No Way Out (1950) User Reviews (85)

Intelligent, Groundbreaking Film

[dragoneyez01 · 8/10 · 20 March 2005]

After watching this film on television a couple weeks ago (TMC is the best), I was surprised how obscure 'No Way Out' really is. However, I wasn't exactly surprised.

The film follows Dr. Brooks (Sidney Poitier), an ER doctor whose first real-world experience is as intern in the prison ward of a New York hospital. While on duty, the brothers Biddle (the older of which is played by Richard Widmark), come in following a confrontation with the police. Both suffer from superficial injuries, but the younger brother's health is declining rapidly due to what Brooks diagnoses as a brain tumor. The kid dies while Brooks is operating, feet away from his brother. The racist Ray Biddle soon accuses Brooks of murder, but won't allow an autopsy to be conducted on his brother to determine the cause of death.

Poitier turns in a great performance as the hard-working young doctor, who is debased by the hollow accusations of a bigot. They dig at his core and bring up insecurities that would be common to anyone in the medical field, but are aggravated by the pure hatred of Widmark's equally well-played character.

While the script borders on stereotypes at times, you have to remember that these stereotypes were very real during the time it was written. The writer does a fantastic job of adding depth, personality, beyond the paper figures. Brooks is a practical man, who supports his family and tries to not let the circumstances bring him down. Behind the veneer of hatred, Biddle is a deeply insecure and misguided man who has let circumstance blacken his core. Mankiewicz and Samuels do an amazing job at bringing life to a situation that was taboo for the time.

Aside from the competent acting and well-executed script, the film featured a moving and well-choreographed race riot that fully captures the raw hatred that can surface between groups of people who face the same everyday problems and circumstances, but are torn by one difference (color, or creed, or religion).

This is definitely a film well worth seeing. For its time, the movie was groundbreaking for its portrayal of both racists and their victims. While today the movie may seem tame, it undoubtedly struck some sensitive nerves during its release. The film deserves to be more widely known, if only for its content.

Solid entertainment. Can't wait for the DVD!

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 28 October 2005]

I heard a rumor that this was coming out on DVD in 2006. I hope it's true because this is a fascinating film. Actually, "shocking" might be a better word.

Bigotry is the main theme and there is no beating around the bush here. The "n- word" is used at least 20 times in this film in one form or another which is shocking to hear in a classic film. Richard Widmark plays the main bigot and he is fascinating to watch. Few people in his day could play the wild-eyed fanatical villain as well as he could (see "Kiss Of Death" for the best example).

This was Sidney Poiteir's screen debut and he looks about 16 years old! He looks too young to be a doctor even if he is portrayed as someone in their first year of practice. Anyway, with Widmark and Poitier, and a fine supporting cast with some famous names, you have a very, very interesting movie that is long overdue to be made available to the public.

To the film's credit, this shows bigotry on both sides: black and white, although it concentrates more on white against black. Linda Darnell plays perhaps the most interesting role because she is the one person who switches back and forth, unable most of the time to figure out what side to take! For those who remember the Naked City TV series, it's also fun to see Harry Bellaver in here, playing Widmark's deaf-mute brother.

This movie could easily be very dated.....but it isn't.

shocking -- then and now.

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 22 April 2005]

Cut up in various states including Pennsylvania, banned in the South for years, it's hard to see how this movie managed to be made. I'm not even sure they could do it now in our oh-so-sophisticated new century. The "N" word became taboo after it played such a prominent part in the O. J. Simpson trial. And the other racist name calling we would I think find equally offensive. "Sambo"? And others that aren't "obscene" by any dictionary definition but which people still wouldn't feel comfortable reading here.

Skipping over much of the plot -- Poitier is a doctor accused by Widmark of deliberately killing Widmark's brother -- the acting is fine on everyone's part. Poitier was one of the best dramatic actors of his generation. Widmark gives a performance that slides from paranoid wariness to hysterical hatred. There's never a moment when he doesn't seem ready to pop like a zit. Linda Darnell has never impressed me much as an actress, although she was a nicely virginal teenager in "The Mark of Zorro," but she delivers the goods here as a mature and embittered woman. The supporting players are all stalwart. Many of the faces are familiar. Even Jack Kruschen has a few seconds on screen.

If there's a weakness in the film it's the battle in the junkyard. It's well staged but overdone, with rabid white racists slamming bicycle chains against stoves, eyes bulging, shrieking racial epithets. We really didn't need it. The drama is in the interaction between the characters.

But that's minor. It's a well-done and courageous movie. The screenplay is brave enough to keep the African-American community within the bounds of human possibilities. They aren't saints. Poitier's grandma clearly hates whites. The black actors don't all look like fashion models, and the men stage what now would be called a "preemptive" attack on white bigots who have not yet done what they've planned to do. In the end, it's sensible enough to encourage our sympathy towards Widmark's insane and suffering racist criminal. Widmark winds up crumpled on the floor, bleeding and weeping abjectly from a mixture of hopelessness and self pity.

