Cause for Alarm!

1951 "This Girl Is In Danger!"
6.4| 1h14m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 30 March 1951 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A bedridden and gravely ill man believes his wife and doctor are conspiring to kill him, and outlines his suspicions in a letter.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Bolesroor I've read the other reviews here and they're all completely correct: Cause For Alarm Exclamation Point is corny, contrived, nonsensical and an utter failure as an attempt at a film noir. It is also hilarious.Housewife Loretta Young is taking care of her husband George who is bedridden with a heart condition. He is SO bedridden that the very act of getting out of his bed- even to take a few steps to look out bedroom window- is worthy of comment and concern by neighbors and friends. His other problem? He's clinically insane and paranoid delusional- so much so that he thinks his wife & doctor are working together to try to kill him so they can make off with his insurance money and live together happily ever after. The entire story takes place in one day, in almost real-time, as George writes a letter to the district attorney fingering his wife and doctor should any tragedy ever befall him. Faithful, loving wife Ellen (Loretta Young) mails said letter unaware of its contents and that's where the real fun begins. George tells her what he wrote and then conveniently dies of his magical mystery heart disease, leaving Ellen in frantic pursuit of the incriminating letter. The obstacles she encounters as she tries to get the letter back (nosy neighbors, a meddling Aunt, a neighborhood kid who thinks he's a cowboy) are nothing compared to the ultimate bureaucratic nightmare of suburbia: the post office.Cause For Alarm! is unintentionally hilarious, almost an "Airplane!" take on film noir movies (The Postman Always Whines Twice) and will have you laughing yourself silly at the unbelievable circumstances that have Loretta Young changing clothes and putting on makeup with her dead husband five feet away so she can look presentable in front of the Postmaster. If you're looking for serious, gripping film noir you should look elsewhere, but if you're looking to laugh at a movie that doesn't seem to realize how absurd it is check out this little gem.And don't forget to put proper postage on all your outgoing mail.GRADE: B+
arfdawg-1 Invalid George Jones is both physically and mentally ill. He mistakenly believes his wife Ellen and his doctor are having an affair and also planning to kill him. He writes a letter to his lawyer detailing their alleged murder plot. After he has Ellen give the letter to their postman, he reveals its contents to her and then threatens her with a gun. The excitement proves to much and George suffers a fatal collapse. Now Ellen must find a way to retrieve the incriminating letter. Lana Turner is sort of miscast in this film and the entire movie is directed like a TV film.One BIG problem I had watching it is that the transfer print, although crisp was wobbly.It's likely the negative was warped and it didn't make a good print.
MartinHafer "Cause for Alarm" is a great story idea. Unfortunately, so much was wrong with the execution of the idea that it really lost my interest well before the film ended.When the story begins, Loretta Young plays a woman whose husband (Barry Sullivan) is bed-ridden with a heart condition. She is exhausted caring for him—particularly because he is NOT an easy patient. He is demanding, paranoid and losing his mind. The doctor who visits the home to see him can see this but the wife resists having him institutionalized or putting him into the care of a psychotherapist. Here is where the story gets VERY interesting—the husband is so paranoid that he's imagined his wife is having an affair with his doctor AND he's sent a letter to the District Attorney saying that his wife is trying to kill him. This is a neat idea—as it is when he then confronts her and tries to kill her—and he ends up dying of a heart attack in the struggle! But, what happens next really, really irritated me. Instead of calling to report this, she tries throughout the rest of the film to get that letter that she put in the mail for her husband earlier that day. And, during all this time, she behaves VERY guiltily and gives everyone reason to doubt her sanity or think she DID kill her husband. This is clearly a case of very bad writing—as the character and Miss Young's performances seemed weird and unbelievable. Additionally, although the story was a great idea, it seemed more appropriate for a short film or episode of a TV anthology series (like "Alfred Hitchcock Presents") as the plot wasn't enough to carry a 73 minute film. All in all, a great example of a great story idea that is poorly executed….very poorly executed. No one is THAT stupid and the film loses steam because of this.
mikeolliffe Despite the above summary, I have mixed feelings about this movie. It's annoying in that with a single action or a couple of sentences, the protagonist (Loretta Young) could have resolved the mess she's in. But then you wouldn't have a movie. As for doing dumb things, who is to say what any of us might do if faced with the situation confronting Ms. Young? I agree with reviewers who feel that Barry Sullivan's character makes too abrupt a jump from airman to bed-bound psychotic. (Could be the fault of editing, the script, or director). Would audiences back then have assumed that his mental condition might have been caused by wartime trauma? MGM got away with a couple of suggestive scenes. One involved dialog concerning making love on an empty/full stomach. Hitchcock and his North By Northwest writer liked that one so much they tried to have Eva Marie Saint say it to Cary Grant on the train a few years later. They actually did shoot it that way, but were forced to over-dub a more innocent phrase. (Can't fool lip-readers, however!) Some reviewers suggest that the sick Sullivan may be correct in his assumptions about his wife and their doctor and that the narrator's (Young) version of events --showing their innocence--is unreliable.In that case, the narrator needn't have even mentioned the husband's suspicions.Those reviewers cite the doctor's burning of the incriminating letter as support for that theory. But why should the couple hand the letter over to the law when they could better spend the time upstairs (in the other bedroom) for some afternoon delight?