I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

How sad is this?

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Five Against the House is a 1955 flick that is really peculiar, on the one hand it wants to be an inarticulate college film, with dumb remarks and idiotic hazing, and on the other, a heist film with touches of noir.The acting is horrible and the script is no better. The ending, entirely pointless.Four college chums (played by 30 year olds), after wasting the first hour talking about girls, fights and cigarettes, decide to rob a Nevada casino, the Harold's Club.It has Brian Keith from the film noir Tight Spot (1955), which was average, and the film noir Nightfall (1957) which was a bit better. In this he just smokes and then goes nuts a few times.Kim Novak, from the good 1954 film noir Pushover, is hot, but doesn't do much. We don't even see her in a tub or anything.Kerwin Mathews (The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) and Jack the Giant Killer (1962)) is annoying, as he doesn't have any heavy gravitas here. He's horrible.Add Alvy Moore (a comic actor from Green Acres) who is probably an awful choice, as all he does is make stupid comments throughout and you wish he would get run over by a steam train.William Conrad is wasted as a casino 'money cart pusher' who gets taken in a really stupid way.For car buffs, you'll probably like the "automated parking garage" (see Bowser, Pigeon Hole and Roto Park systems). That's about it, nothing adds up much in here.

i watched that movie because of Kim Novak but I must write it's not one of her finest parts! why do they always forget "the legend of Lylah Clare" perhaps her finest latter days performance and screen third-rate thrillers like this one.First,how can we believe the male characters are students (Guy Madison was 33 at the time!!!) ??The psychological side (the bad guy who is a good one after all;it's not his fault,he is mentally ill))is minimal and the screen play predictable .If like me you are looking for a good Novak part ,you have to move on:her role is just a little more than decorative.This is a male thriller,but do not expect lots of thrills.

Four carefree young men stop off in Reno, Nevada, for a little down time on their way back to Midwestern University, where they are students. The four are extremely handsome Guy Madison, whose girl, Kim Novak, is waiting for him back in school; bulky Brian Keith; whiz-kid and wealthy Ketwin Mathews; and funny-looking, wisecracking sidekick Alvy Moore.If all of them look a bit older than most college kids it's because at least three of them have served in the Korean War. As a matter of fact, Keith brought the wounded Madison back from an exposed position and saved his life. Actually, all of them had served in World War II -- Madison in the Coast Guard, Mathews in the Air Force, and Keith and Moore in the Marine Corps. I mention their ages only in passing because it doesn't detract from the story.And it's quite a story, too, not nearly as bad as might be imagined. Mathews proclaims himself bored. He wants to be a man of action and pull something off for the record. When they relaxed in Reno, Mathews developed a plan to rob one of the casino's, claiming it was foolproof. The money would all be given back afterward. He needs the others to carry out his scheme but they scoff.The movie really belongs to Brian Keith, and he handles it well. He is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and, when crowded, has an alarming tendency to beat the crap out of the man who's bothering him, and Keith has the muscles to do it. When Kevin Mathews explains the details of his hypothetical armed robbery, the camera stays on Keith's face. And his features morph insensibly from amused disbelief to something resembling a grim fascination, richly colored with lunacy.Keith more or less forces the others to go through with the plan, taking Kim Novak along for the ride. The robbery goes awry, as all robberies must in 1955, and Keith is cornered by the police until he is finally talked down by Madison.Phil Karlson's direction is efficient if not very subtle. Karlson seemed attracted to (and good at) stories involving unexpected explosions of violence, such as "Walking Tall." But he allows Keith to go goggle-eyed with rage as he's beating another college kid half to death.The writers included Sterling Silliphant who could do a fine job of adapting material for the screen, even if, at the same time, corrupting it, as he did in "From Here To Eternity." There's a scene in the script that should throw up fireworks of disbelief in any sophisticated audience. It's the climax, when Madison reminds Keith of their experiences together on the battlefield. "Remember the tracer bullets? How they turned the snow red?" Keith is cornered, sweating, trembling, half out of his gourd, and holding a gun on Madison, repeating the phrase, "I'm gonna kill you." And what does Madison do? He does what EVERY exemplary cretin does in these situations. He talks calmly but continues to advance on Keith, pushing him closer to the edge. And Madison's soothing reminiscences last about sixty seconds of screen time, then Keith collapses into sobs.Guy Madison was plucked out of the crowd and turned into a romantic lead strictly because he looked good. His nose, in particular, is unforgettable. During the robbery Madison is disguised by a fake beard but nothing could camouflage that ski-slope nose. That aside, he is an unprepossessing actor, about as good as you or I would be if we were chosen from the crowd. Well, not as good as I'd be, but as good as you. Yes. I gave a sterling performance in "Weeds." I was the Corrections Officer that was left flattened on the floor, as if by steamroller, after the riot scene. No one has ever been flatter.Brian Keith has always been a reliable performer. He never achieved Class A stardom but I can't remember a single film he's appeared in that he torpedoed. A shame about his death.Anyway, this isn't the cheap B movie that you might think. It has no bankable stars, Phil Karlson wasn't a big name, and it's in black and white. Yet it hits its mark and does what it's supposed to do with lucidity.

Uneven heist film. Making 30-somethings Madison and Keith into college students is a bit of a stretch. But I guess pairing them with the youthful Moore and Mathews presented a problem that a college dorm room could solve. Screenplay is by the celebrated TV writer Stirling Silliphant who, nonetheless, can't seem to script a line without a wise-guy quip. It's clever, but does get tiresome.The movie has two things going for it. First is an absolutely superb performance by Brian Keith. Few actors could get more mileage out of a squint and a cigarette than this low-key tough guy. His final descent into battle-shock madness is both persuasive and oddly touching. The entire movie turns on an ability to convey the required changes and he brings them off beautifully. The other plus is the location photography in Reno. It's entertaining to watch the crowds milling around the casinos, circa 1955. How the production crew got the crowds to act so natural, without acknowledging the camera, amounts to a real feat. Also, the parking garage makes for good staging, but apparently is a commercial novelty that never caught on.At the time, Columbia's head Harry Cohn was promoting Novak into the studio's newest sex goddess. Novak is okay in the role, but unfortunately her scenes with Madison slow down the pacing. Her role here looks like a rather awkward add-on to the main plot. In fact the heart of the film is neither the casino heist nor the Madison-Novak romance. Rather, the emotional center is the solid bond between the two Korean war vets. The chemistry between the two older men strongly portrays the kind of special kinship forged only in combatCertainly director Phil Karlson knows his way around action movies as proved by his gripping Phenix City Story. I suspect that had he a freer hand here, a leaner, sharper, more coherent movie would have resulted. As it is, the 90 minutes is entertaining, but not front rank. As a heist movie, it's so-so; as a buddy film, it's first rate. (In passing-- Looks like the producers of Oceans 11 {1960} sat through this film more than once.)