Wow, what a knockout

[Ripshin · 4 March 2005]

This film really surprised me, as I wasn't expecting something so raw and tense from 1950. The leads are excellent - nobody chews the scenery, as would be expected. Darnell is particularly effective. Honestly, being the cynical person I am, I never would have expected such an excellent film.

How this made it past the Code, I'll never know. The language and drama are intense. 1950?????? Amazing. What a pleasure to see Ossie in an early role...he's already missed.

Frankly, I rarely recommend a film. What a great experience....check this flick out.

An Early Poitier Classic

[terenceallen · 9/10 · 9 September 2004]

This movie, even today, stands out as one of the best, and most honest of Hollywood films dealing racism and prejudice. Good friends Poitier and Widmark are anything but as they play, respectively, a hospital intern and a racist hoodlum. The scenes between them are can be hard to watch because of the raw, uncensored for the time slurs spouted by Widmark at Poitier. Widmark is not redeemed at the end, nor is the subject of racism mollycoddled. It is a tribute to this film that its' existence bear witness to the fact that Hollywood has long been capable of portraying some of life's most unpleasant realities. This film is a bright spot on the resumes of all involved, particularly Poitier, who plays someone who is human more than noble, and Widmark, who puts a realistic face on raw, naked bigotry.

Linda Darnell Deserved Best Supporting Actress Nod

[ELSPENCE · 10/10 · 30 August 2005]

A lot has been praise has been deservedly given on this site to Sidney Poitier and Richard Widmark. I'd just like to give a few words of praise to Linda Darnell. She was an actress--usually dismissed as "ornamental" or "decorative"--who really did show little range in her Hollywood career, much of which was past her by the time she did this in 1950. Various sources give her birthdate as either 1921 or 1923, but whatever the case, she had been acting in movies since she was a teenager. Here--at either age 27 or 29--she gives a moving, sincere, deglamorized portrait of a confused woman. At first she wants to do right, then she does wrong by fomenting a race riot, then--realizing her mistake--tries to set things right again. And does it.

I think that she probably represents the average viewer of the period who did not quite know what to do about racial issues (as if we do today). Not naturally racist, she gives into Widmark after he wickedly questions her about views on blacks, making her turn to what she had probably always been taught.

Had Darnell been given the chance to give any more performances like this, she would probably have had a longer, more substantial career.

Why the Academy didn't notice her is a mystery, especially after giving a Best Supporting Actress nomination to Nancy (WHO?) Olson in the same year.

Tense Racial Drama

[Caroseli · 7/10 · 2 November 1998]

Although "No Way Out" looks a little dated in comparison to more recent racial dramas, such as "Mississippi Burning," "No Way Out" is still a very tense DRAMA. Poitier (in his first film role) gives a truly break-out performance, but it's Widmark who really steals the show. The riot scenes are beautifully choreographed, lending serious mood to the action.

Taking On a Life Of It's Own

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 13 September 2006]

Sidney Poitier made his screen debut in No Way Out about a young black doctor accused of 'murder' by Richard Widmark. Seeing the two of them you would hardly believe that they in fact became lifelong friends in real life.

The Biddle Brothers, a pair of white trash rednecks, from a neighborhood called Beaver Canal in a large American city, get brought into an emergency room with gunshot wounds. They tried to stick up a gas station and got caught. Sidney Poitier is a young intern on duty and he suspects something more wrong with the younger Biddle's condition. While doing a spinal tap his patient dies and the rabidly racist Widmark playing the older Biddle, accuses Poitier of murder.

No matter how off the wall his charges are, some people listen and some have to investigate. In Poitier's corner is his supervisor Stephen McNally. But Widmark manages to spread his poison and it results in a race riot.

Widmark is something else. Down to this day it's so easy for some to believe they're in a bad situation because someone else or some group else is somehow given preferential treatment. Widmark believes this and he lives in an area where it's taken as gospel. We've rarely seen a portrayal of hate as vivid as this on screen.

Hate whether it's individually or group directed can sometime take on a life of its own. Even when he's confronted with the truth about the ludicrousness of his charges, Widmark still won't let go. It's what's most frightening in No Way Out.

Linda Darnell is excellent also as the former wife of Widmark's brother. She buys into Widmark's hate at first, but she shows a capacity to learn. It can be found in most of us or there would be no hope for the human race.

Joseph Mankiewicz directed and wrote No Way Out. He was at the height of his career winning two best Director Oscars back to back for A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve. He probably didn't win anything for No Way Out because the Academy voters didn't want to give him everything at that time. He was nominated for Best Screenplay.

