Hilarious

first of all, many posters here have some kind of irrational hatred of older movies, and of characters who aren't one dimensional stereotypical psychopaths. So many posters hail Sinatra's work (and I'm not belittling his work) in this movie just because his character was more like a modern day nut case, and most like a video arcade game. No doubt, the ones who didn't like Sinatra base that on the fact that he died after a few bullet shots, instead of being invulnerable like the modern day movie psycho. That must have really hit the modern movie computer dork below the belt. These modern day movie dorks would have had him survive fifty bullets and live to make a sequel just cause he had an inner evil that magically keeps you alive in the dork's world.

So Hayden played a character who had some stability and common sense. This really must tick some people off. He played his role just as well as Sinatra played his. The kid didn't seem geniuinely frightened, but that was well explained early on, when the mother and her father in law talked about how she was hurting his chances of survival in the world by her unwillingness to let him take risks.

What really shows how wacko these modern movie dorks are is when they call the airplane pilot the "lame brain", compared to Sinatra's character. The pilot wanted to take the half pay and run, no sweat. Sinatra's character wanted to fulfill the contract and not only run the risk of being caught, but probably never see the other half of the money any way. So how is the more intelligent gangster a lame brain? Not to mention the other pitfalls of the crazed Sinatra character. But, like I said, he fits in with the modern dork's world of video game goofball characters and one dimensional stereotypes, although Sinatra's character wasn't one dimensional, he still was clearly not as well rounded as the others.

This was a very credible script compared to the nutty ones we get today. The characters were far more credible. The electrouction may have been a bit too convenient, but that's only one small contrivance, nothing by movie standards.

What a pitiful group of dorks there are bashing this movie, and Hayden's acting. These are clearly people who've never stepped foot away from a computer, video, or movie screen, and have no concept of Reality, or of people, or of History. They prove in their posts that they believe no character is worth acting out unless he is a psycho.

I went to a flea market and bought this film. The salesman told me that even teenagers are bypassing the new movies to pick out these old films. They aren't computer nerds, so we never hear from them. But it proves that there are too many movies made to place the loud minority of computer dork-bullies, and not enough to entertain the people who do other activiteis-read, jog, gym, sports, whatever.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

[deleted]

[deleted]

"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 something. I recommend you watch this just to see how bad a film can really be."


It could be hilarious , but not for the reasons you stated. The movie reminded me a lot of The Maltese Falcon. A group of people stuck in one enclosed space and the snappy and witty dialogue just brings out the quirks of the different characters.




Live Long and Prosper!

I will agree that the beginning of the movie, with the "aw gee" conversation in the supermarket, is a tad overplayed. But once things get underway, it really cooks. Some of the dialogue may seem quaint by today's standards, but this was made in 1954, when people weren't as paranoid as they are today and JFK's assassination was still 8 years away.

Sinatra is superb as a villain, and should have tried it again. He turned down "The Godfather." I'm pretty sure this was a film he agreed to before he won the part of Maggio in "From Here to Eternity" and needed the work. But he was terrific. The fifties was a brilliant decade for him in movies (and on recordings). "Pal Joey" "The Joker is Wild" "Young at Heart" "Some Came Running" "High Society" etc. etc.

I also enjoyed James Gleason's Pop. And Nancy Olsen is actually quite good here. Hayden is stiff in some scenes, but he gives an earnest performance, while the kid who plays Pidge is a little much sometimes. Overall, a good cast.

Obviously, this was something of a B-movie, but I've always thought the tension grew throughout rather nicely. If they ever remade it, it would be very difficult to recapture Sinatra's intensity.

I laughed a lot, but because I liked the film and I think it's mostly unpredictable and much more exciting and more original than most of the crime/thriller stories made in this time. I was intrigued by the setup and the elements of the story, particularly with the TV repair and the boy's cap gun becoming vital instruments in the family's survival. Suddenly may not have the best technical polishing, but I find it to be a very pleasing and engaging piece of work.

Agreed. complete rubbish.
One lonely gambit stretched out to a feeble 75 minutes.
Crap ideas about how to dramatize the story.

The minor characters were all indeed mediocre to awful, with that long-faced cop probably taking the award for the most abominable line delivery. Also, the old geezer hammed it up a bit too much. Hayden and particularly Sinatra were, however, totally solid. Otherwise a pretty good, suspenseful little film.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan