Editor Reviews:

Product Description:
Heston and leigh are newlyweds framed for murder by a corrupt police chief. Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (mca) Release Date: 07/06/2004 Starring: Charlton Heston Janet Leigh Run time: 111 minutes Rating: Nr Director: Orson Welles

Amazon.com essential video:
Considered by many to be the greatest B movie ever made, the original-release version of Orson Welles's film noir masterpiece Touch of Evil was, ironically, never intended as a B movie at all--it merely suffered that fate after it was taken away from writer-director Welles, then reedited and released in 1958 as the second half of a double feature. Time and critical acclaim would eventually elevate the film to classic status (and Welles's original vision was meticulously followed for the film's 1998 restoration), but for four decades this original version stood as a testament to Welles's directorial genius. From its astonishing, miraculously choreographed opening shot (lasting over three minutes) to Marlene Dietrich's classic final line of dialogue, this sordid tale of murder and police corruption is like a valentine for the cinematic medium, with Welles as its love-struck suitor. As the corpulent cop who may be involved in a border-town murder, Welles faces opposition from a narcotics officer (Charlton Heston) whose wife (Janet Leigh) is abducted and held as the pawn in a struggle between Heston's quest for truth and Welles's control of carefully hidden secrets. The twisting plot is wildly entertaining (even though it's harder to follow in this original version), but even greater pleasure is found in the pulpy dialogue and the sheer exuberance of the dazzling directorial style. --Jeff Shannon

Rating : - Another Sorry Mess. Highly regrettable. Bad storytelling.
A big "Citizen Kane" fan in my youth, I saw Touch of Evil in 1981 and thought it was simply awful. Then recently I heard of this reissue, and thought I'd buy it and watch it again. I discovered that in our youth we often know what's right, but often doubt ourselves. The movie is still awful. It may be more true to Welle's vision, but it's still awful. His talent had gone, quite obviously, by this time.

Many of us want so desperately to find Welles' later work important that we'll do almost anything to trick ourselves into thinking it is. Most often men do this... women know it may quack like a duck but it ain't no duck. This movie is hard to watch, not credible, the writing is unnatural and stilted, the premise preposterous.

Yes, the opening crane shot is elaborate and done in one take. But a bit unnecessary. Lots of work to show a car bombing. And overly long and trying - like the entire picture.

This movie is really Welles doing an impersonation of himself. The pacing is deadening, it's hard to follow. It was written apparently for Welles to impress us with his filmmaking, not to tell us a story. There is no regard for the audience here. Like all his later films, this is like an overwritten book that is hard to read, rather than lucid storytelling. The film has no balance - each scene is trying to be a mini-epic, rather than an element to tell the story.

A movie, after all, exists to communicate a story. Some scenes do need to be visually loud and impressive, but they need to be contrasted with quieter scenes. Some scenes are just there for information - like the car bomb. In Touch of Evil, there is no thought to that at all. Every scene is a visual, bombastic overreach. It's as though Welles is trying to tell us, "This is art. Get it? Get it? This is art." Meanwhile the film leaves us angry, like we've been cheated. And we have been. Any Perry Mason TV episode is heads and shoulders above this, because the craft of storytelling is done well.

That's the form - now the content. Hank Quinlan isn't a very compelling character. We don't care much for him at the start, and could care less at the end when he falls backward into the water. Heston as the hero doesn't really behave in a believable fashion, he looks like someone playing a character in a film. Why is Quinlan blubbering over all the time, and for what reason? Who is the Marlene Dietrich character, and why is Quinlan sitting there at her house? (who cares? - what the hell is going on with the story?) All of you, if you're objective, will agree that there is nothing to care about in this film. And it's poorly crafted. The end quote: "He was some kind of man, etc..." Ridiculous. No one cares.

Welles was a hot fire who had burned into a smoking dead heap by the time he made this, and the movie is much like him at this time: overly indulgent, self centered, ineffective. For "Kane", those self centered qualities had meshed well with the story; Kane was fresh, bold storytelling. That's why it's so enjoyable, it does a very good job of telling the story. Touch of Evil is moribund, tired, wheezing for breath. Much like Hemingway's "Islands in the Stream", Touch of Evil gives us a sad reminder of what once shone as a great talent.

See "The Grand Illusion" or "Rules of the Game" by Renoir if you'd like to see truly great films. Even "Swamp Water" is a wonderful film. Not this.

The Italians say the best way to get praise is to die. Well, this film was almost immediately recognized as a classic once Orson Welles died. But it isn't. It was a mess when he was alive and it's still a mess. We all want Welles work after Kane to be good, and important because we want his accomplishments to fit this image we have of him: the grand, all-knowing, gregarious, misunderstood genius filmmaker. But almost all of his later work isn't good, almost all of it is terrible. Welles best work was him talking about his career. The actual films, after Kane, are really just pretty lousy.