Hilarious


This film is so bad its funny. watched it on bbc 2 last night for some reason.
It has got some of the worst acting i have ever seen. Lines are delivered in a flat tone with strange facial expressions (especially the closing line LOL). And the characters are so stereotypical its like an old commercial or sumthin. I recommend you watch this just to see how bad a film can really be.

reply

Agree 100%. Only goes to prove rubbish ages badly.

* * * MAJOR SPOILER * * *

The final shootout scene is totally hysterical. Like The Marx Brothers meet 'Turkey Shoot' and 'Last Man Standing'.

The lame brain who plays the sniper (and after all the buildup and twaddle before, it isn't even the psycho Sinatra plays who is to be the shooter!!) is electrocuted and fires his rifle wildly all over the street - on automatic resulting in a brief gun battle when police return fire.

Two seconds later in a close up, Sinatra picks up the rifle from the dead man, and we see it is actually a SINGLE SHOT bolt action, set up for a left-handed rifleman.

reply

I think most of the movie and acting is bad. I will contend however, that Sinatra's performance is great in this movie!

reply

One of my favorite bad movies. Sterling Hayden presents a schizoid portrayal of a war-hero cop. He spouts anti-commie fifties rhetoric, but, and I could be wrong here, he appears through most of the movie to be severely under the influence of benzedrine, or some such fifties prescription cocktail. The rapid, almost twitchy result worked better for him in The Killing, as well as numerous guest appearances on late night T.V. in the 60's-70's. Sinatra's portrayal is absolutely psychotic. My favorite line is when he lovingly caresses the BAR rifle (by the way, a single shot or semi or full automatic rifle of WWI & WWII vintage) and says : "I did a lot of cutting with one of these in the war; a lot of cutting." What, like cutting down wheat ? Contrast him here with his Maggio in From Here to Eternity. Frankie, we hardly knew ye.
And Nancy Gates. . .surely one of the most underappreciated vixens of the era. "You're an animal!"
When the gay T.V. repairman gets it, it's nearly as satisfying as when old wooden head deputy goes down with a belly wound. The sheriff's flag-waving speech to young Pidge at the toy store window is priceless : "When the house is on fire, everyone has to go in to help put it out." Huh?

reply

wardclv,

Are you saying you LIKE communists?

reply

[deleted]

One of my favorite bad movies. Sterling Hayden presents a schizoid portrayal of a war-hero cop. He spouts anti-commie fifties rhetoric, but, and I could be wrong here, he appears through most of the movie to be severely under the influence of benzedrine, or some such fifties prescription cocktail. The rapid, almost twitchy result worked better for him in The Killing, as well as numerous guest appearances on late night T.V. in the 60's-70's. Sinatra's portrayal is absolutely psychotic. My favorite line is when he lovingly caresses the BAR rifle (by the way, a single shot or semi or full automatic rifle of WWI & WWII vintage) and says : "I did a lot of cutting with one of these in the war; a lot of cutting." What, like cutting down wheat ? Contrast him here with his Maggio in From Here to Eternity. Frankie, we hardly knew ye.
And Nancy Gates. . .surely one of the most underappreciated vixens of the era. "You're an animal!"
When the gay T.V. repairman gets it, it's nearly as satisfying as when old wooden head deputy goes down with a belly wound. The sheriff's flag-waving speech to young Pidge at the toy store window is priceless : "When the house is on fire, everyone has to go in to help put it out." Huh?

reply

The assassin's rifle is not a BAR. It's a German G43 semi-auto rifle, caliber 7.9x57mm, with an extra large magazine. Hayden says something like , "that rifle's German, isn't it?" and it is.

reply

Correction -- Sinatra WAS the sniper (not the "lame brain")! The "lame brain" was just testing the sight.

reply

Actually rayxt if you had bothered to watch the movie you would realise that Bart, who was electrocuted, was *not* the sniper. He just wanted to look through the scope.

