User reviews

In my book, all true film-noir films are good in one way or another. There's just something about a post war film-noir thriller and "Roadblock" as as good as any of them. I guess this qualifies as a B-picture, but I refuse to see it that way. What I liked about it was how the femme fatal crosses over from being a gold digging ice princess to actually choosing love over money. She is played by non other than Joan Dixon who went on to appear in only about four other films. Too bad, I thought she was really lovely. Then there's the great Charles McGraw. He's just made for the film-noir genre and just about my favorite noir actor. Here he literally plays good cop/bad cop. I actually caught myself feeling disappointed that he was a good guy who went wrong. For me, it had a great feel. The cinematography was done by Nicholas Musuraca who had one Oscar nod to his credit. A top camera guy is always as big in a noir as any of the on-screen actors. At under 75 minutes it certainly doesn't wear out it's welcome. If you love film noir, then add this one to your list!

BTW, I had recorded "Roadblaock"on DVD and just watched it yet again. Over two years later, my original review still stands. I watch it every time it's on TCM and I love it more and more. Along with Jack Carson, Charles McGraw is one of my very favorite "second tier" actors and "Roadblock" will always be a film that I'l urge others to seek out.

Oh, one last thing, "We Don't Have Your Size!"

Charles McGraw was not the typical film noir sap. Shrewd, decisive, granite-jawed and gravel-voiced; his fall into darkness is sometimes hard to stomach - it's more like a plunge. He's disgusted with himself for having the same lousy weaknesses as all the shlubs he's investigated. And when his transformation is complete and his every thought and action is ruled by his mushrooming greed and lust, his hitting rock bottom is like a small earthquake. You wait for the aftershocks.

This is a modest crime film that comes at the tail end of the noir cycle (and it was undoubtedly shrugged off by audiences at the time) but viewing it today 50 years after its release allows one to judge it with fresher eyes. It's brisk, surprisingly well-plotted and boasts that signature blunt dialogue that's like boxers exchanging jabs. As the femme fatale, Joan Dixon does little more than purse her lips and act icily alluring, but that's enough. As a big-time racketeer, Lowell Gilmore is ironically (or intentionally?) so unthreatening and personable that his eventual fate seems richly undeserved. And as in many of the best noir films, there is an almost choreographed pivotal moment (like a complicated dance step) where the star-crossed lovers both shift gears, switch course and unwittingly cement their fates.

Plainly and efficiently directed by Harold Daniels, there are a couple rough transitions and slip-ups where information that should be being conveyed between characters isn't (partially undermining final dramatic showdowns) but still a fine B picture. And what noir film would be complete without someone shouting a line like "You haven't got a chance! You've been in this business long enough to know that!"

Billed as the story of an insurance investigator who goes crooked to please his femme fatale but there the similarity with "Double Indemnity" ends.

No twists or turns, no subtleties, this story is told as it is. A plain straightforward account that becomes almost predictable as the plot slowly unwinds from one situation to the next inevitable one. Nevertheless it's good yarn and well worth seeing. Better than your average B film. The outdoor footage gives a good impression of LA circa 1950. Ends with a thrilling police car chase on the LA river(?) and the villain ? ....... we'll you'll have to see it yourself.

This is a typical film noir of the period and , in my opinion, this is no bad thing. It follows all the typical patterns of a hundred other B-movies of a similar type of it's day. Shadowy photography, good man laid low by the femme fatale, a few seedy gangsters thrown in, all the ingredients are there. If you're not a big fan of noir then you might switch off after 30 minutes exclaiming that "I've seen it all before", and you'd be right. Personally I love the genre and thought this was a competently made movie with good performances by the leading actors. McGraw is perfect as the law-abiding detective seduced into lawlessness by the siren of the piece (Dixon).

If you like film noir check ROADBLOCK out. If you don't then maybe this movie's not for you.

This is a slight little B movie that's entertaining nevertheless. Insurance investigator Joe Peters (Charles McGraw) meets hot number Diane (Joan Dixon) and decides he's going to have to do something desperate to keep her in the lifestyle she wants to become accustomed to.

Milburn Stone (Gunsmoke's Doc) has a small role as a detective.

"Detour" is far more famous. And it's probably better. But this strange little movie moves as inexorably to a terrible end as "Detour" does.

Charles McGraw was an excellent actor. He is fine here as "Honest Joe" Peters. He encounters Diane, a woman he never ought to have encountered, on a plane ride. He is a straight-arrow insurance investigator. She is looking for a rich man. She knows he isn't rich and she is not really painted as a villain.

Joan Dixon plays Diane in a deadpan manner. She is pretty and has a soft, rather high voice. Maybe she was someone's idea of an Elizabeth Taylor lookalike. There are similarities.

Everything is understated. Yet it's a tough movie. And it's powerful, and sad.

Charles McGraw and Joan Dixon face a "Roadblock" in this 1951 film also starring Milburn Stone of "Gunsmoke" fame and Lowell Gilmore. McGraw is Joe Peters, an insurance detective who meets a beautiful, sexy woman, Diane, while traveling home by airplane after a case. The whole airplane thing was interesting in itself - spouses could fly half-price, I guess (as the Dixon character claims she and Joe are married so she can do so - she didn't have to show ID either). And though it still happens, it's less common to board from outdoors today.

Joe falls hard for Diane, but she isn't interested - he's not in her league. She wants someone who will spend big money on her. One night, Joe sees her in a club where he's on an investigation, and she's with the biggest mobster in town, Kendall Webb (Gilmore). Eventually, Joe's and Diane's passion get the better of them. Webb warns Joe that Diane's enamored state of being in love with a poor man is just temporary - once the bloom is off, she'll go for the money again. Joe decides to go into partnership with Webb and steal $1.4 million that's scheduled to be on a train.

McGraw, who had a big career in television until a few years before his death in 1980, is a solid noir actor - tough and good-looking. The character of Diane, however, is the one to watch. Dixon, helped by the script, gives her many layers and leaves you wondering (though you do know the answer) - was she a big chiseler or did she really care?

"Roadblock" is good and interesting if implausible - Joe gets himself in deeper and deeper. It's hard to believe he would turn that dramatically that quickly. It's a minor point in a way because it's still an atmospheric noir.

Joe Peters (Charles McGraw) is a no-nonsense insurance investigator. He unwillingly gets involved with chiseler Diane Morley (Joan Dixon). Later, he's investigating suspect Kendall Webb (Lowell Gilmore) who happens to be Diane's man. He has fallen for her and willingly corrupts his morals.

The story is told in a straight and narrow fashion like Joe's initial character. His downward slide is just as straight. There is a coldness to the stiff telling. It does have a car chase through the Los Angeles river bed. I wonder if it's the first or at least one of the first. It's also quite an epic walk off to end the film.

Drop a laurel wreath on Charles McGraw's huge, sculptural head – you can almost see it in the Greco-Roman wing of a museum, perched atop a pedestal. He was one of the noir cycle's most serviceable pieces of furniture, along with Raymond Burr and Elisha Cook, Jr. Most often he lurked in the murky background, but sometimes, most memorably in The Narrow Margin, he stayed front and center. He also shuttled uncomplainingly between the underworld and the keepers of law and order. Starring in Roadblock, he tries to straddle both worlds.

This no-frills noir opens with a tease: McGraw stages a murder, then abducts a witness whom he manipulates into buying his way out of certain death with the loot from a bank job. But the movie is setting up McGraw as a straight-arrow insurance investigator who'll stop at nothing to achieve his goal.

Until he crosses paths with Joan Dixon, that is. A crafty gold-digger, she finds him sweet but `honest;' she's saving her sexual artillery for more affluent game, which she finds in a smooth racketeer (Lowell Gilmore). But McGraw can't get her out of his blood and, knowing that furs and jewels are the path to her mercenary heart, strikes up a deal with the mobster. He offers him a million-and-a-quarter, insured by his company, which he knows will be traveling by train; if Gilmore pulls the job off, McGraw will settle for $400 grand.