Sixty Six years later No Way Out is still a powerful portrayal of racism and its ugly effects on the soul.

still effective

[rupie · 7/10 · 15 October 2001]

A very effective and engrossing racial drama, with standout performances by Sidney Poitier and Richard Widmark. Widmark, in particular, tears up the screen with his harrowing portrayal of a pathologically obsessed racist; he is almost frightening to watch. The script keeps the action moving along briskly, in edge-of-the seat mode. Still effective, for a film half-a-century old.

A great film about racism with a ponderous title

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 11 March 2023]

I can't find any big studio films that concern themselves with racism prior to 1949, and this film takes up the subject in a very raw way just the year after that.

Dr. Luther Brooks (Sidney Poitier) is a resident in a hospital. He is assigned to the prison ward when the Biddle brothers are brought in, both shot in the leg trying to get away from the police after the hold-up of a gas station. But one of the brothers, Johnny Biddle, is incoherent and feels nothing when a cigarette he is smoking falls and smoulders in his hand. Brooks suspects a brain tumor and performs a spinal tap, but Johnny dies during he procedure. His racist brother Ray Biddle (Richard Widmark) declares that the doctor killed him. The state this happens in does not force an autopsy under such circumstances unless allowed by the next of kin. But that would be Ray Biddle and he really enjoys accusing Dr. Brooks of murder without any pesky truth or confirmation.

The supervising physician assures Brooks that he may or may not have been correct in his assessment, but that he most certainly did not kill Johnny Biddle. Meanwhile this situation has the potential of blowing up into a full fledged race riot with Biddle fanning the flames from inside of his prison hospital room. Complications ensue.

Today, a film like this could not be made primarily because of the language used, which is the language used by racists then and now. And that's too bad, because Widmark's no holds barred portrayal of Ray Biddle paints a very ugly and stupid face on racism, one that rings true even today. Biddle holds fast to his racism because he needs to feel superior to somebody else, and the Brooks family climbing into the middle class while he is left behind in the slums completely upsets his world view.

Without getting into details, this film has a high level of suspense and tension that carries it through to the end. I'd highly recommend it, just realize it is not an easy thing to watch.

Strong racial drama still packs a punch...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 30 August 2006]

RICHARD WIDMARK does nothing to tone down his performance as a nasty racist capable of making crude racial remarks to doctor SIDNEY POITIER in this stark, way ahead of its time shocker, a B&W classic that also gives LINDA DARNELL a role outside her usual glamor girl parts.

In fact, Linda is so deglamorized that she's hardly recognizable as the girl with the meltingly beautiful face who played so many ingenue roles opposite stars like Tyrone Power at the start of her career. She gives a hard edge, tough quality to her role and is most convincing.

But it's Widmark and Poitier who occupy most of the screen time, with Widmark as a patient at a busy hospital whose gunshot wounds need attention from doctor Poitier. The racial tension arises when Widmark utters curses and hostile resentment against being treated by a black man.

Daring racial drama still packs a punch today. Hardly a pleasant film to watch, but very hard-hitting performances from the entire cast.

Shocking

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 13 August 2020]

I didn't think it was possible for me to be shocked by a film about racism released in 1950, but I was wrong.

In "No Way Out," Richard Widmark plays an absolutely vile racist who spews the most hateful language I've heard in a narrative film in a long time. I found myself actually wincing every time he used some sort of racial epithet, which is frequently. His target is Sidney Poitier, the doctor who he thinks killed his brother while pretending to try to save his life. This specific story of racism plays out against the backdrop of a larger story of racist violence that occurs between a black neighborhood and the white trash enclave that has sworn vengeance against it.

This is a harsh, angry, bitter pill of a movie, and deserves to be rediscovered in our current climate of renewed racial outrage. I'd like to think Widmark's character is a bit of a caricature, but after hearing and seeing some of the people living in our country today, it would seem not. Poitier plays his role the way he played every role he was ever in, while Linda Darnell, as Widmark's former sister-in-law, creates the film's most fascinating character, a woman whose actual experience with black people doesn't jive with what she's been taught to think about them.

What I liked most about "No Way Out" was the way it refuses to condescend to black people and portray them all as too good to be true noble sufferers, the way other movies from the time period do. The scenes set in Poitier's household portray them as just normal people, painfully aware at all times of the burden of being black in America, but otherwise just wanting to go about their lives. The character of a black maid who works for a white doctor was one of my favorites in the movie. She has a warm employee/employer relationship with the doctor, and he even treats her at times like one of the family, but a word or glance she throws out here and there make clear that she never forgets the difference between them, even if he thinks he does.

"No Way Out" brought Joseph L. Mankiewicz and Lesser Samuels an Oscar nomination for Best Story and Screenplay in the same year that Mankiewicz won the awards for Best Director and Best Screenplay for "All About Eve." Good year for him.