Sinatra could not pick up the rifle, it was fixed to the table. And where was the bolt action, you assumed it was a German Kar98 didnt you, but it clearly wasnt. Also a large magazine was fitted to the rifle.

reply

I am watching this right now, so I do not know the end. However, when they were hooking the rifle up to the table, you can clearly see the rifle.
It is a bolt action but not a single shot, it has a clip/magazine.
It is a WWII German made Gewehr model 41.

reply

Watched it last night.Bad copy too.I couldn't figure out why the assassin would help the sheriff with his fractured arm. Why not put him in the basement with dead guy?And where did they find a house in California with a basement?

reply

He did not help him out of altruism. He wanted to prove that the sheriff could not stand the pain. He was mistaken.

reply

This is on the TV in the background as I speak. The dialogue was cracking me up - "stick up, "clams", "benedict arnold", lol. It's so stereotypical gangster. Sinatra isn't bad but the woman playing opposite is awful. The cop who questions one of the accomplices is the worst actor I've ever seen.

@~ Renee @~

reply

There are bad performances here. I've never seen Sterling Hayden in anything else, but here he's terrible. The kid is lousy (as kid actors usually are). But Sinatra is excellent and the rest are good enough. As for the writing, its 50 years old, what do you expect? of course its going to date. I still say its one of Frank's best performances. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

reply

[deleted]

I recorded it yesterday but have not watched it yet. But those who criticize the dialogue seem ignorant of cinematic history. Such terse gangster-talk is one of the hallmarks of American film-noir. Look at revered classics like Double Indemnity. And try reading their source, i.e. crime novels by Chandler, etc. As bmwhtly wrote, if you don't like the genre, don't watch it.

reply

Finally! two more people who can appreciate good cinema. Thank you both, I was starting to worry I was the only one.

'I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis'

reply

Some of this film is dated, particularly the opening sequence at the store, but it gets better as the film progresses. This is largely because of Sinatra and Gleason. Hayden is a bit stiff, but that was his brand of acting. He's ok. Nancy Gates was sympatheic in her part I thought. The ending was fine. I mean, (spoiler) when you get electrocuted and have a rifle in your hand -- you're bound to fo some wild shooting.

This is clearly B-movie material, but Sinatra rises to the occassion and makes a complex portrayal of the psycho. Reminiscent in some ways of the later "Desperate Hours," starring Humphrey Bogart and Fredric March. (not the awful 1990 remake with Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins).

reply

It is pretty clear that those that commented on the film as being bad are comparing it to modern day movies. That is the wrong approach.
For it's time this is actually a pretty well made movie. Lee Harvey Oswald thought so anyway.
You simply can not compare movies from today with movies made in the 50's.
I thought for it's time it was pretty well acted. Did you notice that Frank had to actually move TO the camera for his close up rather than the camera zooming in on him? They had to work the acting out to get the right camera shots, for the equipment they had available.

While by todays standards some of it may seem stilted, the art of movie making was still young then.

Death to Paul....rabid uber-patriotism in the film which marks it as an American flag waving propaganda piece

I guess we can all see your feelings about America. While I did notice the same points, I remembered, as mentioned often in the film, that the country had just come out of a huge war. While I know that most of the movie industry hates America (while pocketing a LOT of American dollars) it does not mean everyone does.
Simply being patriotic does not make one rabid, not even a movie.

reply

Sterling Hayden was the police captain in The Godfather. (The one who punches Michael in the face in front of the hospital.)

reply

Try watching "The Godfather". Hayden is the cop that beats up Michael. He's terrific in that part.

reply

Considering this film was written and produced during the heyday of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and everyone in Hollywood was afraid of big bad Joe McCarthy, the laughable dialogue is pardonable. Had they made a film about an attempted presidential assassination and not included loads of patriotism, the entire cast and crew probably would have been blacklisted. This film is a sign of the times and a warning not to let similar things happen again (a warning unfortunately ignored today, but that's another story...).

reply

wjmckelvey - actually people then were more patriotic, its just that we are used to smug elitists like you calling the shots these days.

