Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

clanciai This is a heart-rending story that would have been almost unbearable if it were not for the exceptionally poignant performance of Edward G. Robinson as an old man getting caught in a web of urban corruption. Sam Jaffe's brief but equally upsetting performance is on the same level, and it's like a nightmare of helplessness of old age. At the same time, a character like this wouldn't fit anyone but Robinson - he made many such characters before, but they all mount up to this one, lost in a world that because of his old age refuses to take him seriously or even believe him, since he alone knows the truth but can't understand it or make it credible, since it is too evil for human understanding. Even his son (Martin Balsam) ultimately fails him, while the end comes as a surprise, since it should have turned another way. It's a great story, all the characters are excellent, and the events and circumstances of this asphalt jungle of a hostile city environment are quite typical of 1970 - that's how the world was in those days, with psychiatry as the infallible authority of human life. Although it is very late, this is still a noir and one of the very darkest as such. When you try to settle after the film you feel very old and lost, like the too convincing old honest Robinson.

utgard14 Man, TV movies in the '70s were so much better than they are today. Hell, many of them are even better than theatrical films today. This is an engrossing movie starring the great Edward G. Robinson as an elderly man who sees his friend murdered but can't get anyone to believe him. It's a well-written and fairly gritty picture with a fine cast of familiar faces backing up Robinson, who's just dynamite. The ending is a bit of a downer but that was the '70s for you. Other reviewers seem to be picking on "why didn't anyone believe him" as a major flaw with the film. I just can't disagree more. I mean, were we watching the same movie? First, there's the underlying theme of how the elderly are treated at the heart of all this. The well-meaning but full-of-it shrink even compares them to adolescents. Second, there's the fact that there wasn't one shred of evidence to back him up. They spent the majority of the film showing him trying to convince people only to have it repeated over and over that there simply was no proof. So it was his word versus the evidence, which is all that would matter in reality to anyone but those who loved him. The son was the most sympathetic to his plight and even that wasn't much. The daughter-in-law, the real villain of the piece in my view, seemed like she couldn't muster an ounce of sympathy for the sweet old man. I half-expected her to be in on the cover-up! There simply was nothing to back up what he was saying. And the shrink going out investigating, which at least one reviewer took issue with, was more about the shrink trying to prove to the old man that he was wrong than it was about trying to seriously investigate the case.

jarrodmcdonald-1 Someone uploaded this classic old TV movie on YouTube yesterday. Within hours it had thousands of views, so that might suggest people were bored and had nothing better to do than watch Eddie Robinson in something from 1970, or else this was something people had been eager to see for a long time. You can tell it was close to the end of his life because of his advanced age on camera. He plays a man turning 70, but in real life he was 76 almost 77 when he filmed his part. He has scenes where he goes up and down stairs (once all the way down a fire escape) and stretches where he is wandering streets in a bad part of town. So obviously the actor was fit enough for the role, but it sounds like he has emphysema because there are a lot of weird deep breaths in his line deliveries (he would die of cancer just over two years later). I felt the performances were very good, from both Robinson and Martin Balsam who plays his son. That's why I'm giving it a score of 8. Also, Sam Jaffe has a memorable turn as a murder victim, and so does Ruth Roman as a barfly who helps crooks. In fact Roman comes the closest to upstaging Robinson, and she's hardly trying-- she's simply that good. But of course the script is focused on Robinson's character, an old man who tries to convince others he did actually see a murder and his life is in danger. Since a lot is said to establish him as a man who always told the truth, it's rather ridiculous they all think he's lying in this instance. The dialogue is downright terrible where they're all coming up with excuses why they shouldn't believe him. Also, it was entirely unbelievable that Robinson could get away from the killer so easily during a scene where a hotel room catches fire. I am sure a real killer would have let the drapes burn and prevented our hero from escaping. Meanwhile, Ed Asner appears as a well-meaning shrink who strangely starts to play detective and goes with Balsam out into the streets to find out whether Robinson did in fact witness a murder. Since they've gone out of their way to say Robinson is suffering from paranoia, why would they all of a sudden think there is any merit in his story? Also, why would a psychiatrist think he can do a better job than the police, and when would he find the time to leave his other patients to investigate? Not very realistic at all.Overall the story has some interesting characters and performances. And I would say the far-fetched plot does manage to build to a memorable ending. But there is something lacking, something still not fully satisfying. Either Robinson's character should have been presented as someone with a real history of paranoid schizophrenia or he should have been known as a compulsive liar, a man who usually never told the truth about business or family matters. If he had these character defects in the past, it would make his true story that much more difficult to swallow. