Rich359

Bleak and in no way heroic war film that trivializes the soldiers plight to free Europe of the evils of Nazism. None of the characters is likable with the exception of Eli Wallach, as an old school type of sergeant. Confusing narrative with huge continuity problems which the film tries to hide with endless and unnecessary inserts of newsreel footage that distracts you from the narrative, which is flawed and that was an easy way to hide it. The film reeks of the style of the all-star cast films of the 60s, with its contrived and unbelievable vignettes, especially with the soldiers' romances. Also amazing that a film that stives for realism has all the actors looking like they just stepped out of a movie trailers, clean shaven and perfectly manicured. This is a "war a hell film" from a Hollywood production office.

Starts off well, but soon degrades to a foolish one note soap opera with extremely unpleasant characters. Just what were the filmmakers aiming for is anyone's guess. Christopher Lee was a little too obnoxious for me, Peter Cushing was much more likeable and sympathetic, but everyone else was forgettable. There is a unbelievable and distracting soapy love triangle that was one of the most annoying ever filmed. Effects were sub-par even for a low budget film. The creatures were a poor copy of the Blob, with the Blob being much better. The film has absolutely no charm or humor, most likely due to Christopher Lee's performance. Its an ugly film.

Everything is wrong with this film. First it should not have been shot in widescreen. There is not enough action or interest in the frame to justify its use. It just come off as being static. Second, it was a mistake to film in such vivid color. It only works in the films few outdoor scenes. In the films "dollhouse" the set design and color and lighting is flat and headache inducing where you are so annoyed and distracted by the cluttered but boring set that you are not paying enough attention to the actors. There is no visual complexity to the lighting. It's one big bright light. It looks like a TV show set. This should not happen with a former world class cinematographer like Freddy Franics. Third the performances. The wheelchair bound mother is just so shrill and overwrought that it makes the scenes with her excruciating. She overpowers in a negative way the scenes with her son so much that it becomes difficult to follow the dialogue of the son. Like nails on a chalkboard. Fourth, Patrick Wymark cannot carry the film as the police inspector. He just doesn't appear sharp or interested enough for the audience to follow a convoluted plot A Jack Warner type actor would have been perfect. Now don't let me get into the conclusion. It's absurd. Who discovered the injured police detective and what happened to the son? I think Freddy Francis was all wrong for this film as a director. He poorly directed the actors, allowed poor color choices and set design, framing and lighting, can't capture any inner emotion and complexity of the characters, and with exception of a few scenes, allows the film to move at a talky snail's pace.

Slick and gritty adaption of the novel "Blood on the Moon" with a deranged killer chopping up victims and leaving them hanging from ceilings. This book was written at the height of the serial killer craze in the mid 1980s with the killer being in essence a superman who can professionally bug apartments, break into any structure he wishes, has advanced knowledge of electronics, is super strong, and can stalk your victims for weeks without detection, run a business and be completely psychotic at the same time. This cliche doesn't exist. The problem with the film adaption is the motivation of the killer. Supposedly he kills because of revenge for the abandonment of a poet's clique bookish friends in high school when the poet got raped by a couple of creeps. The killer kills innocent types who reminded him of the high school girls that abandoned his unrequited high school love. But this just doesn't make much sense. It's not enough motivation for this madness of this killer. In the book, the killer was the one who was assaulted and raped by two thugs who later became a cop and male hustler running sex and prostution rings The book hints that this plunged him into madness because after being raped he felt inadequate sexually to approach a female so therefore kills woman to save them from sin. Murky? You bet. So, the adaption and the book both have problems with the killer's motivation to kill. What the film does well is to bring Woods character to life. It is a great performance. Also, a lot of great LA locations. Definitely give it a view, but with further development of the killer's psyche, it could have been great.

The film, although ambitious, is merely mediocre. Someone on the set should have told Baron to stop hamming it up. He's OK when he keeps his mouth shut, but when he talks and gesticulates, were going into high school play territory. Every conversation he has with Ralphie he's awkwardly sticking his finger into his chest to emphasize some point of his toughness. It's really embarrassingly poor acting. It happens about 10 times in 15 minutes. Tucker, on the other hand is terrific as the sloppy, hermit type gun dealer. Although only appearing in about 15 minutes of the film, his performance is unforgettable and stays with you. Another poor choice is the ending of the film shot during a hurricane. Although shot on a limited budget they really needed the weather to clear. The ending is rushed and sloppy looking because they had to work during a storm. A big mistake. Too much Christmas music is used as well. We get the point that this character is lonely and alienated. We don't have to be hit over the head with it. Location photography with the exception of the ending is very good, and the music score is excellent. Worth seeing for the New York 60's locations and Tuckers performance, but not a great film.