The irony – and the script's least convincing turn – is that Dixon falls for McGraw anyway and renounces her grasping ways. (Not only does this ring false, it also makes her far less arresting a character.) Despite second thoughts, McGraw gets his share of the take. Then, naturally, he's assigned to the team of investigators trying to crack the case....

Harold Daniels, who had a brief and largely undistinguished career as both actor and director, keeps the action swift and simple – it races down an hour-plus of highway until it reaches its titular roadblock. The movie goes down as easily and satisfyingly as a hot dog and a beer.

Charles McGraw is an honest investigator for an insurance company. Then he meets Joan Dixon, a girl who has been through the mill and wants what she can get. Time goes on, and McGraw sees he has a chance with her. He devises a plan to put serious money in his pocket, and sells it to crime planner Lowell Gilmore for a third of the take. However, Dixon has changed, and she now wants only McGraw; McGraw tries to back out, but Gilmore convinces him that yen for the good things doesn't go away permanently.

If any actor was made for film noir, it was McGraw, with his menacing bulk and gravelly voice. This, however, is a straight crime drama, and a cheaply shot one at that; the big heist takes place offscreen while he and Miss Dixon are honeymooning in the mountains. The big scene is the one in which McGraw beats up a suspect who, Gilmore has told McGraw, will clam up when the rough stuff is tried. Even so, it's a well done crime drama about the psychology of the bad guy, and McGraw is well cast. With Louis Jean Heydt, Milburn Stone, and Franklyn Farnum.

Are you tired of getting misinformation about "film noir" from people who think they know what they are talking about, but are clearly clueless on the concept? Most everyone has heard the term and most have a vague idea that it refers to a group of shadowy crime dramas (principally produced by Hollywood) from the 1940's and 1950's which include corruption as their main thematic element and sex as an audience draw. The shadowy cinematography grew out of a visual style that characterized German Expressionist cinema (realism that was not so much real as it was exaggerated).

For most producers of these films, it was an unconscious style only identified by film historians in retrospect. Which means that any effective definition must be rather loose and most style inconsistencies simply accepted. It is broader than many realize, going from Billy Wilder (actually from the German cinema) stuff like "The Lost Weekend", to classic Chandler adaptations like "The Big Sleep", to Welles' "Touch of Evil". By accepted definition it stays in the crime genre (private eyes, police, social problems) but could sometimes cross into other genres.

So just in case there is any confusion, "Roadblock" (1951) is clearly an example of "film noir", not just a good example of the style but a surprisingly entertaining film. It's a low-budget understated picture whose technical flaws and modest resources ironically enhance its most compelling feature, the distance of the self-discovery journey its two main characters traverse during the course of the story. What makes this spellbinding is that they begin on opposite extremes, move toward each other and then keep going until they actually end up beyond the other's starting position. To package a story of such a grand human scale, inside a modest little package, actually makes the story even more compelling as it adds to its allegorical theme and exaggerated expressionistic element.

Joe Peters (Charles McGraw-a completely nondescript leading man) begins the story as a Joe Friday ultra straight arrow insurance investigator. He and his partner (Louis Jean Heydt) open the film with an ingenious ploy to force a robber to reveal the location of some stolen money for which their company is on the hook.

Honest and ethical as the day is long, Joe at first seems drawn to strikingly beautiful femme fatale Diane (Joan Dixon) more by a sense of protectiveness than because of any physical attraction. Which is part of the genius of the casting, as McGraw was in his late thirties and Dixon had just turned 21.

They first meet when Diane scams the airline for a half price first class ticket by claiming to be the wife of Joe Peters; revealed to Joe only after they are seated together on the plane. She is headed from Ohio to Los Angeles, where she intends to use her feminine charms to move up in class. Over the course of the first half of the film there are flirtatious advances by each of them, ending with the other saying "it takes two". But ultimately they connect and get married only to discover that in their movement to the center they have passed the point of intersecting belief systems and actually switched places.