"House Committee on Un-American Activities and everyone in Hollywood was afraid of big bad Joe McCarthy" - funny thing is we now *KNOW* that the people being blacklisted really were communists. They werent scared of McCarthy because the accusations were unjust, its because they were true. And they werent just any old commies, Stalin had only died in 1953, possibly the greatest mass murderer in history and was their leader only a year before this movie was made.

reply

I don't know how Mystery Science Theater missed this one to screw with! This is prime MST. I have it on now. I taped it last night because it is a good filler movie and it helps me sleep. But I really can't give it all the credit for helping me sleep. I adore the Simpsons and they help me sleep, however they make sense and they are entertaining, but not too jolting to keep me up. Suddenly is entertaining becasue you can be stoned or drunk and have a good laugh. Also, it is a good movie if you were too stoned and had a hangover or you needed something to you sleep besides Ambien. If MST3K did the commentary with this movie, I would be lol, rofl and all kinds of lol.

I believe that having "Blue Eyes" in this picture saved it from being taunted. Probably he would get his boys to kill Mike, Joel, Frank, Dr. Forrester and the bots and that would be it. Old Blue Eyes would not whatn anything that he contributed to to be ridiculed.

I wonder if Sinatra did this movie because Kennedy, et. al, was giving him and his Rat Pack the cold shoulder.

reply

Let's bear in mind that in 1954 the idea of anybody assassinating the President was considered far fetched, hence the dialogue "but he's the President" and "You're an American too".

This is probably Hayden's worst performance, he is monosyllabic and with little change in tone or inflexion whether talking to the boy or taunting Sinatra.

Mr Sinatra in contrast is truly excellent, his preening, superficially "in charge" character, boasting of his war record "I got a Silver Star" and making it clear that the child is the hostage here, anybody messes the kid gets it! And the fleeting smiles and side long glances during conversations with the hostages all flesh out the depraved nature of this killer.

Note that Sinatra at 5 ft 8.5 inches doesn't resort to standing on boxes when facing down Hayden at 6 ft 5 inches, he butts right up to him and goes eyeball to eyeball, excellent characterisation of the "bantam cock"persona.

With few external scenes this is an enclosed drama and my only complaint is that the set is way overlit, I know it's California but the tension in the house would have been heightened with a few shadows.

A pleasure to see it after it was withdrawn at Sinatra's instructions for so many years.

reply

Superb movie, but then most Sinatra movies are. Powerful performance by Haden, Sinatra, and the old guy (James Gleason).

But then I'm 50 years old and suppose I can understand why people from the Bart Simpson generation just don't get this movie. The acting and writing are as taut as it gets. This the kind of movie that while watching it if you get a telepone call you debate whether to answer it or not. It's that gripping.

Beginning filmmakers should study this film. It shows how a great movie can be cheaply made. The trick is to present one surprise after another -- keep the viewers sitting at the edge of their seats. That's where this little gem excells. That's why it's a masterpiece.

Put six people in a small room and make a great film. That's real writing.

What's troubling to me is that people under-40 look at it and laugh the same why I laugh at George Raft or Paul Muni gangster movies. My parents thought these movies were great. I laugh at them. Now the same thing is happening to me.

I actually consider "Suddenly" a modern movie. I'm old enough to remember how most of the movies that came before it were, compared to it, all cookie-cutter plots, actors, characterizations. But then in reflection, I look at the way all men in the moive were dressed the same way, and can understand why younger viewers find it laughable. But, hell, that's the way it was! Men all wore suits back then and practically lived in their wide-brimmed hats. And woman all wore heels, even when making dinner or watching TV.

Finally, there were such great little effects, like screwing the table to the floor, and screwing the BAR to the table.