Well, Scott may be a great actor, but he was a terrible director, and his directorial decisions make it difficult for us to identify and sympathize with his character. Why, for example in the first scene, does Scott chose a close up freeze shot of the main character spit? What was the point of this scene? It was gross. So the first impression I get of this guy is that he is some kind slob. Second, do you expect me to believe that the son was effected by the nerve gas outside the tent, but Scott wasn't effected because he was inside the tent? Do camping tents have some kind of filtration system? Really poorly conceived and a huge plot hole. Also what happens to Scott's family doctor? He just sort of disappears when he starts to suspect a coverup. I thought military may have murdered him or imprisoned him but no, he just reappears later in the movie. That would be OK if his doctor wasn't so determined previously to find the truth. Just doesn't fit his character to give-up. Third, the security guard for Scott in the hospital was just too incompetent and lazy. Also were Scotts clothes just left in his room for him to put on with him being such a high security patient? Was it necessary for Scotts character to kill a house cat and three innocent people and a room full of animals? Does that make me sympathize with him? Also the score was terrible and reminded me of countless TV cop shows from the 70's. Pacing was also poor. I get the feeling that Scott was hugely difficult to work with and shunned other's opinions regarding the plotting and production of the film, with this being the result.

Although this is an extremely low budget film, I found it entertaining and certainly better than the current superhero fare that you could not pay me to see. It has a certain 70's charm to it. It was silly, badly acted, and did not make much sense, but I felt this was made by a bunch of ambitious friends with some filmmaking skills, and I wanted to like it. It captures the feel of the 70's well, including the band which may have been performing in any local pub during that era. The female lead also has had some very revealing clothes that distracted me during the film, but I did not mind! It appears this film was made to showcase the talents of the make-up artist, but much of the gore effects were cut from this version. Overall a strangely appealing and likeable film.

The biggest problem with this film is the logic. How could a character like O'Rourke's survived on the force the way the character is portrayed and acted? Think of Gene Hackman's performance in the French Connection. Even though they are similar hard edged characters, Hackman was believable while O'Rourke was not .Hackman knew how to gauge his character from charming to obnoxious, while O'Rourke has outbursts and not much more. Also he looked too young to play the character. The horrible hair make-up just made it look silly- like a high school play. Second the affair between him and the reporter was vacuous . Why would this woman be attracted to this bore, even if she thought his cause was noble? He makes constant disparaging remarks about Asians that was off putting to me. I did not buy this contrived romance for a second. Also O'Rourke's motivation is unclear. Out of the nowhere he is championing for protection of the Asian community? Why? He clearly dislikes Asian people or does not trust them. The performances are wildly uneven from most of the cast with the exception of the Asian gangsters. That said the set design is great and there are some jaw dropping action scenes that are worth the price of admission alone. A mixed bad, but a spectacular one.

Why oh why does Hollywood make remakes of outstanding films, and come out with mediocre results like this. The first and biggest problem with this remake is that the family who O'Rourke is holding hostage is unlikable. You don't really care too much about them because they are so emotionally distant. Second is Lindsey Crouse's performance as the in charge FBI agent. She has the most ridiculous accent which is incredibly annoying, difficult to understand, and she is unnecessarily harsh. This was a problem with many movies female leads in that era. Too give the appearance of strength, the writers made them nasty and harsh, that's not strength. Third is the over movement of the camera in key scenes where the FBI is explaining their strategy to catch the outlaw, you are distracted by the camera movement while you are trying to focus on the dialogue. It is my understanding that Friedkin was approached to do this project but was unavailable. I am sure this would have been a much better film under his helm.

What an anomaly this film is. Ultra low budget, even for this class of thrillers, distributed by 20th Century Fox (which is why it was not seen and lost, as many of these type of horror films were part of movie packages shown on local independent tv stations were comprised of AIP, Allied Artist, Astor Picture titles. The big distributers sold to ABC, CBS, NBC, and the networks were certainly not going to show this! Shot in expensive neighborhoods Malibu and Brentwood, and last but not least, shot in Cinemascope! Can you imagine "Plan 9 From Outer Space" in Cinemascope? You get the idea. Wow! How can you resist not watching this. The script is terrible. Working with nerve gas in a lab the size of a department store bathroom, with the obligatory business style file cabinets in the background, any zero safety precautions. You would do more prep painting your kitchen. That being said, the monster is pretty cool and scary. Reminds me of the creature from the far superior "First Man Into Space." Ashamed though with a better script and bigger budget it could have been a B classic.

