From my favorite movies..

Expected more

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Charles Castle (a seriously miscast Jack Palance) is a matinée idol who hates the films he makes and wants out. His wife Marion (Ida Lupino) loves him but feels she has to leave him. The powerful studio head Stanley Hoff (Rod Steiger) wants him to sign a new 7 year contract...but Charles doesn't want to. However Hoff has something on Charles...It has a good script but it's all mostly talk and little action. Also there are way too many characters and plot lines all over the place. Also the film is terribly dated. Hollywood being shown as a cold, evil place many have been revolutionary in 1955 but it's old hat today. Worst of all is that Palance is totally miscast as a matinée idol. He just doesn't have the looks! On the plus side all the acting is great. Palance may not have the looks but his acting can't be faulted. Lupino does wonders with her limited role. Steiger EXPLODES amusingly as the evil studio head. Also Jean Hagen and Shelley Winters are good in small roles. Can't say I liked it but I'm not sorry I saw it.

Dull and boring. A movie about the movie making world and what they will do to cover up scandals among their best actors.I found the drama about the actor's marriage far too scattered and uninteresting. This film is supposed to show that some studio owners were evil greedy men making their stars produce garbage meaningless movies for money--using corrupted directors (gee what a surprise!). Also that this unfufilling career (producing kitch) leads to infidelity and marriage problems and robs the souls of the poor actors.Personally I would rather watch 99 River Street any day than this boring thing--all the studios would have gone bankrupt if they only produced these pseudo-intellectual masterpieces of boredom. An ugly now very dated looking French painting is supposed to symbolize the studio owners and of course the high culture and intelligence of the actor or rather his wife who bought it. PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALITY DEFINED.It drags it goes no where. It is talky with endless unemotive dialogue--in fact the scream when his wife finds his body--is the first non droning dialogue you hear--it made me jump. Shelley Winters is the most memorable actor for her short part where she is hopelessly dense and annoying.Watch things like 77 River Street...that is entertainment when things try to become too meaningful or artsy they flop..Several reviews say they let the actors control this entire movie allowing too much hamming and over-rehearsed stops (scenes).One last thing the tinny jazz soundtrack for this thing it was so bad it became irritating.DO NOT RECOMMEND

Idealistic film star Jack Palance (as Charles "Charlie" Castle) doesn't want to sign a new contract with his studio. Instead, he'd like to patch up a failing marriage with Ida Lupino (as Marion). But tyrannical movie mogul Rod Steiger (as Stanley Shriner Hoff) won't take no for an answer. He reminds Mr. Palance about a scandalous incident covered-up by the studio, and demands the actor sign. Shady henchman Wendell Corey (as Smiley Coy) and Hollywood types hang around Palance's Bel Air estate while we wait for a decision... This was a 1949 Broadway play written by Clifford Odets and directed by Lee Strasberg for John Garfield. Unfortunately, Mr. Garfield died of a heart attack in 1952 at age 39, or he might have starred in this film. At one point, the main character is provided with a phony "heart attack" story... There is a hint of Garfield in Palance's manner; possibly, the director and/or star saw Garfield in the play, or Mr. Odets influenced the proceedings. Film director Robert Aldrich makes this a fine acting ensemble piece, and everyone does well in that regard. Most memorable of the lot is probably Mr. Steiger, who takes a bite out of ruthless studio bosses like Louis B. Mayer and Harry Cohn. Relying mostly on camera angles, close-ups and music cues; "The Big Knife" does not, however, reach full potential as cinematic art. ******** The Big Knife (8/55) Robert Aldrich ~ Jack Palance, Ida Lupino, Rod Steiger, Wendell Corey

The Hollywood studio system is the villain, personified by studio boss Stanley Hoff (Rod Steiger), in this rather one-note film starring Jack Palance as Charles Castle, a put-upon "movie star" who wants out of the industry. Trouble is, Hoff insists that Charles sign a seven-year contract, and uses a scandal from Castle's past to pressure him to sign.Based on a stage play, the nearly two hour film takes place almost entirely in the living room of Castle's home. As such, the film feels very boxed in, like the characters are in some kind of cage. The camera is quite static. There is nothing interesting about the B&W cinematography. And the amount of dialogue is huge. Indeed, about all that characters do in this film is ... talk. They argue, discuss, complain, threaten, cajole, fume, reminisce, and pontificate. Conflict is entirely verbal, and leads to enormous melodrama.In a movie like this, what counts are the dialogue, casting, and acting. In "The Big Knife", there's too much dialogue, some of which is exposition. But in the second half, the dialogue does create some twists that make the story fairly interesting. Also, the film's title is so trite it sounds like something an eight-year-old would come up with.Rod Steiger is well cast as the villain, and his performance, though over the top, at least entertains. Palance tries hard, but is dreadfully miscast. He does not come across as the leading man that women swoon over, as the dialogue implies. And some of the secondary characters seem unnecessary to the story.There's some background music but not much. Ambient sounds are minimal owing to the interior setting. Costumes are largely irrelevant. Set design is adequate.Whether the viewer finds this film worth watching will depend on his or her affinity to the characters and their drama, and the viewer's preference for, or tolerance of, an enormously talky script and claustrophobic interior setting.