Wonderful Movie

Crappy film

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

All aboard for cheesy sets and a lot of unconvincing talk, talk, talk with the usual stock characters and stock situations.James Whitmore, badly miscast, is a dead weight. Cassavetes is all sub-Brando method acting, but Sal Mineo is bit more with-it than usual.Nonetheless, the only really impressive performance is offered by Mark Rydell. On the negative side, production values are extremely crummy. Don Siegel, Sam Leavit, amd Franz Waxman should hang their heads in shame for respectively contributing such uninspired direction, plodding photography, and a pedestrian music score.And as for art director Serge Kriznan, he should be drummed out of town. Or maybe the shabby sets were entirely the fault of penny-pinching producer Vincent M. Fennelly?

There's very little action in this film. Set mostly on one grungy New York City street, the story revolves around a group of teenage hoodlums, members of the "Hornets" street gang. Their leader is Frankie (John Cassavetes), a super-angry dude who lives with his whiny mom and little brother in a cheap, squalid apartment overlooking the street. These guys, about 12 of them, talk tough. But that's mostly all it is ... talk.The story could easily be seen as a stage play. Three or four studio sets with cheap production design and controlled lighting could function as a backdrop for the performers. That's exactly the way the film comes across. Dialogue is important since there's so much of it. In this movie, the dialogue is acceptable, though a tad melodramatic. There's lots of expressed anger, angst, and whining. And an adult social worker and the father of one of the gang members dish out lots of paternalistic advice to Frankie and his buddies.High-contrast B&W lighting is probably the best element of the film. It conveys a noir atmosphere. The lighting, combined with the prod design, sets, and costumes, conveys a dreary, depressing tone. Background music is unremarkable. Casting is acceptable. Acting is well above average. As Frankie's mom, Virginia Gregg gives an especially nice performance.It's not a bad movie. But I prefer more action and changes in scenery, and less talk. If the viewer likes stage plays with some good acting, "Crime In The Streets" is a pretty good 1950s juvenile delinquency film.

This is best viewed as a filmed Stage Play because that is basically what it is. There is very little Movie pretensions and is delivered as an Actor's vehicle. It is a talky treatise on Juvenile Delinquency that starts out with a Rumble but then (un)settles in for a peek behind the cement curtain of dingy apartments and dirty streets, one Parent Families and smelly surroundings. A strong cast and Direction with an ambiance that is stifling and unsanitary (in the Kitchen, the 10 year old little Brother says..."I caught a roach, you want to see"). That is basically what we are witnessing. Human roaches scurrying around in this filth trying to survive. Sometimes it is so gritty that audiences may feel uncomfortable watching. The dialog has verisimilitude and the Film feels authentic beneath the facade, but as Movie Entertainment it could have opened up a bit, but the limited budget and Studio bound sets were not accommodating. Overall it is worth seeing as an artifact of the time, an era that was starting to pay some attention, if not enough, to the plight of underprivileged Youth in underdeveloped neighborhoods, and understaffed and overworked broken "homes".

The film reminds me of one of those powerhouse Studio One TV plays of the early '50's. And that's a key problem. The movie comes across as a filmed stage play as though the format hasn't changed at all. I expect TV playwrite Reginald Rose had a lot to do with that approach, while ace action director Don Siegel simply followed out the script in uninvolved fashion. In short, the screenplay is way too talky, under-produced, and poorly staged. Never once, for example, did I forget that the street scene was mounted on a sound stage, with all kinds of traffic noises at the same time cars seldom pass on the roadway. Also, the few sets are so unrelentingly dreary and without a shred of adornment, you might think the deficiency is in the people rather than the conditions. After all, a shred or two would be more realistic, even in a slum. So, why rub our nose in it.Then too, the screenplay repeats about every delinquency cliché of the day—alienation, no father, poverty, to cite a few. Now, there is some truth in these clichés, as there is in most clichés. The trouble is the script simply parades them in unoriginal fashion leaving the impression of having seen it all before. Worse, that intense actor John Cassavetes is given little to do but brood and posture and look 27 instead of the supposed 18. And what's with dressing him in a yuppie v-neck sweater that looks like it belongs on a Harvard freshman.Nonetheless, it is an accomplished cast with some colorful characterizations. Mineo's excellent as the reluctant delinquent, Gregg fairly oozes bread-winner exhaustion, and little Votrian can look pathetic on cue. At the same time, Rydell's sadistic grin suggests needed malevolence, while Whitmore's social worker is happily no miracle man. Clearly, this is an earnest effort whose heart is in the right place. Still and all, the positives are too few to outweigh the stagy negatives. In short, there're good reasons this obscurity is not included among the delinquency classics of the day.