Grade: A

Widmark Exceptional In Strong Drama About Racism

[seymourblack-1 · 7/10 · 17 October 2010]

This 1950 movie is a powerful drama which confronts the issue of racial hatred in a way which is far more direct and challenging than was typical for its time. It's provocative, forthright and didactic and infers that the root of racism is ignorance and that education is the solution. Some of the racist language used is deeply offensive and unacceptable in contemporary society, however, its presence here is relevant and strengthens the impact of the story and the film's "message".

When two wounded criminals who were each shot in the leg during an attempted robbery are brought into the prison ward of a county hospital, they're attended to by Dr Luther Brooks (Sidney Poitier). Ray Biddle (Richard Widmark) immediately directs a barrage of racial insults at the black doctor who begins to get increasingly concerned about the condition of the seriously disorientated Johnny Biddle (Dick Paxton). He quickly forms the opinion that Johnny has a brain tumour and administers a spinal tap. Johnny dies very soon after and brother Ray accuses the doctor of murder.

The inexperienced doctor is anxious to confirm that his diagnosis was correct and speaks to the chief medical resident Dr Dan Wharton (Stephen McNally) about getting an autopsy carried out. Wharton explains that this would only be possible with the consent of Johnny's family. Ray is unwilling to give his approval and the head of the hospital is also unable to support the idea because he's anxious to avoid any adverse publicity which might follow.

Edie Johnson (Linda Darnell), Johnny's ex-wife (who'd previously had a fling with Ray) is then approached by Wharton and Luther who persuade her to visit Ray to discuss an autopsy. Ray isn't willing to cooperate and tells her that she can atone for being unfaithful to Johnny by informing Rocky Miller (Bert Freed) about the circumstances of Johnny's death. Miller is a resident of Beaver Canal which is the city's white slum neighbourhood where Ray, Johnny and Edie all grew up and he becomes instrumental in a sequence of events which culminate in a major race riot.

Luther eventually forces an autopsy to be carried out by going to the police and claiming that he was responsible for killing Johnny. The autopsy confirms that the diagnosis and the treatment given were both correct. This outcome doesn't end Luther's problems, however, as Ray reacts by accusing the doctors of a cover up and then sets up a plan to kill Luther.

Richard Widmark gives a towering performance and conveys with incredible power, the sheer intensity of Ray's hatred. His fanatical rants and irrational outbursts of abuse are delivered with such force and conviction that there's absolutely no doubt about the depth of his character's despicable and malicious nature. Sidney Poitier is also impressive in his screen debut as a man who lacks confidence but also remains remarkably patient, tolerant and dignified in the face of the welter of appalling insults which are so consistently directed at him. Linda Darnell is also good as the conflicted and confused Edie who's naively used by Ray to trigger the race riot.

Whilst things have moved on a great deal since "No Way Out" was made, it still packs a punch as a potent and hard hitting snapshot of people's attitudes and the social tensions which they created in the early 1950s.

Good message, just not delivered the best

[blott2319-1 · 5/10 · 7 September 2022]

No Way Out is an unfortunately familiar tale of racism. In this case it's all about a hospital that is progressive for its time because they trained and employed a black doctor. But as one might expect (particularly back in the early 50s) there are some people who don't exactly appreciate it. Sidney Poitier plays the doctor in question, and as you'd expect he's brilliant in the lead role. I questioned a few choices that were made, but I think my issues with that aspect lie more with the script than his performance. Richard Windmark is appropriately despicable as the main antagonist. I utterly hated him from start to finish, which is exactly as intended, and I never felt he was exaggerating his performance too much. Not only do I think certain people would act like Ray Biddle in that situation back in that time period, I fear there are still people today who would do the same.

Easily my biggest struggle with No Way Out was either the script or the directing. I'm not sure where the blame should lie, but there are a lot of moments that felt clunky and awkward. Several of the supporting cast members performed like downright terrible actors, but it felt more like they were given clumsy dialogue to spout, or were not allowed to say things in a natural fashion. I also have to mention that the plot of No Way Out is just depressing and tough to watch. I appreciate that films like this one have been made because people need to have a light shined on the depressing cycle of bigotry, and how wrong it can be. Yet, while there is value in the story, I cringe watching it. I feel the pain of Dr. Brooks even if it's not something I've experienced myself. If the writing and directing lived up to the quality of the actors in No Way Out it would be worth the effort, but it didn't reach that level for me.

Refreshingly uncool - Poitier and Widmark at their very best!

[manuel-pestalozzi · 23 July 2003]

I watched this film soon after having seen the dreadfully stupid (but almost universally praised) American History X. The comparison does not make you very optimistic as far as the development of movies with a social message is concerned.

No Way Out is a very good story about racism - maybe the best ever told on screen. It is mainly set in a hospital, where black and white doctors and nurses - among other things - patch up people who bashed each other's heads in in race riots. Sidney Poitier is a very young, upwardly mobile doctor with high ethic standards, Richard Widmark a nasty, racist piece of "white trash" from Beaver Canal who accuses the black doctor of having killed his brother while under his care. This sounds pretty plain, but the screenplay succeeds in giving the characters real personal traits, and the actors fully live up to their task.

I have never seen Sidney Poitier better than here - and this apparently was his first screen appearance! The young doctor is, on the one hand, angry because of the racially motivated humiliations he has to endure. On the other hand, the accusations of the white bigot really shake him badly. He is having serious doubts about his abilities as a doctor because of it, although he is sure he did the right thing. In my opinion it was very wise to introduce these self doubts which are not race related. It makes of Poitier's character a well intentioned conscientious individual many people without regard of race (or gender or religion or whatever) can relate to.

Richard Widmark as the black doctor's racist adversary gives an equally brilliant performance. We see him here at his slimiest, meanest. He really is pure hate - yet even his character is more than a stereotype. His hate is propelled by an encompassing self pity which is really nauseating! This becomes most evident in the dramatic final scene. "Little Black Simba!", he shouts again and again to the black doctor like a moron, and the stupid taunting gets more and more pathetic. Then, badly wounded, he dissolves into a whimpering bundle and the viewer comes to the conclusion that the worst punishment for that creature consists in just staying alive!

It is my opinion that the ever more persistent culture of coolness will not make the world a better or more desirable place to live in. Therefore I really was delighted to see that No Way Out is refreshingly uncool. It addresses social and philosophical issues in a down to earth way. Unforgettable to me is the conversation between the girl from Beaver Canal, the racist's brother's former wife, and the black servant of a white doctor, the boss of Sidney Poitier's character. The servant tells the girl that in her free time she likes to invite friends and cook elaborate meals for them. That is a lot of work you're doing in your free time, the girl remarks. To this the servant says: I like doing it, and it makes me feel I am somebody. Outdated? Corny? What do I care! The statement is still valid.

It should be noted that No Way Out is not a story of different groups of people pitted against each other but a story about individuals who have to find themselves in society and decide what stand they are taking towards civilisation. The movie states that civilisation and civilised behavior is not something you can take for granted and that it depends on the choice of every single human being.

A still powerful race-conflict melodrama

[som1950 · 8/10 · 28 June 2002]

As in other 1950s films, Richard Widmark is very scary and Sidney Poitier very noble herein. There is little preaching in Mankiewicz's screenplay and it has splendidly filmed action sequences. The rap that Mankiewicz's films are "all talk and no action" is untenable (see, especially, "The Quiet Man" and "Five Fingers"), though the talk he wrote was often very incisive and very witty.

Notable for the debuts of Poitier, Ossie Davis, and Ruby Dee, this melodrama is of more than historical interest. It is a gripping, noirish tale of a nightmare experienced by a young black doctor. Although the ending is predictable, and Linda Darnell's character chances unconvincingly often and unconvincingly far (and her clothes are inconceivable for a drive-in car hop!), "No Way Out" is more than a historical curiosity. (And Mankiewicz deserves reconsideration as one of the directors who really was the author of the films he directed, up there with Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges.)

A film they probably couldn't make today...

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 26 September 2009]

NO WAY OUT is one of the best films about race prejudice that Hollywood ever made. One of the reasons this is so is because of the crude, evil and unflinching language used throughout the movie. If the movie were made now, it would most likely be sanitized--and that's a shame, as the vileness and stupidity of racism is diminished when film makers censor their message in order to avoid offending people. This movie is patently offensive--and because of that, it succeeds in telling a story that really packs an emotional wallop.

Sidney Poitier plays a young doctor who was unfortunate enough to treat two brothers who are thieves on the jail ward of the hospital. Unfortunate, because one brother dies (through no fault of the doctor) and the other is such an insane racist (Richard Widmark) that he is sure the doctor killed his brother--though it's only because Poitier is black that he believes this. In Widmark's view of the world, blacks are garbage and he gives this doctor nothing but hatred and disrespect. Even when it is proved that Poitier did NOT kill this patient, Widmark is determined to get revenge...one way or another. There's a heck of a lot more to the plot than this, but I'll hold back so I won't spoil the suspense. And, speaking of suspense, this is one of the tensest films I've seen in some time--it kept my interest every minute.

