MGM Produced Only a Few Crime or Film Noir Movies that were Above Average. Their Heart just wasn't in it and didn't Even Try Much Until the Post War Audiences were Paying More Attention to those Reality Based Movies and Rewarded the Grit and Edgy Films with Box Office Success. The Uppity Studio was Now On Board. Sort of.They Relegated Second Units and Hack Directors, Less than Premium Actors and Writers and Provided Them All with Low Production Values and Reluctantly Joined in on the Opportunity to Make Money. Most of Their Efforts were Unsurprisingly Average or Worse.In this Crime Procedural Walter Pidgeon and Barry Sullivan do Their Best to Elevate the Thin Storyline with some Gravitas. it does Raise this One Slightly Above Average with some Surprising Twists. But the Production Suffers from a Rushed Schedule. One Example where the Movie could have An Added Bonus of Realism with a Heart Stopping Scene would be to Film the Death of a Major Character that was Sudden and Powerful Involving a Hit and Run by Truck. These Pedestrian in a Hurry Movie Makers Chose to let that Action and Drama Occur Offscreen.Overall it is Definitely Worth a Watch for its Story of Corruption and Crime Unfolding in Front of a Good Hearted and Naive Lawyer that Finds His World View Collapsing All Around Him. The Way He Deals with it is Interesting and a Bit Different for this Type of Thing.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes the higher expectations you have for something, the more disappointed you are when those expectations are not achieved. I had high expectations for this film simply because Walter Pidgeon was a very fine actor, and a role as a lawyer seemed a natural him, particularly at this point in his career (he also played a lawyer in at least one other film -- "These Wilder Years", with Jimmy Cagney). And, it turns out that Pidgeon's acting here is just fine. That's not the problem.The problem is a dumb script that couda been a contenda. Now, the script started out fine. Young thug is arrested for murder. A distinguished lawyer -- but not a defense attorney -- reluctantly agrees to take the case. He gets the thug off, but later realizes that the thug was guilty of that murder and probably of at least one other. In trying to figure out a way to get the thug convicted on another murder, he learns who the kingpin of corruption is in his city. And he (Pidgeon) stabs him to death...with the weapon that the young thug used in the first murder! Well, you know something, that's just too sophomoric a script device! It ruined the picture. When the young thug is arrested for the new murder, Pidgeon represents him again since this was a crime for which he was not guilty. But, the young thug is convicted, and Pidgeon decides he (Pidegeon) must pay the price...and still get the young thug to pay a price for the murder he did commit, but was acquitted of. So he goes to the thug's jail cell, gives him the weapon used in both murders, confesses to the thug that he was the murderer in the last crime, then turns his back on the thug and the thug stabs him to death...while Pidegon is reading from the Bible. Thus both murderers pay the price (since the thug will now be convicted of killing Pidgeon). Oh my god.Would someone really set up a situation that would allow him to be stabbed to death? Anything is possible, but this is pretty far-fetched.Admittedly, the writers of the screenplay made everything that happens possible, but so unlikely that it ruins the film.Nevertheless, there is some good acting here. Along with Pidgeon, Ann Harding as his wife puts in a strong performance. Barry Sullivan, not usually a favorite of mine, does very nicely here as the DA. Lewis Stone is just perfect as a judge, though some of the dialog he is given is questionable. Eduard Franz has a small but interesting role as the head of the crime syndicate. The one misfire, at least in my opinion, was Keefe Brasselle as the young thug (although ironically, there were many stories alleging that Brasselle actually had definite connections to the mafia).I still have a great deal of respect for the long acting career of Walter Pidgeon, but this film proves that not every role he took on was a gem. Maybe worth a watch one single time.

I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.

Prominent attorney Walter Pidgeon takes a murder case pro bono, wins an acquittal and discovers that his client (Keefe Braselle) was not only guilty but part of an extortion ring reaching to the highest eschelons of the city. Panged by his own complicity, he undertakes an investigation, stumbles onto the identity of the "unknown man" who heads the syndicate, and murders him.The ironies engage when Braselle is charged with this second murder and Pidgeon must defend him by pointing to the existence of another "unknown man" -- himself. Though somewhat short of urban grit and long on rhetoric, the Unknown Man belongs to the noir cycle less by style or structure than by its acknowledgement of the pervasive corruption of American municipal politics that came to light in the postwar years.