The young Dixon holds her own with McGraw and they effectively navigate the demands of playing characters whose principle characteristic is behaving out of character (huh?).

Also well written are the elements surrounding the investigation of the train robbery which is solved by good plausible detective work rather than by a lucky break or an illogical character development.

The last 20 minutes is a disappointment, as the film becomes a standard fugitive drama with no interesting twists. The device that leads to Joe's undoing has no symbolic significance inside the story and unlike the best of these things was not revealed in such a way that you could have foreseen its significance at the time it was first introduced. The low budget actually starts working against the production at this point as they stage some really lame car crash and chase sequences; finally ending up in the Los Angeles riverbed (a staple of 1950's productions-insert "Them" here). It does however provide a nice backdrop for the great closing shot (the shot they go out on), much like the way Polanski ends "Chinatown".

The car crash that Joe stages to cover his tracks is a brief bit of stock footage that bears no relationship to the setting or vehicle he sets up for the crash. This is inexplicable given that we are not talking about anything that would have taken a huge budget to stage realistically, and the producers missed an opportunity to showcase something visually interesting.

The weakest thing is crime boss Kendall Webb (Lowell Gilmore), a finishing school, smoking jacket style crime boss who at one point waxes on nostalgically about growing up juvenile detention facilities. You have to wonder why they didn't simply alter the script a bit to give Gilmore lines that were at least vaguely consistent with the way in which the director was having him play his character. If not it should have been trimmed during the editing process. Speaking of editing, watch for the glaring jump cut when Joe and Diane are talking to each other on the plane. If the production crew failed to get adequate coverage the editor should have cut-away to an ashtray or something; even a few frames of black would have been better than what was actually assembled.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Roadblock is the story of PI Charles McGraw who's a clever but honest detective on retainer for an insurance company. Circumstances on a return flight to his home base in Los Angeles throw him together with Joan Dixon who makes no mistake about the fact she's high maintenance.

What to do to win her was throw in with well known but untouchable crook Lowell Gilmore to do a heist on a mail train carrying lots of untracealbe currency. No fence means they take it all.

Of course as things happen stuff goes wrong and McGraw in the end becomes a hunted man. Situation similar to the Humphrey Bogart faced in High Sierra with the law closing in.

McGraw is fine in a role perfectly suited to him. Dixon's somewhat abrupt change of character is the main problem I have with Roadblock. It makes no sense at all.

Still some nice action shots and that final chase in the dry Los Angeles River bed is one of the best of its kind on film. Gives Bullitt a run for its money.

I love this movie. I almost fell out of my chair the first time I saw it, 15 years ago on AMC. I could not believe McGraw was actually given a role like this. So often we see him as the heavy with a gun, not a woman, and we certainly never see him in love. He displays the right amount of angst and regret in this movie. The movie,though not great,is an example of what McGraw could do when given the right material and good direction. Too bad he was not given more roles like this. I have always felt that if McGraw had been with another studio, i.e.Warner Bros. which specialized in turning tough guys into leading men e.g. Cagney, Bogart,Raft, he would have had a better chance at becoming a leading man like the aforementioned actors,if not a more recognizable presence in movies. He certainly COULD have had more LEAD roles in "A" movies. Anyway, the movie is predictable in that you know Peters is not going to get away with the money. What is surprising or interesting is that the movie doesn't explain how Joe and Diane end up together. In one scene she is telling him he does not make enough money and a FEW scenes later she is smashing glasses in disgust and then professing her love for Joe. The ending is typical of movies of this sort. But it is an interesting movie in that we get to see "MAC" demonstrate feelings, probably for the first time in his career-no doubt due to his being typecast. Joan Dixon is okay as the female lead but I don't think she was the best choice. I guess she was given the role because Howard Hughes was "interested" in her career and was trying to mold her into another Jane Russell. Milburn Stone, Louis Jean Haydt (excellent character actor), and Lowell Gilmore (wonderful in "The Picture of Dorian Gray") are on the mark in their respective roles. Peter Brocco, the criminal at the beginning of the movie, is used to good effect here. (He and McGraw worked together in the "Narrow Margin" and "Spartucus". In fact,you can see the two talking in the latter during a gladiator film sequence; McGraw's "Marcellus" is stooped down talking to Brocco's character when he rises to watch the gladiators train). Mercedyz