Some performances are worth noting. First, Stephen McNally plays one of his rare performances as a nice guy. Usually, he played heavies--gangster types. Here, he plays a fine human being--and I was shocked to see this. Second, Richard Widmark really did a great job. I know in real life he was a very liberal man and a champion of causes such as race relations. Yet, you'd never know it based on this venomous performance--he is one of the nastiest, if not the nastiest, racist I've seen on film. He gave a very ugly face to white supremacy--and showed just how sick racism is. As for Poitier, he was just great--as you'd naturally expect. I was just surprised that this was his first Hollywood type role--he seemed like an experienced vet.

I think, however, the biggest stars of the film are the screen writers (Joseph L. Mankiewicz and Lesser Samuels) and director (Mankiewicz once again). The screenplay was simply amazing--convincing, taut and believable. The direction was also first-rate--something you'd expect from the same guy who brought us classics like ALL ABOUT EVE and A LETTER TO THREE WIVES. One scene in particular that I loved was when the flare was fired. That long pause as everyone was just frozen before the race riot began was brilliant--many directors wouldn't have used the pause and would have missed this chance to build the tension.

A great film.

Great, then good, goes off the rails at the end

[HEFILM · 7/10 · 26 January 2016]

Great film nourish photography and grim world view in this film. All the performances are fine. Sparse music score is very effective and uses some tunes on a radio to good effect too. Approach to racial issues and poverty still seem true today in a realistic not preachy way. This is more film noir than political in nature--a major plus.

Darnel is a stand out. The situation is interesting. Racial elements still spark heat even today or maybe even more heat as the politically correct 21st century wouldn't let the racism be as raw as it is here.

My only complaint is a plot contrivance towards the end and then Widmark struggling with an over the top (writing wise) psycho coward villain ending that probably seemed a little fresher back then. It's not the actor's fault it's the concept and writing that just don't work.

It's kind of like they wanted a "thriller" ending and the film would have done better with a more personal or internal conflict than the melodramatic way it goes. Also I see from the trivia section that the studio forced a change to the ending and this hurts as well.

Too bad as it almost spoils a grade A movie. Still a film that deserves to be better known today, even if it stumbles in the final lap.

heavy duty stuff for 1950

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 22 January 2006]

"No Way Out" is an outstanding film starring Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier, and Linda Darnell, which deals with prejudice in a community hospital and the community in which it stands. Richard Widmark plays a wounded criminal whom the police bring to the hospital along with his brother. When his brother dies, Widmark blames the black doctor, Poitier, in what is apparently his first screen appearance. I can only say, what a debut. In an attempt to get an autopsy that will clear him of any wrongdoing, Poitier and his boss, played by Stephen McNally, appeal to the brother's ex-wife, Linda Darnell, to talk to Widmark and convince him to consent. When Widmark's version of the story gets out, the seething community explodes, and a race riot breaks out.

The liberal use of the N word is a little hard to take in this movie, and the blatancy of Widmark's hatred and prejudice is shocking. Widmark, who used to help out Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee in their various charity events, gives an astonishing performance as a wounded man both physically and emotionally, a man possessed by hate, rage, and bitterness. Poitier is excellent as a young doctor dealing with race in his profession, though he's fortunate to have a color-blind boss. It's interesting to note that a black worker in the hospital intimates that in order to succeed as a resident, Poitier had to take tests the whites didn't have to, etc. Poitier orders him to knock it off.

Although a star from the late '30s, Linda Darnell is only 27 in this film. She's deglamorized but beautiful, and "No Way Out" was made at a time when she was getting her best roles. She's marvelous as a down and out, frightened woman.

Although the genre has evolved since "No Way Out," this is a tough, tense, well directed movie that is well worth seeing.

Brave racial drama

[madmonkmcghee · 7/10 · 7 November 2012]

If you like your noir hardboiled and action filled, this may not be the movie for you. But if you can handle a frank and at times abrasive drama about racism and it's social consequences this movie has a lot to offer. At times the good intentions of the director and cast threaten to overshadow the storyline, but there's much to praise about the performances. Especially the antagonism between Poitier and Widmark makes sparks fly,and you keep wondering how this movie ever got made in the first place. Widmark's racism is crude and offensive and would never be put on a movie screen today. When you consider this was made in 1950, it's truly amazing this movie was even considered for production.Hardly a feel-good movie, it failed miserably at the box office. The usual explanation in such cases is that the movie was ahead of it's time, and in this case that's more than true. This is not a movie for couch potatoes, you need to keep your brain switched on for this one, but if you do, you will see a rich, rewarding movie.

"But I can't kill a man just because he hates me."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 9 February 2013]

Anyone here see "Django Unchained"? You recall all the controversy over the excessive use of the 'N' word and the blatant racism in that picture? I counted the 'N' word seventy seven times myself in Django but I'm sure I was distracted and missed a few. But now here's "No Way Out" from 1950 - that's over sixty years ago and I have to wonder what movie audiences were saying about it back then. I know I heard Widmark use the 'N' word repeatedly, along with a host of other colorful racial slurs like boogie, coon, black boy and sambo. I can't say that I've seen any film that predates this one to tackle racism on this scale so dramatically and effectively.