A masterpiece!

ricland

reply

riclanders isn't just old, he seems to be senile if he is going to give this laughable film such acclaim. I'm in my late 30s and not senile and therefore don't automatically assume every old black and white movie is a 'classic'. Many were not. As much as I like to complain about the current state of movies, due to the CGI scourge and increasing lack of good writing (just spackle over it with more glossy flashy CGI, the kids won't notice how bads the new movies are), I spend a lot of time watching movies on TCM and have noticed that there were also lots of bad movies made from the 1920s-1960s along with all the classics and overlooked gems. This is not just a case of liking new films over old ones, this is a case of liking good films over bad ones regardless of the year they were made or whether they are in color or B&W.

Superb movie, but then most Sinatra movies are. Powerful performance by Haden, Sinatra, and the old guy (James Gleason).

But then I'm 50 years old and suppose I can understand why people from the Bart Simpson generation just don't get this movie. The acting and writing are as taut as it gets. This the kind of movie that while watching it if you get a telepone call you debate whether to answer it or not. It's that gripping.


This movie is far from superb, though Sinatra's other assassination movie "The Manchurian Candidate" definitely is. Hayden's performance here is not good. Check him out in "The Killing" instead.

Beginning filmmakers should study this film. It shows how a great movie can be cheaply made. The trick is to present one surprise after another -- keep the viewers sitting at the edge of their seats. That's where this little gem excells. That's why it's a masterpiece.

Put six people in a small room and make a great film. That's real writing.


Beginning filmmakers SHOULD study this film...as an exercise in how not to make a noir type film. Val Lewton showed us how great movies can be cheaply made. This film showed us how laughable dialogue (even by noir standards, it plays more like G-man hero worship and other 'All-American' propaganda films) and idiot plot points about ridiculously bumbling criminals can ruin a film with a potentially interesting premise (once again, skip this and watch The Manchurian Candidate, a TRUE masterpiece, unlike this film). 'One surprise after another' is how dumb they expected the audience to believe these professional killers to be. I wasn't on the edge of my seat for some white-knuckle thrill ride, I was trying not to fall out of my seat from laughter or weeping at how bad this film is.

Put six (or so) people in a boarded up farmhouse for a pressure cooker and make a great groundbreaking film. That's "Night of the Living Dead" -- which was also cheaply made, but without any name stars and with more believable plot points.

What's troubling to me is that people under-40 look at it and laugh the same why I laugh at George Raft or Paul Muni gangster movies. My parents thought these movies were great. I laugh at them. Now the same thing is happening to me.

I actually consider "Suddenly" a modern movie. I'm old enough to remember how most of the movies that came before it were, compared to it, all cookie-cutter plots, actors, characterizations. But then in reflection, I look at the way all men in the moive were dressed the same way, and can understand why younger viewers find it laughable. But, hell, that's the way it was! Men all wore suits back then and practically lived in their wide-brimmed hats. And woman all wore heels, even when making dinner or watching TV.

Finally, there were such great little effects, like screwing the table to the floor, and screwing the BAR to the table.

A masterpiece!


What's troubling to me is how some old farts think every black and white film deserves to be called 'classic'. Just about every old film listed on imdb will have its own cult of rabid drooling fanboys defending it. There were tons of great movies made in black and white, but there were also lots of ones that range from the mediocre to the truly awful. Apparently riclanders defends the 1950s as his beloved movie territory. I grew up during the 70s and 80s and rewatching many of my 80s favorites from my youth, I have reassessed a lot of those films as less than good. I still have soem favorite guilty pleasures, but I don't blindly love all the films I wnjoyed as a child or teenager.

braves snl said:
It's really a shame that most of America's younger crowd can't enjoy classic films and consider black & white to be terrible. Black & white cinematography is beautiful. I'm 19 and just watched "Suddenly" for the first time tonight, and I thought it was a very good movie with a great performance by Frank Sinatra, kind of an opposite role of a future role he would do in 1962s "The Manchurian Candidate". I believe that people should stop watching mindless crap like the American Pie series and Jackass and watch some of this old stuff that's truly original and truly amazing.


