Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

AaronCapenBanner Anthony Mann directed this film noir that stars Farley Granger as a struggling letter carrier with a pregnant wife(played by Cathy O'Donnell) who is worried about how he will support them on his salary. Fate intervenes when he is tempted to steal money from ruthless racketeers. He thinks its only a few hundred dollars, but turns out to be several thousands. Now guilt-stricken, he is also being pursued by the racketeers who want their money back, and will gladly kill him in the process. Well-directed and acted film effectively portrays the pitfalls of giving in to temptation and theft, which results in near-fatal consequences for Granger, who wishes he had never taken the money.

jzappa MGM trusted they could reproduce the sensation Farley Granger and Cathy O'Donnell had while starring in Nicholas Ray's They Live by Night, but they just couldn't generate the same romantic fire with this script to make it feel more palpable. In old movies, people too often seem to plan to change their minds, plan to have a new feeling, plan to undergo a change of heart, react, realize, when in reality they're utterly unconscious, spontaneous, organic things, especially in life-or-death situations involving surviving the mob. The acting feels forced at times, demonstrating transitions rather than creating, or allowing them. It's not a plaguing, or by any means unique, flaw, and there are moments of effective acting and writing, but Side Street succeeds primarily for its action sequences. And while it's not the dramatically engaging story that Ray's film was, Anthony Mann's results in a photographically engaging film noir thriller shot in New York City.Mann was recognized for his scenes of violence, and using antagonistic surroundings to dramatic effect. He structures his narrative as a ride, in which each juncture is discerned by new backdrops, the scenery growing more and more unwelcoming as the film goes on, figurative of the hero's fall into disarray. The earliest shots of the hero are blended in with the opening montage. He looks into a shop window, where the reflection also contains numerous massive buildings. This is a perspective shot down the street, and the hero emerges from the middle of the shot, to a close-up at front. He is one of a cluster looking at a worker digging up a street. Huge buildings make oblique, occasionally trapezoidal panes in the background. Throughout the film, shots illustrate cityscapes, outlined and shrouded by the convex reflections in windows of taxi cabs and ambulance doors.The film opens with a succinct homage to the New York police, and one expects that one is going to see a semi-documentary about the police. In spite of this, while the police are ongoing characters in the film, the semi-doc conventions are minimized. There are no lab scenes, and not much effort is made to lionize the cops. Usually in movies like this of the era, the police consume lots of time tracking down and interviewing people in the victim's address book and consult them at work. Neighborhood kids tell where missing men can be found. More successful than any other method is following the money trail. Here the hero does this, rather than the police, tracking down the money wrappers to the bank.A major cop character is played by Charles McGraw. The film has a great comic shot where this super tough officer has to hold a coddled Pekinese dog found at a crime scene. This incongruity is charming. McGraw shows himself a good sport here. There are other dynamics at play than mere humor, though. The fact that this gruff man is nice to dogs hints at a primarily wholesome feature to his character. A man who is gentle to dogs is indicative that he'll be gentle to children, and care for them. This is a significant illustration, in a film that depends on its green hero Farley Granger's effort to mature, and be a dependable family man himself.Nothing like the youthful, blue-collar star, the villain appears to be well-to-do, while obviously too much of a street thug to be authentically posh. He is dressed in one of the flashiest pinstriped suits of the whole film noir period. He unquestionably looks the class of commercial triumph that Granger wants to be but isn't. The villain's social rank fluctuates in a dreamlike manner throughout. Initially he seems like the personification of prosperity and influence, seen in a chic business suit in a lawyer's office. As the film goes on, this pretense of a flush entrepreneur is stripped away. And the tension builds on a purely gut level, which is sometimes enough.

sdave7596 "Side Street" released in 1950, is an excellent thriller from director Anthony Mann. Farley Granger plays an average working guy who hauls around a mail-bag to make a living. While delivering mail one day, he picks up some money lying around in an office -- well, actually be breaks into the file drawer to get it. Thinking he has only taken a small amount of money, it turns out to be several hundred thousand. This sets off a wild chain of events, with Granger conflicted about what to do. The money is tempting, as his wife (Cathy O'Donnell) is in the hospital having a baby. However, Granger doesn't realize who the money belongs to. The film gets quite complicated and edgy, with murder and a spectacular car chase thrown in at the end. The New York City locations are great fun to watch, and the wonderful black and white cinematography has Anthony Mann's stamp all over it. There are some fine supporting performances, notably from James Craig, playing a ruthless thug, and Jean Hagen has a great part as a boozy bar singer. Cathy O'Donnell isn't given much to do here except look worried. However, this is Farley Granger's show, and he does not disappoint. It's a shame Granger never got the recognition he deserved. Perhaps he just wasn't offered more great parts or maybe he was too good-looking to be taken seriously. Either way, this is a fine film, a true example of the noir films coming out of Hollywood in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

christopher-underwood Plot holes aside and not having to mind watching Farley Granger floundering rather pathetically, this is one heck of a noir. Worth it just for the location shooting. Tremendous shots of 50s New York City, probably as good as any archive material and if the plot verges on the silliness, everybody gives it their all. Great performances from the leads to the lowliest support. Much of that must be down to Mann and whether it was decided to use so much location shooting because of the budget or not it is truly awe inspiring from those opening aerial shots, the fantastic market area and the amazing chase through the streets at the end. So, not the most attention grabbing plot but still great viewing.