There's another possible connection to 'Django' that I'd like to bring up, but this one might be a stretch. Remember who King Schultz and Django were tracking at the beginning of the story? - it was the Brittle Brothers and there were three of them. Brittle - Biddle? I'm probably way out on a limb here, but it could have been buried in Tarantino's subconscious somewhere.

Well enough of that. Making "No Way Out" was a gutsy move for all the parties involved. Twentieth Century Fox head Darryl Zanuck decided to personally produce the film because of it's controversial nature. He got this young kid Sidney Poitier to portray the role of Dr. Luther Brooks, brand new intern at a county hospital prison ward. Poitier had been signed to do a Broadway play when this part was offered, so using that as leverage, tried to renegotiate his salary to do the play. No dice they said, thinking it was a bluff, and so a movie career was born that's lasted a half century.

Complementing Poitier in his breakout role include Richard Widmark as the uber-racist Ray Biddle, and Linda Darnell as a waitress from the wrong side of the tracks trying to make a better life after escaping a stormy marriage with Johnny Biddle, who's death triggers the conflict of the story. Now Edie Johnson, she marks her upward mobility by proclaiming "I used to live in a sewer. Now I live in a swamp".

Getting back to the racial component of the story, not only was it the language that jolts the viewer, but the actions of the characters as well. Widmark's character blows cigarette smoke in Poitier's face at one point while being treated for a gunshot wound, and later in the story just after a full scale race riot, an elderly white woman spits in Poitier's face in retaliation for her husband's injury. Man, I would have loved to been around for the decision making process to see how these scenarios were argued.

Personally, my favorite Poitier film is 1967's "In the Heat of the Night", but you can see how the template for his better known films was introduced here. Often cast in roles where he had to overcome bias and racial hatred, his characters have come to represent the best aspects of humanity by transcending stereotypes and blind prejudice. In that respect, "No Way Out' was somewhat a misnomer for this talented black actor.

Forward-looking take on race in 1950's America

[dongwangfu · 7/10 · 7 December 2010]

Whether you like Mankiewicz or not (generally, I find his films too melodramatic), this one is very worth watching just as a window into the past.

It was released in 1950, and gives a fascinating critique of race in America when Martin Luther King, Jr., was still in Divinity School. The resentments and misconceptions of the various characters -- the white hospital administrator who believes graduating black doctors will increase funding, the black elevator operator who believes black doctors have to pass tests white doctors don't. Then there is the depiction of racism as virulent, irrational, and pathological -- Widmark takes the bus to crazy-town and doesn't take a transfer for the return trip.

But the one character that holds everything together is Linda Darnell's Edie Johnson. She's the character who develops -- everyone else is basically static. She's a lot like Widmark's Ray Biddle. As a woman from the wrong side of the tracks, she's not gotten a lot of breaks. So she's prey to his "blame-the-negro" rhetoric. But the best scene in the movie is one in which she is in her apartment with Biddle's brother George. She hears a domestic dispute out the window, and maybe it is a coincidence, but it spurs her to action -- and the action she takes is the hinge for the end of the movie.

So while this movie had a lot of Drama (Widmark chews the scenery in a way the more understated Poitier is generally able to avoid), it was truly fascinating.

Poitier and Widmark

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 4 September 2019]

Luther Brooks (Sidney Poitier) is the first negro doctor at his city hospital where he gained respect as an intern. They bring in prisoners Ray Biddle (Richard Widmark) and his brother Johnny. Ray's racism is immediate and overwhelming. Johnny dies while Luther is working on him. Everybody suspects his failure other than his mentor, chief medical resident Dr. Daniel Wharton (Stephen McNally). He is desperate to have an autopsy to clear his name especially in Ray's eyes. It sets off a race riot.

It's Sidney Poitier's cinematic debut as a lead. He was in his early 20's. I actually love his natural acting style. He hasn't developed his standard acting yet. There is a simplicity and naturalness to his work. It's also pretty early in Widmark's movie career although he's already in his mid-30s. The future acting power of this cast is amazing. The director is respected Joseph L. Mankiewicz and modern audiences may know his grandson Ben who is a host on TCM. Quite frankly, the absolution of fake news is alive and well. Ray's disbelief despite all evidence to the contrary is nothing new in today's world. It's not as well known as others and that's too bad.

Painfully mediocre

[JurijFedorov · 6/10 · 28 June 2022]

I wanted to watch No Way Out (1987), but noticed that there is an older movie with the same name too. As Sidney Poitier had just died it would be interesting to check it out.

