shop. We see the staff tied up on the floor, a rotating notice ominously saying ‘You are next', a customer sitting in the seat waiting for his shave, and Claude sharpening a razor. The killing takes place off-screen, but the grisly set-up means that we can imagine Claude's victim receiving a closer shave than he had intended.
The film codes of the 1950s dictate that Claude must die or be arrested at the end of the film, but in other respects, we are left without a moral centre in the story, since Claude is the only character that the film follows in any depth. Whether or not the audience likes Claude, they must identify with his particular problems.
While Claude does not show any conscience about his past killings, or any distaste for his work, there is perhaps a death wish lying under the surface, a wish to bring it all to an end. Rather than unthinkingly getting on with his work, he begins to make speeches about the nature of being a contract killer. "Have you boys ever killed anybody?…It's not easy, you know," he complains.
Claude also makes comparisons between his work as an illegal paid murderer and that of soldiers who are legally hired to kill others:
And what do they do to the guy that throws a grenade, fires a mortar shell, aims a navy gun, drops the airplane bomb, or presses a button that sends a missile 5,000 miles with a hydrogen warhead?…Do they arrest them?…Put them on trial?…Do they give them the gas chamber, electrocute them or hang them?… And what if he refuses?…They kill him for refusing to kill, right?
Gesturing at a shop that sells guns and bullets, Claude remarks, "Look at this place. Weapons for sale. A warehouse full of murder. And me, because I've got a business contract to kill one person, they label me a goon, a murderer."
These are strange words for a contract killer, and more philosophical than we might expect. They also set the killings of Claude in context. In a world where mass killings are required by law, why are Claude's modest murders considered so bad?
Claude is a product of the nihilism he sees in a society that is run for profit. Indeed he risks suffering the same fate as the soldier who refuses to kill. He too will be murdered by his accomplices if he does not carry out his hit.
Martin Scorsese included Murder by Contract in his list of films that he considered to be guilty pleasures. He was unfair. There is no reason to feel guilty for liking Murder by Contract. Perhaps a bigger budget would have allowed a few scenes to be developed more, but the film as it stands is a very impressive chamber work, made artfully and in an impressively laconic and sardonic manner.
I wrote a longer appreciation of Murder by Contract on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2022/04/10/murder-by-contract-1958/
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
08/30/23
Full Review
Audience Member
The acting was OK. But the direction was sluggish, the soundtrack pops up and disappears in strange places, and the story was about 30 minutes worth but padded out by 3X. It felt amateurish.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
01/21/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