Charles McGraw plays insurance investigator Joe Peters who, in the opening minutes of the film, recovers 100K in stolen loot in a very novel way, showing his talent and zest for the job. Later he meets gold digger Diane (Joan Dixon) who makes it clear to him that she is not interested in living on a budget, but they start dating anyways.

Joe really wants to marry Diane, so he gives in to temptation and goes in on a big heist worth 1.2 million dollars with a well organized gangster using privileged information that Joe has about a federal reserve/bank fund transfer. Meanwhile, Diane decides that she loves Joe and doesn't care about his middling salary after all.... Information he could have used YESTERDAY. But the gangster in which Joe confided now knows the layout and he won't stop the heist, whether Joe wants to stay in for his cut or not.

This is a fairly entertaining film, with the pace being snappy and interesting, but the believability factor is just not there. Joe goes from honest working man to a thief who is willing to kill in order to cover up his crime just like that. The same goes for Diane's immediate transformation from gold digger to ideal 50s housewife material.

If Joan Dixon looks somewhat like Faith Domergue, there is a reason for that. She was one of many of Howard Hughes' actress/girlfriends on the RKO lot during Hughes' time as head of RKO, although she acquits herself marvelously here.

This drama is pretty run of the mill. Only two things make it a standout. One is one of the worst leading ladies of all time: Howard Hughes paramour Joan Dixon. Second is the cool chase scenes through the Los Angeles "River" (big drainage ditch).

All six stars are for the chase scene.

Hard to accept Charles McGraw as a lover but he pulls it through nicely. Good enough story for this above average B movie

Talented Daniel Mainwaring ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956)) co-authored this rather farfetched story of an insurance detective (Charles McGraw) and a cool vamp (Joan Dixon), who turns his head and heart. Hard boiled tales like this were common in the post-war years, both in B pictures and pulp fiction. Romance is not what we usually expect from ruggedly handsome tough guy McGraw, but he does the job, veering deftly from sap to hood. "Rafferty" a/k/a "The Beautiful Trap" by Bill S. Ballinger was the best example of this genre, but "Roadblock" maintains suspense and 73 minutes is not too much of an imposition: the climactic high speed car chase is worth the wait. The supporting cast and DP Nicholas Musuraca are more than adequate.

Film noir has always fascinated me and love many of them, most film noirs seen have rarely been less than solid and it takes a lot for me to dislike one or call them misfires. The interest point though for me, other than that the idea of the story was very promising and the film's title really does draw one in to seeing it, was seeing Charles McGraw playing against type. That was something that could have been an ingenious casting choice or an insane disaster, and was really hoping it would be the former.

'Roadblock' may not be one of the all-time great film noirs, but it is a very solid one and a very good film in its own right. Worth unblocking definitely and any reservations are completely thrown out of the window. There is an awful lot to recommend here in 'Roadblock', even if it is not quite perfect.

Joan Dixon is at times a touch too deadpan and the chemistry between her and McGraw isn't always convincing, though mostly she has the right amount of iciness and allure.

Most problematic though was that the film to me ran out of gas in the last twenty minutes and became too standard and not quite as thrilling as it should have been.

However, for a B movie 'Roadblock' is surprisingly well made. The photography effectively gives off a sense of foreboding claustrophobia and the suitably cold cityscapes are like a character of their own. The music is stock but not cheap stock, is used well, is not ill fitting and is not unpleasant on the ears. McGraw's lead performance is an unexpectedly layered and really quite excellent one, it turned out to be ingenious casting and he and film noir go well together. The supporting cast all do well, particularly formidable Lowell Gilmore.