I remember seeing this in its theatrical release in 1971. Liked it then but was a little disappointed that it was not that scary. Back in those days I wanted anything with an axe on its poster to be like Psycho. Seeing it again after all these years, I marvel on how good it is-from the story to the set design to the acting, music and photography. What an atmospheric, moody film. Its nearly perfect and I never tire from watching it. My only quibble is they did not or could not work out the night shooting. If the asylum locked up at 9:00 PM, it would have been much darker in the scenes of him escaping from the asylum. It seemed the same lighting level whether its night or morning. I could not get a grasp of the time of day with the outdoor scenes.

While I love gritty NYC detective films, This one is rather disappointing. The atmosphere is destroyed in the first few minutes intercutting Sinatra's wife kidney operation with the murder of a New York accountant. Unnecessary and repulsive., it takes you out of the suspense. The movie is a shell of the novel on which it was based in which we really get into the mind of the killer and his motives, and how he is swayed into murder for fun by a psychotic girlfriend. This is completely left out of the film, as well as the NYC politics within the police department. We really don't know anything about the killer in the film, and his identification as the killer is ridiculously fast, as well as the conclusion. The film reminds me a lot of Cruising, also released in 1980, which also had a rushed look to it, and felt incomplete. But that is understandable in Cruising because of the gay community protest of the film during location shooting. The First Deadly Sin had no such problems, unless Frank Sinatra who was notorious for being impatient during shoots, refused to elaborate on the location shooting. However, even a mediocre film from the 80's is a hundred times better than the Marvel garbage on the screen today. Their are some great supporting performances by Sinatra's amateur helpers and a sleazy doorman. Overall worthwhile seeing, but not anywhere as good as it should have been

Every time I see this on TCM, I get duped and forget how much I hated it previously. I am with the group that cant understand what people rave about with this film. Violent self absorbed Hollywood types who think they are tough bore the crap out of me. There are NO tough types in Hollywood. They would get the floor wiped with them in any typical New Jersey bar, and I have lived in both places. Bogart plays a totally unlikable character, so after 10 minutes and the film's set up, you have no reason to watch. Its not really a mystery. Its a character study of a jerk and those who kiss up to him and seem to think he's wonderful and misunderstood. Grahame is bad as well.

Terrific low budget gem with great acting and 50's LA locations, but that is part of the problem. Based on a real case of a lynching in San Jose California, which happened in 1933. In post war 1950, with a nation weary of violence and much better media coverage and television, I doubt very much this could have took place. Regardless, its a fine piece of work The best portrayal of a psychopath I ever seen, in Lloyd Bridges.

To me, its quite simple what happened with this disaster of a film. It is drug induced. This was the beginning of the second generation cocaine era in this country. It appears to me that the creative people involved in the production were coked-up, where everything discussed, written, and filmed appeared brilliant through the drug lens. As bad and stupid as any film can be.

Great WWII movie with restraint on violence. So why oh why are these 60s films that were rated 'M" or PG being rerated today with R ratings? Who are the psycho snowflakes on the rating board these days? Why are they required to be re-rated anyway when they are re issued on DVD? Two other films come to mind are Psycho, which was shown on broadcast TV un-cut, and In Cold Blood, which was also shown on TV uncut. The current fools on the rating board cant seem to fathom gradations of violence. So this film, which was properly rated PG originally for war type restrained violence and a five second shot of a bare chested woman from the back, has the same rating of Natural Born Killers, or Salo 120 Days of Sodom. Pathetic.

Aside from Burtons fluctuating accent, which I can forgive, this is a gritty, grim, and compelling film that just gets better upon frequent viewings. Sinfully neglected upon release, its gotten a new life with a showing on TCM. I love films that take me somewhere else, and this one does. I feel I am in 70's Britain, and I feel I am in sleazy bars and strip clubs, and I am nervous watching those thugs who seem capable of doing any violence, and I resonate with the characters who oppose Burtons character, but are swayed by his charm. This is not a copy of White Heat at all. This is based on a real mom fixated criminal, Ronnie Kray.

Sorry Fridken and Letts. This is just a sick excuse to portray blue collar working class types as morons and amoral. Friedkin likes to feel that he understands working class blue collar types, and always identifies with the cops, union guys, killers, etc, that have helped him on his films, but Friedkin is full of s**t, always has been. He is in to power and prestige. Please don't condensed to trailer park people or blue collar types with this sadistic, sexualized and perverted film trash. There is more class in those people than you can forever hope to have. Write and direct movies about Beverly Hill types, that is where you are and who you are now.

After viewing the film again after 37 years, and loving it when I first saw it, I realize that it has many flaws. Most noticeable are: 1) the horribly developed dialogue between crew members. Obviously the writers never worked in a factory like setting, or for that matter, any setting where they had to communicate with small talk with co-workers. Compare this dialogue with the dialogue from the 1951 Thing or even Forbidden Planet.

2) Sigourney Weavers character is way too harsh. It may have been a sign of the times to create a "strong woman" but in the film she comes off needlessly harsh and unappealing.