I agree that it is a shame that more young people don't stop watching mindless crap and see more classic films, but I disagree with any notion that "Suddenly" is a 'classic' or even a 'very good movie'.

Aside from the aforementioned rabid uber-patriotism in the film which marks it as an American flag waving propaganda piece, Hayden's performance is bad here, while Sinatra fares much better. Though the set-up of the film seems to be interesting, the bad writing is worthy of a modern forensics/police procedural tv series. There are numerous instances where I wanted to throw something at my tv set or simply yell 'that would never happen that way'.

*SPOILERS*
--Would they let the annoying kid keep the toy gun that could potentially be swapped out for a real one without them noticing (saw this plot point coming a mile away)? Probably not, but I'll let it slide.

--Would they let the repairman work on the tv considering his potential opportunities to try something? Probably not, but I'll let it slide so it can set-up the possibility of him rigging the metal table with electricity.

--Would the careful criminal Sinatra be dumb enough to not think any talk of anything being connected to the table for the sniper rifle, would be a potential problem for his mission?

--Would Sinatra really NOT shoot more of the people in the room (after his buddy is electorcuted by table and shot at by the cops/secret service) and turn his back on a loaded handgun lying on the floor just waiting for someone whio is against his assassination plot to pick it up and shoot him dead?


These are just a few of the more obvious jumping points for extreme suspension of disbelief off the top of my head after seeing the film once, there are probably several more. The last 10 minutes or so of the film are painfully stupid and ruin any chance of it being halfway enjoyable. I know films noir have often been said to have plots either simplistic, unrealistic or convoluted, but Suddenly becomes a painfully stupid film. If you really want to know some good films noir to see I can make you a list, but several websites have already done so, from the TSPDT 250 Essential Noir list (which smartly lists this one as Caution on a scale of: Not Seen, Caution, Worth a Look, Recommended, Highly Recommended, Must See) to the numerous noir specific film fansites.

I gave Suddenly a 4/10 and that was being generous. I also gave that same (generous) score to last year's overhyped CG-heavy gladiator film "300".

----------

If you're watching 'Fullscreen' DVDs, you aren't getting the whole picture.

reply


Are you sure you're finished?!!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[deleted]

Death_to_Pan_and_Scan, you need to STFU, I'm late 20's & I loved this movie. Certainly better than a lot of the crap made these days.
Is it a timeless classic? maybe not. But its definitely watchable. Stop bagging it out, it's an entertaining 90 mins no matter how you look at it.

PS: Google "chill pills", I heard they go for cheap these days.

reply

>>> riclanders isn't just old, he seems to be senile

There's no need for that.


Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

reply

Well, actually, Dad, it still sucks. Sorry to be the one to tell you. I'm as old as you are so it looks like it's not just those dern whippersnappers who don't know good entertainment these days.

Weird, stilted writing, an over-obvious propaganda message from the paranoid McCarthy era, terrible pacing. The only reason it's not a total loss is that somehow they got some professionals signed on to act. Sinatra in particular shines, his performance made even more amazing from having to work with the Ed Wood-style writing.

They should have just let ol' Blue Eyes shoot that weird beady-eyed little kid at the outset. It would have been far more enjoyable than watching the heavy-handed plot play out.



reply

Even though I enjoyed this movie, and understand your views;
please tell me that you are just joking about that last paragraph..
about Ol' Blue Eyes shooting the kid!

I agree that there are some things that are laughable about this film,
although I happen to like films from the 1950's that have that good ole
"B Movie" quality...seing that kid get shot would NOT have been enjoyable!


"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

Zipper,

Sinatra was 5'6".

