Edge of Hell (1956) User Reviews

People Are Loyal

[boblipton · 6/10 · 5 April 2021]

As a young man, Hugo Haas had been an actor, and an ambitious one. But he looked his booze a little too much, and he hadn't had the memory, so it was down in the profession, touring with a circus. Nw he is an old man living in a grimy basement with his dog, whom he has trained to dance on the streets for money from passersby, when the cops don't run him off. The boyfriend of one of the girls in his building gets him a job entertaining at a child's birthday party, where the dog is a hit, and the boy wants the dog; the grandfather offers him $500, but a man can't sell his friend, can he?

It's the book of Job, or perhaps a Sholem Aleichem story of a man purified by suffering in a dirty, dingy world Like many of Haas' writing-directing assignments, it doesn't hang together very well. Perhaps Haas knew the character too well to think a story arc was really necessary. Perhas that's why the best drawn character is that of the dog, joyously dancing for his friend, snarling at the false friend, inconsolable at his absence.

Haas has a certain something

[FilmFlaneur · 7/10 · 29 January 2021]

Writer-director-star Haas, an expatriate, was an interesting multi-faceted figure within B movies, whose 20-odd films (notably those several starring bad-blonde Cleo Moore) await proper rediscovery and reassessment. His later works are united by an avuncular presence before and in front of the camera, as well as themes common to many of them which, a la Hitchcock, often feature blondes. His work is often casually sneered at or derided. While he is certainly no Ulmer, let alone Welles (one of the few other directors who share his ambitious mantle of creative titles) when seen as a group his films make for an interesting study of bargain-basement cinema while nearly all his work has interesting moments.

Take EDGE OF HELL. This one is the most disneyesque that I have yet seen of his (forget the grotesquely inappropriate title), largely avoiding the bathos which it's plot invites. Haas plays Valentine, a down-at-heel dog owner living in a basement,, whose animal's tricks provide him with his principal source of revenue. Apart from a couple of other tenants of the building, his friends mainly include tramps even less fortunate than he. A chance to entertain at a children's party brings a temporary change in circumstances, which he shares with everyone. Such happiness is short-lived however as the viewer might expect, although the old gentleman remains unembittered and steadfast to his canine companion to the end. Haas' achievement is to entirely humanize and empathise with the lower orders he presents. The basement feast, which brings beggars with Beethoven, is in one respect the central scene of the film: a bitter-sweet representation of life and dance that is in accord with the european humanistic culture and traditions from which the uprooted director sprang,

The film is also concerned to draw a distinction between performance and life (in one remarkable moment the one-time actor Valentine regales his listeners, and us with an effective, if ultimately false, account of personal tragedy, while his dog's tricks before audiences are another reminder that reality can be manipulated.) In UMBERTO D fashion, in which we find some echoes in this film, Valentine's dog is at the centre of his world. As Valentine's troubles grow, a processes made more intense by some fine close ups, we know that his woes and those of others are not fiction or just a trick, but a reality; one which can grind people down until their health suffers or they are left sleeping under arches - something that not even the occasional gift of vodka, cake and cigars from the happily well-off in better districts can permanently assuage. Only the very ending tips over into the bathos I mentioned as largely avoided otherwise,but anyone who knows MIRACLE IN MILAN will know where the sympathies of this poverty row auteur lay. In short this is not a masterpiece, but not something to be written off so readily especially when seen as part of the interesting output of a decent man making his way in ambitious fashion in a strange land.

Well made but dramatically awkward not to mention extremely manipulative emotionally to the point of silliness

[dbborroughs · 3/10 · 15 October 2009]

Hugo Haas was a writer/director/ star who made a good number of films that are best described as boiled over potboilers. They are deep meaningful films that pull at one's emotions like a supped up tractor at a tractor pull. Over done and over blown doesn't begin to describe it. I find it amazing that he managed to make as many films as he did. Then again for all the bathic content they are technically well made, and somewhat amusing. The plot here follows a skid row bum and his dog as they try to make enough money to get by and the interactions they have with the people they meet. It's a sad little film, brightened by the occasionally humorous line. I watched the film and squirmed at all of the forced emotion. I couldn't believe that the downtrodden life could me turned into such a soap opera. It was an endurance test. Actually the ending, and its "happy" turn about almost made sitting through this silly film. I could see it coming and I sat watching incredulous at what was going on, were they really going to do it? Yea they did. Tragedy has rarely been so laugh inspiring.

Better a living beggar than a dead emperor.

[mark.waltz · 3/10 · 3 March 2022]

A rather maudlin little manipulation of a film, not sure of what it wants to be, almost like a silent film with dialog, and in spite of its attempts to be edgy is boring and messy. Hugo Haas wrote, directed and starred in this social drama about a street entertainer (Haas) down on his luck who turned down the opportunity to sell his dog for $500 and ends up homeless, needing to sell his anyway. The dancing dog entertains at a rich kids party, the bratty kid wants the dog for himself, and the kid's father tries to buy it (like every rich kids father tries to do in real life), and when he goes back to make an offer for the dog, the kids mothers buys it for $50, which sets up a local streetwalker (Francesca De Scaffa) and her boyfriend/pimp (Kent Carlton) to arrange to rob the rich man's house. Only Haas's nice girl neighbor (June Shelley) seems to care about him, although apartment manager Burt Mustin does appear to regret having to evict him.

This is one of a dozen Haas films that she wrote, directed and starred in where he plays a big hearted man who ends up in a difficult situation, but the problem with his characters, in spite of their big hearts, they really aren't that likable. Seems that every conversation they have is about them, and what they do for others, and that makes his characters far too into themselves and not very interesting. As usual in these filns, there is the proverbial bad girl under the thumb of some sleazy man, and these one dimensional characters are just far too cliched.

Another issue with the film is that the main plotline is extremely cloying, and it becomes emotionally manipulative and extremely aggravating much of the time. John Vosper and Tracy Roberts as the wealthy parents of the bratty kid get an award for one of the worst sets of parents ever in films the way they indulge their son. Vosper is closer to the kid's grandfather's age. It's obvious too that this kid would quickly get bored with the dog so his demands to make Haas give up his dog is an extremely unpleasant scene to watch. At times, Haas seems to be trying to emulate silent star Emil Jannings, so the mix of moods within the film becomes irritating to watch. A few shadowy moments do give this a film noir feel to it, and there's one funny moment when the rude butler is called an old fool to Haas right in front of his face. But overall, the film is a real mess, and one of the most depressing movies of the 50's.