3) Overuse of technical effects like the strobe light. Why does a ship have strobe lights anyway?

4) A very big rip-off of the film "It, the terror from beyond space. The plot line and dialogue was better in that one as well.

Terrific film. What I like about it is that it takes its time telling you the story, and is slow moving, with exception, of course, of the car chase. The film can be confusing, but I feel that was intended. The pace at which the story unfolds is the pace in which Bullitt is thinking to try to capture the killer. I take exception that we don't know why the witness was killed. It is spelled out towards the end. As to the criticisms regarding more info was needed about the hows and whys of the mob, I find that silly. Its the mafia, there was someone stealing from within, and they wanted him rubbed out. Also some critique Jacquline Bisset's dialogue. We need to remember that this film was made in 1969, with a very different collective conscience of peace and non-violence than exists today. The film was reflecting the values of the time with her character, and trying to appeal to a younger audience. That being said, the book the film is based on is quite different. First the action takes place in NYC instead of San Francisco. The character of Bullitt is named "Clancy" and he is the typical Irish cop grizzled and jaded with a beat up car. The film transforms him to a hip, cool, tidy detective. The plotline is a little more complicated. Johnny Ross's brother is the one who shoots the look alike fake, Albert Renick, not hitmen. The corrupt brothers cooked up the scheme after meeting Renicks wife, who was a manicurist in a exclusive LA hotel. The manicurist mentioned to Johnny Ross the her husband looked so much like him. The brothers approached Renick's husband and made an offer for him to take the place of Johnny Ross and spring him from the hotel, or the wife would be disfigured. The other Ross would return to LA, and Johnny was going to Europe on a ship with Renicks passport. The finale takes place in a New York dock, and Johnny is arrested, not killed.

This film started out well, with great photography, color, and locations that were sorely lacking in the other 70's Hammer films, and an interesting premise, but decides to become a gore fest with the interminably long "birth scene", which I think derails the whole film. It also is intercut with other long sequences so you can't really turn your eyes away. It seems that Hammer thought the reason the Exorcist was a huge hit was because of its shocking scenes. The difference is that the Exorcist had a compelling plot, and the scenes with Regan shocked you, but it was not overdone and worked with the film. Also Regans life was saved because of a priest sacrificing his own, which gives the audience a hero. In this film, a rock is a hero. It seems Hammer lost its bearing with this one, and I am surprised the Lee agreed to be in this film at this point of his career. Ashamed, it could have been great with a better script.

After years of trying to see the original release version of the film, I finally acquired an uncut copy from a collector and must say I was puzzled with the outcome. There was the original, infamous subway scene intact, as well as the gay-bar beating. There are some really gritty location shooting in NYC, but its mixed with the most banal, studio bound bland scenes. If you can image a film that intercut the "French Connection" with an episode of "The Rockford Files" then you would get a good idea of how this film plays out. Not bad, but a disappointment. Don't even bother watching it if its the TV version, which cut out most of the gritty scenes.

Fairly good low-budget noir about a train-heist. Problem is that I lost interest in the main character when it is disclosed that he is having an affair with the doctors wife. His wife was so loyal and attentive to him that we lose his motivation as to why we wanted to do the heist. Was he going to leave his wife behind at start a new life with new money? How was he going to deal with the doctor? And why did he murder the plane mechanic? He seems to be such a heel that we don't care what happens to him. Would have been a much better film if the motivation was just the money. Silly requirement to make reviews 10 line minimum! ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES RICH A DULL BOY. ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES..

I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid in 1973,and have looked for it for years. Recently found it on You Tube. I remember being impressed with the eeriness film and the scary visuals of the ending, even though you know who the priestess is. However, what lessens the films enjoyment for me seeing it again is the appearance of abuse of cats, with an unnecessary plot device of alley cats surrounding and eventually attacking the priestess. It appears the cats were starved to congregate around the victims and thrown onto the victims, a lot like what was done with rats in Willard. I am glad we live in more animal conscience times. 2.5 out of 4 stars

Just like another beautifully mounted, expensive, silly flop, The Hindenburg reminds me a lot of "Heavens Gate" made five years later. Just like Michael Ciminos film, Robert Wise was obsessed with recreating the era, props, models to exacting standards, unfortunately exacting standards were not used on the plots. Both films suffer with a poor script, which renders all their technical expertise and budget nearly worthless. Also, just like Heavens Gate, there are problems hearing important dialogue in the ships interior over the hum of the aircraft. In Heavens Gate is was the train station. Both films miniature plots can't hold up to the production, and seem silly, like watching a TV movie in IMAX. And really, would a sober minded character like George C Scott's neglect to factor in the possibility of a late landing?