Sterling Hayden was 6'6".

reply

Zipper69 - Let's bear in mind that in 1954 the idea of anybody assassinating the President was considered far fetched

Except in 1950 Puerto Ricans had tried to kill President Truman. Look it up.

Not so far fetched in 1954 then.

reply

I wonder if Sinatra did this movie because Kennedy, et. al, was giving him and his Rat Pack the cold shoulder.


I don't think that JFK ever gave the "Rat Pack" the cold shoulder. Remember that Peter Lawford, a member of the Pack, married into the Kennedy family (but I'm not sure when). The Hollywood community loved JFK.

Also, the movie was made in 1954 when the vast majority of Americans didn't even know who JFK was. I doubt that anyone would have mad a movie to spite someone who was widely unknown at the time.

------------------
I'm just a patsy!

reply

[deleted]

"I don't know how Mystery Science Theater missed this one to screw with! This is prime MST. I have it on now. I taped it last night because it is a good filler movie and it helps me sleep. But I really can't give it all the credit for helping me sleep. I adore the Simpsons and they help me sleep, however they make sense and they are entertaining, but not too jolting to keep me up. Suddenly is entertaining becasue you can be stoned or drunk and have a good laugh. Also, it is a good movie if you were too stoned and had a hangover or you needed something to you sleep besides Ambien. If MST3K did the commentary with this movie, I would be lol, rofl and all kinds of lol.

I believe that having "Blue Eyes" in this picture saved it from being taunted. Probably he would get his boys to kill Mike, Joel, Frank, Dr. Forrester and the bots and that would be it. Old Blue Eyes would not whatn anything that he contributed to to be ridiculed.

I wonder if Sinatra did this movie because Kennedy, et. al, was giving him and his Rat Pack the cold shoulder."


And you found it to be bad for what reason?? I believe it is an intelligent film with a good idea and fast pacing. I personally didn't find a problem with the acting. Its certainly a helluva lot better than mere MST3K fodder. A good movie if you're STONED? Why? If you don't like the film I just wouldn't watch it in the first place. On the other hand, I think Suddenly is a good film if you simply want to watch a decent, entertaining film for an hour and half. I just wish you could explain why you thought it was so horrible.


"You're on stakeout, Callahan!" - Magnum Force

reply

"I don't know how Mystery Science Theater missed this one to screw with! This is prime MST."

Oh you are not the first to think it, and it has been brought up time and time again even during the MST3K run. The reason this movie was never used is two-fold. Mike enjoyed Sinatra's movies and music and he stated at a dinner event in Minneapolis, MN he wouldn't do a MST3k show on any of Sinatra's movies, as it would be "disrespectful to a great man". Joel stated he liked the movie and saw it as a classic, not a flop, and people who suggested the movie be used in the show were nicely told the show doesn't belittle true classics. Remember, the movie is Public Domain so Sinatra nor any actor or even the movie studio would have any recourse if MST3K were to do a show on it.

This was saved because Joel and Mike didn't see the movie as laughable or something that was bad.

reply

It's really a shame that most of America's younger crowd can't enjoy classic films and consider black & white to be terrible. Black & white cinematography is beautiful. I'm 19 and just watched "Suddenly" for the first time tonight, and I thought it was a very good movie with a great performance by Frank Sinatra, kind of an opposite role of a future role he would do in 1962s "The Manchurian Candidate". I believe that people should stop watching mindless crap like the American Pie series and Jackass and watch some of this old stuff that's truly original and truly amazing.

reply

I also thought Suddenly was a decent and enjoyable film. Whats with all the bashing???


"You're on stakeout, Callahan!" - Magnum Force

reply

This is one excellent story. Sinatra was superb, which cannot be said for Hayden, but not that it matters. It's an oddball, montage sometimes seems a mess, dialogs robotic, but its cinematic skeleton is firm. It works for what it is: A suspense thriller that successfully keeps one glued to the edge of the seat when whole legions of "better" movies in the genre don't.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]