The script is intelligent and has the hard-boiled edge one can associate film noir with. The story may not blow the mind, but it was suspenseful and had some very nifty and unexpected twists and turns which keeps the viewer on their toes and guessing. It's tightly paced and didn't feel over-stuffed or convoluted, with some nicely choreographed tense action. Especially the river bed shoot-out. Harold Daniels directs efficiently.

In conclusion, very well done film and should be known much more than it is. McGraw alone makes it well worth watching. 8/10

A Film-Noir That Seems at Times Constructed with a Bit of an Awkward Composite. Charles McGraw is Cast Against Type as a Romantic and Joan Dixon's Femme Fatale is Written with an Abrupt Change of Character.

Nicholas Muscara is Behind the Camera but it's Not His A-Game. However, Despite the Film's Inconsistent Flavor it Manages to be a Very Watchable Example, if Not a Pristine Example of the Genre.

The Theme is Noir For Sure. A Downward Spiral of a Good Man Gone Bad by an Infatuation with a Glamorous Girl's Temptive Allure. By the Time She has a Change of Heart, the Damage is Done and there is No Turning Back. That Aids the Cautionary Tale of Life's Many Roads to Take and Be Careful of the Detours.

Overall, a Good Example of the Genre but Perhaps Not the Best. McGraw and Dixon are Fine and the Story is Typical, but the Movie Lacks Style and is Pedestrian in the Way it is Cobbled Together. It Seems Inattentive at Times with a Distinct Aloff Concern for the Weight of the Material.

Still, it has Enough Going for it to Recommend and is Not Fully a Disappointment, Just Given a Little More Concern for the Film as a Whole it Remains Competent and a Contender, but Not that of a Champion.

I'm fast becoming an admirer of CHARLES McGRAW who did some nifty B-films in the '40s and '50s, usually as a granite jawed anti-hero with murder and mayhem on his mind. He does some of his best work here as a man whose greedy girlfriend leads him astray from his job as an insurance inspector. It's the sort of film you'd expect from RKO, the studio that seemed adept at turning out these smoothly produced B-films and giving them sharp-edged dialog in true film noir style.

I can't say anything too favorable about the choice of JOAN DIXON as the femme fatale who looks a lot like a cross between Ellen Drew and Ella Raines but lacks Raines' ability to get inside of a role. Dixon is a blank check as an actress. LOWELL GILMORE does a nice job as an equally corrupt man who meets his fate in a fiery car crash engineered by McGraw. It seems almost like overkill since he's not quite the villain the screenplay wants him to be.

But it's McGraw who gives the most truthful performance in this noir type of exercise. His steely gaze and powerful build give him the right kind of charisma for this type of thing. One can easily see him portraying someone like Dick Tracy, on the other side of the law, if the chance ever came. Instead, he spent most of his career as a hardened, bitter type, and as ruthless as he is here.

Summing up: Surprisingly good B-film from RKO that gives McGraw a chance to shine in the type of role he did best.

ROADBLOCK is a film noir B-movie that borrows a lot of the plotting and situations from the likes of genre classics such as DOUBLE INDEMNITY. The story involves a crooked insurance investigator who finds himself falling in love with a classic femme fatale. She's not interested in him, so he turns to robbery in order to facilitate her advances, but of course it all ends in tears. Doesn't it always?

ROADBLOCK is a workable B-movie but it's fair to say that the storyline is overly familiar and the execution is hardly the stuff of greatness. Charles McGraw is a dependable leading man type figure, but he carries little of the conviction or charisma of the likes of Robert Mitchum or Robert Ryan. Joan Dixon is better as the alluring love interest, but her character is rather sharply drawn and I can't help but feel more melodrama could have been made of the premise. As it stands, it's only at the high-speed climax where things start to get interesting.