Is Dead Reckoning Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, Dead Reckoning is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Crime movies.
It features a runtime of 100 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.

Verdict:Dead Reckoning is a confirmed HIT based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 6.8/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Crime, Mystery genre.
Answer: Yes, Dead Reckoning is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Crime movies.
It features a runtime of 100 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1946, Dead Reckoning emerges as a significant entry in the Crime, Mystery domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of War heroes Rip Murdock and Johnny Drake are sent to Washington, D. Unlike standard genre fare, Dead Reckoning attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Crime is often anchored by its ensemble, and Dead Reckoning features a noteworthy lineup led by Humphrey Bogart . Supported by the likes of Lizabeth Scott and Morris Carnovsky , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Dead Reckoning (1946) is mixed. With an audience rating of 6.8/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Dead Reckoning is a Crime, Mystery film that delves into the criminal underworld with gritty realism and moral complexity. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Dead Reckoning concludes its story with a mix of closure and open interpretation. The finale presents its approach to crime resolution.
The final reveal recontextualizes earlier scenes, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Dead Reckoning reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Dead Reckoning incorporates elements from real criminal cases. As a crime, mystery film, it navigates the space between factual accuracy and narrative engagement.
The film takes creative liberties to enhance dramatic impact. Core events maintain connection to source material while adapting for theatrical presentation.
Creative interpretation shapes the final narrative, focusing on emotional truth over strict chronology.
Accuracy Assessment: Dead Reckoning adapts its source material for dramatic purposes. The film prioritizes thematic resonance over documentary precision.
Worth Watching If You:










Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 6.8/10, and global collection metrics, Dead Reckoning stands as a successful venture for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1946 cinematic year.
Dead Reckoning has received mixed reviews with a 6.8/10 rating, making it a moderate success with the audience.
Dead Reckoning is a mixed bag. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of Crime, Mystery movies, but read reviews first.
Dead Reckoning may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
Middle rank film, top Bogart. When Rip's (Humphrey Bogart) army pal Johnny does a runner from the train taking them to Washington, it's the start of a shadowy street search that Rip undertakes to find out why his friend would do that. It soon becomes evident that Johnny was not who he said was, something that makes Rip's journey one that will involve murder, deception and one hell of a dame. Dead Reckoning has a mixed relationship with critics and Bogart/noir fans alike. Some are harsh on Lizabeth Scott who plays femme fatale Coral Chandler, while others have issues with the plot, calling it rambling and incoherent to the dialogue on offer. I disagree with both those things. Scott is just fine for what is a wonderfully well written character, her facial characteristics are indeed expressionless at times, but this to my mind adds an icy veneer to her character arc. She also has a knack of looking vulnerable, something that is very crucial to the film and her character in particular. The plot doesn't ramble to me, it's bonkers, yes it is, but that adds to the mystery of it all. Told in flashback as Rip confesses to a priest, all threads are however neatly pulled together to finally reveal a delightfully complete, yet surprising noirish whole. Yeah it's a jumble of conundrums, and twists and turns come and go, that's kind of the selling point really. To me at least anyway. Whilst some of the dialogue on show is as cheeky as Bogie got to deliver in the 40s. I was laughing whilst duly expecting something bad to be at the end of it. There's an air of genre familiarity with the piece, no question about that. And if implausibility factors are an issue, you best stay away. But it has a nice line in atmosphere, brutality is never far away one feels, and it's a nice shoot with Leo Tover's cinematography understated and at ease with the tone of the film. Bogart is just great, this is what we want from the great man, spouting put downs and pearls of wisdom in a grim crime movie. However bonkers it may be. 8/10
When his best pal absconds on his way to pick up a Medal of Honour, "Rip" (Humphrey Bogart) determines to get to the bottom of things. They'd been flown home from Germany and given some fairly VIP treatment, so there must have been a good reason for "Johnny" (William Prince) to do a bunk - but he did leave some clues, and as "Rip" attempts to piece things together he encounters his pal's love interest "Dusty" (Lizabeth Scott). After scrutinising the local newspaper archives, he realises that his erstwhile colleague and this woman have a bit of history, and that takes them both to the casino of the distinctly dodgy "Martinelli" (Morris Carnovsky) where her behaviour becomes even more enigmatic. When he wakes up in an drug-induced haze next morning, he isn't sure who he can trust or just what is going on - but he is convinced that she and her jasmine are part of the mystery and it's solution. It's told by way of a narration to a priest in a church which doesn't do too much for the jeopardy of the thing, and I am afraid that Scott really did come across as Lauren Bacall-light the whole time. The plot twists and turns engagingly enough, but despite a grumpily charismatic effort from the star, the story is a bit thin and there is just too much dialogue and not enough action until a denouement that I found quite conveniently disappointing. Standard fayre that passes the time but this isn't really very memorable.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.