Agrega una trama en tu idiomaWhen his child is hit by a car, a writer of thrillers is desperate to avenge his death and goes in search of the murderer.When his child is hit by a car, a writer of thrillers is desperate to avenge his death and goes in search of the murderer.When his child is hit by a car, a writer of thrillers is desperate to avenge his death and goes in search of the murderer.
Narciso Ibáñez Menta
- Felix Lane
- (as Narciso Ibañez Menta)
Nathán Pinzón
- Carpax
- (as Nathan Pinzon)
Jesús Pampín
- Inspector Blount
- (as Jesús Pampin)
Ricardo Argemí
- General Dixon
- (as Ricardo Argemi)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaNicholas Blake, the author of the source novel, is the pen name for Cecil Day-Lewis, the father of Daniel Day-Lewis.
- ErroresIn the montage sequence, Martie salutes with his left hand, showing that the negative must have been reversed.
- Citas
Linda Lawson: What are you implying?
Carpax: Nothing. That escapade at my house. You and Rafferty were "playing around."
Linda Lawson: Let me tell you, that wasn't "play." Rafferty was always a beast. He never left me alone, although I was his wife's sister.
- ConexionesReferenced in The 3 Faces of M (2022)
- Bandas sonorasHome! Sweet Home!
Music by H.R. Bishop
Opinión destacada
Don't get me wrong, I love classic cinema. Hawks, Ford, Wilder, Hitchcock, you name it.
But the fact that a film is old, in black and white and with good photography doesn't mean that it's good. The way this film is put together is representative of a very naive and simple-minded way of storytelling.
The main culprit (though not the only one), is the script. Characters are not believably defined, it's all broad strokes. The main concern is the plot, instead of the humans that make it move. And the structure, while risky, has its problems too.
I can offer some examples of this:
1) When the hero woos Linda, there is nothing playful about the way he does it. Instead, he merely overflatters her. He makes himself look silly, in no way charming. This man is supposed to be intelligent.
2) Later in the film, when Rattery mistreats Linda, who is supposed to be the hero's girlfirend, he witnesses it and does nothing about it. And Linda basically accepts it.
3) At the beggining of the movie, we have a scene between a lawyer, called Nigel, and his girlfriend. It's a very long scene whose only purpose is to give us plot information. The girlfriend is never seen again, and the Nigel character is almost irrelevant to the plot.
There's good cinematography here and there, but the technique at times is also quite clumsy. There is a scene where a woman is shaking up a child, and the way it's shot and edited, it feels completely awkward. In some shots the child doesn't move but shouts off-camera, and the scene feels unreal.
Most of the performances are very broad, a lot of the times the plot moves via uninteresting and unsubtle dialogue, and the characters are simply not clearly defined. Rattery is simply a very bad person, there's very little that we can say about him, aside from that. And the hero is, well, a perfect guy: smart, elegant, well-natured... There are no nuances, no moral ambiguites, nothing. So it all plays like an old fashioned mystery stage play, where everything is naive, dumb and phony.
Ibáñez Menta, of course, was a great actor, but he didn't have a clear charater to play here, and as a leading man he's terribly unattractive.
But the fact that a film is old, in black and white and with good photography doesn't mean that it's good. The way this film is put together is representative of a very naive and simple-minded way of storytelling.
The main culprit (though not the only one), is the script. Characters are not believably defined, it's all broad strokes. The main concern is the plot, instead of the humans that make it move. And the structure, while risky, has its problems too.
I can offer some examples of this:
1) When the hero woos Linda, there is nothing playful about the way he does it. Instead, he merely overflatters her. He makes himself look silly, in no way charming. This man is supposed to be intelligent.
2) Later in the film, when Rattery mistreats Linda, who is supposed to be the hero's girlfirend, he witnesses it and does nothing about it. And Linda basically accepts it.
3) At the beggining of the movie, we have a scene between a lawyer, called Nigel, and his girlfriend. It's a very long scene whose only purpose is to give us plot information. The girlfriend is never seen again, and the Nigel character is almost irrelevant to the plot.
There's good cinematography here and there, but the technique at times is also quite clumsy. There is a scene where a woman is shaking up a child, and the way it's shot and edited, it feels completely awkward. In some shots the child doesn't move but shouts off-camera, and the scene feels unreal.
Most of the performances are very broad, a lot of the times the plot moves via uninteresting and unsubtle dialogue, and the characters are simply not clearly defined. Rattery is simply a very bad person, there's very little that we can say about him, aside from that. And the hero is, well, a perfect guy: smart, elegant, well-natured... There are no nuances, no moral ambiguites, nothing. So it all plays like an old fashioned mystery stage play, where everything is naive, dumb and phony.
Ibáñez Menta, of course, was a great actor, but he didn't have a clear charater to play here, and as a leading man he's terribly unattractive.
- sunsetboulevard16
- 19 ene 2022
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Beast Must Die?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 35 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was La bestia debe morir (1952) officially released in India in English?
Responda