Touch of Evil

A scrumptious noir starring the great Orson Welles in an unforgettable role as a cop with a genius nose for the perpetrator but a penchant for chocolate or possibly stronger drink. A perfect contrast to the sleek Charlton Heston with his Mexican moustache, young mistress and unbreakable moral compass. The magic is in the details and between the lines. Touch of Evil has been copied many times, but there will only be one original. (01/06/2023)

Touch of Evil is undoubtedly a film legend, and I could create a presidential campaign speech from the superlatives in the comments. However, Orson Welles is not a director that I will not criticize. To tell the truth, I have only seen The Magnificent Ambersons from him so far, and I haven't even made time for the legendary Citizen Kane yet, so I can confidently declare that Touch of Evil is more of a disaster than a great thriller. It certainly has its strengths, such as good camera work and the acting performance of Orson Welles himself, who aged and deteriorated unrecognizably for the success of the film. However, the screenplay, dialogue, and unfortunately, even the direction significantly sink the film, and it doesn't work at all as a genre film in my eyes. To be honest, I would possibly add comedy to the genres this film was categorized in because I constantly felt that the screenwriter and director simply couldn't be serious. But while Hitchcock intentionally lightened his thrillers with humorous scenes, here I feel that it's more about the charm of unintended humor. It is naive, detached from reality, and unfortunately, also boring. A film noir crime thriller should be built on suspense and surprise, but there was not even a hint of that here. It was a significant disappointment for me and I realized that I would never watch this film again. Overall impression: 40%. (31/10/2012)

Regardless of the extent of Welles's control over the final form of the film (or rather its various versions), I consider Touch of Evil to be his crowning achievement. In terms of its composition and narrative, this dynamic noir story about the fall of a police captain, told almost in real time and reminiscent of a horror monster flick with its cold-blooded action, appearance and method of shooting, is an exemplary model of “pure cinema”. Working with several plans of action, suggestive high-contrast shadow play, fluid tracking action and camerawork that responds flexibly to the changing positions of the characters (thanks to focusing our attention through the placement of the characters, changes in the size of the given shot and reframing, key scenes in the film can last several minutes without having any effect on the pace of the narrative), precise and frequently ironic and sometimes deliberately discontinuous editing – all of this contributes to the fact that the style not only draws attention to itself (without disturbing the realistic and, in places, even documentary-like veristic nature of a number of scenes), but mainly bears meaning, strengthens the story and contributes to an atmosphere of permanent danger from which there is no escape (even in scenes shot in large chunks, emphasising the isolation of the protagonists). The bleakness helps to elevate the antagonist to the level of a central and truly fascinating character. Conversely, Vargas and his mistress are relatively one-dimensional melodramatic characters who mainly want to break out of the limbo in which they got trapped due to the initial explosion (however important that is for the film’s liberal impression and its theme of the boundaries between various real and imaginary spaces, they are a mixed couple). Whether you see it for the first time or for the eighth time, Touch of Evil can surprise you with its violation of Hollywood genre conventions, stylistic ingenuity and the fact that it does not give the impression of being cold and artificial (otherwise, it probably would not have become a classic). There is nearly no single “ordinary” shot in the film (though it is very probable that this involves a pick-up shot over which Welles did not have control). I am not aware of many equally honest and engaging textbook examples of how to tell a story with images. 95% (24/12/2018)

A tar-black noir that Marlene made for Welles for a pittance. The production was very demanding, so it was necessary for everyone who was able to contribute. Marlene went about it in a fancy way - she just transformed her costume from Golden Earrings. The rest was swept away by history, and the almost director's cut didn't see the light of day until 1998. (28/07/2015)

"Come on, read my future for me." - "You haven't got any. Your future is all used up." The crane shots, low-angle views of a truly earthy nature, expressionistic elements, unnatural shadows creeping across walls and ceilings, and Henry Mancini's unmistakable touch in the musical score. The form is so grand that it might fit into Orson’s lobe, but what about the content, which shows the naturalness of Heston’s tan? Forget about it; even Quinlan’s lame leg had already felt that technical brilliance. (20/11/2023)