LeonLouisRicci The Unsung and Almost Forgotten Director D. Ross Lederman's Career Spanned Four Decades and is Awash in B's Filled with Mind Numbing Transitions while Compiling Sometimes Drastic Dramatic Changes in Tone and Presentation that Make You Pay Attention.In this One for Example, the First Act is Film-Noir, Completely Night Time, Shadows Lurking Everywhere and Sinister, Creepy Villains About. But when the Framed Man Escapes from Prison, a Reporter who was Exposing Corruption at the Highest Level, with His Pregnant Wife Along, Ends Up in a Small Town "A Democratic Town", the Feel of the Film Snaps into a Drama of Socialism where Payment for Health Care is Not Expected, and is Happily Included with a Place to Live and a Job.It is this Type of Jarring Juxtaposition that is Trademark Lederman. The Middle Act is Complete with a "Charmer" Child that Sings and Hangs About with a Negro Servant Given Many Lines and is a Good Friend to the Tantalizing Tot. Another Lederman Rule Shattering Flourish. Then in the Third Act Things Tense Up Again for Another Foray into Crime and Punishment when a Blackmailer Shows Up and Not Only Demands Money, but Wants the Wife to be More "Friendly". The Director Again with a Scene that Bends Hollywood Tradition.Sure the Ending is Abrupt and the Film is Not Wholly Realized and is Not as Successfully Rendered as Some of the Director's Other Entertaining and Hard-Hitting Quickies, but has Enough Against the Grain Goofiness to be Worth a Watch and Overall Lederman Showing Why His Movies are Not Quite the Same as His Hack Contemporaries.

dougdoepke A crusading reporter is framed, sent to jail, but escapes to make a prosperous life in a new town, only to be blackmailed by an old cellmate he's double-crossed. Despite the promising plot elements, the crime movie lacks needed grit, surprising for a Warner Bros. production. As a crusading reporter, Ames (aka Andrews) is much too bland to spark proceedings. Things pick up in final scenes, but by then it's too late. There's good support from McDaniel (Kit) and Harmon (Blake), but I'm with those who find blonde tot Hale on the annoying side. She's over-doing the aren't-I-cute bit. And catch that climax; it's like they had 30-seconds to tie up every loose end. I expect the production was rushed to accommodate burgeoning wartime audiences eager for escape. Now, I don't know about Dust Be My Destiny (1939), but the plot has a distinct resemblance to 1941's Strange Alibi, except the fall guy here is a reporter instead of a cop. A re-make wouldn't be surprising considering a speed-up on the programmer assembly line. Anyway, this 50-some minutes is easily passed up, especially if you've already seen the superior Strange Alibi.

blanche-2 As someone mentioned, this is supposedly a remake of Dust Be My Destiny which starred John Garfield. I don't know, since I haven't seen Dust, but if Warner Brothers remade The Maltese Falcon twice (actually the famous Maltese Falcon was the third film), they could certainly have remade Dust Be My Destiny. They remade just about everything else.Tod Andrews, who had a prolific TV career later, plays Ken Marshall, a reporter who discovers political corruption. If it comes out, it will ruin one candidate's campaign for governor.Ken is rendered unconscious, with booze poured all over him, and then placed in the driver's seat of a car that's sent down the highway. After an accident kills three people, Ken goes to prison. He is able to escape, however, winds up in another town, and builds a new life for himself, even getting a reporter job under another name. Then one day, an old cellmate shows up and blackmails him.This is an okay film with the big star being Regis Toomey. Someone mentioned that the wife didn't look pregnant up to the moment she gave birth. Back then, all a woman did was faint, and you were supposed to know she was pregnant. I think the censors didn't allow pregnancy to be shown, because if you look at movies like The Great Lie, the pregnant person never looked pregnant. As Lucille Ball said, "Today you can not only see that a woman is pregnant, but how she got that way."

MartinHafer According to IMDb, "I Was Framed" is a remake of the 1939 John Garfield films "Dust Be My Destiny". However, if you read the summary of the Garfield film, it pretty has nothing to do with "I Was Framed". I also saw the Garfield film and although a bit of the plot is the same, I cannot see that one is a remake of the other at all. However, for the life of me, I KNOW that "I Was Framed" is a remake (or some film is a remake of it), as I recognized so much of the film--especially the scene where the reporter is set up for a drunk driving arrest. I KNOW I've seen it...but what film?! If you know, let me know--I just know is it NOT "Dust Be My Destiny".The film is about a reporter who doggedly pursues criminals who are high officials. However, these folks are very powerful and very dangerous and Ken (Tod Andrews) is bound to get the worst of it. Yet he continues his one-man crusade until eventually the mob IS able to get him out of the way by framing him for a crime and getting him sent to jail. He makes his escape midway through the movie--and at this point the film fizzles. Instead of quickly working to prove his innocence, most of the rest of the film is a dull account of he and his wife hiding from the law...only to find out in the end that the cops caught the real criminal behind the drunk driving setup some time ago--but they couldn't find Ken to tell him until then! Huh?!The bottom line is that the film has some very good elements and is slick--since it's a B-movie from Warner Brothers. But it also is unsatisfying and the plot seems to meander--like it needs to be rewritten. Worth skipping but not terrible either.