There are some proper scenes here, but there are a lot of painfully cringe scenes too as you'd expect from such an anti-racism themed movie that tries to teach you a lesson about why "hating Black people is morally bad". Now, with these older movies there are a lot of fans that look past all the mistakes that would never be forgiven in a modern project. Wooden acting, slow-paced plot, silly scenes, on the nose dialogue, nonsensical acts and scenes. It's decently structured to sorta be engaging enough if you are really bored, but not really worth your time.

Sidney Poitier plays a weak and timid Black doctor. Not really realistic, but fine enough acting. He tends to shout and whine a lot. Stephen McNally is really great here! By far the best thing about the movie as the White doctor who doesn't see race. Him not taking race into consideration at any point was just presented as a great thing which won't happen in a modern Hollywood movie. Richard Widmark is the criminal who wants to kill the Black doctor for treating his brother right before he died. He is over the top and cringe. Painfully bad performance that makes the movie a hard watch. He constantly repeats his silly statements about how much he hates Black people. The dialogue in this movie is extremely on the nose. Linda Darnell is quite good. She plays the ex-wife of the dead brother. Playing both the Black and White side from scene to scene as she is confused about what she hates or supports. It's a huge miss that she never really becomes a love interest or either Poitier or McNally. If she did the movie would be quite awesome and dramatic. I would have loved to see the drama unfold. Instead it's all about this silly nonsensical revenge and this plot is not nearly enough to last this long. The movie overall should have been 25 minutes shorter. The plot is weak and many scenes continue for way too long. Even after they explain their motivation we have scenes continue on forever so that they can explain it again and again. Not sure how stupid they think viewers are. But it gets boring after some time.

Now, I'm sure many will throw words like classic and great around. We always see enormous support for slow-paced B&W melodrama. But it's really not a good movie. Here are some of the silly scenes:

When the criminal brothers are taken to the hospital the evil brother is constantly being racist and even hits out at Poitier. Yet they keep them together in one room. So Poitier has to listen to abuse and hear the evil brother call him various racist names while he is trying to save the decent brother. The evil brother even tries to hit him. Yet they are NEVER split up. Of course the decent brother dies. Like, Poitier has no way to treat him fast and properly in that situation. And the evil brother of course blames Poitier and now wants to kill him. He also starts a huge fight getting more people injured all because he was forced to watch this treatment that ended badly. Poitier should have told the cops to remove the evil brother from the room. He was failing as a doctor.

There is also a scene where the White gang tries to beat up the Black town because a "Black doctor killed one of them". Also weird. So what's the plan? I'm not sure what the logic was here, but this stuff doesn't happen for a good reason. White gangs don't just try to attack Black neighborhoods like this. It would cause such a violent and destructive counter-reaction that the White town would turn into rubble. I feel like the writers should have been smarter about this. These actions made no sense whatsoever as they would lead to certain destruction.

There is a scene where a bunch of violent racist criminals are in the hospital. And their racist family members get to stand around and watch the Black doctor treat them. Obviously this infuriates them enough to take it out on him. Again, what did the cops think would happen? Why is the hospital stuff so ignorant?

There is a scene where the evil brother is cuffed to a single cop and only his deaf criminal brother is in the room too. They were 3 brothers. So 2 violent killers with one single cop. What do you think happens? Of course the deaf brother attacks the cop and they both escape. Why is security so terrible?

There is also a scene where the ex-wife is kept captured by the deaf criminal. She could turn around and shout for help at any point. And she often does turn around, but for some reason she never shouts even though the criminals already clearly explained that the deaf criminal would have to watch her mouth so that she can't scream. Of course the plot doesn't want it to happen so it doesn't. But when a solution is this simple and it's not used it's hard to take the film seriously.

There are just a ton of silly scenes that are in the movie to magically advance the plot even though they make no sense. Instead we should have had a real setting with bad mistakes happen. Not a silly hospital with stupid norms making it all fail. And not making the attractive female lead a love interest is a gigantic miss. That extra drama would have made the movie no matter who she fell in love with. As of now the movie just ends suddenly and we don't really know what happened to who or what will happen now. So what's the point of watching it? It feels like it's way too long so adding on that extra plot would fill the time properly and make it good overall. The ending could then also lead to something greater. The only thing I liked was the White doctor and then the 1950's setting. That saved the movie from being bad. But it's still not good.

Heavy handed Mankiewicz makes a stinker

[pocomarc · 1/10 · 24 December 2012]

A cartoonish movie by left winger Mankiewicz.

He lays it on so thick the movie becomes a joke at many points.

This lame attempt at a movie comes across like a fifth rate stage play.

The dialogue is tedious, overlong at several points, especially where one character talks too long without any relief in the form of response from the character he is talking to.

An example is the scene where the head of the hospital goes on and on and on in an early scene in his office with the white head doctor.

Widmark gives a cartoonish, cornball performance.

Linda Darnell makes the most of the material she is given.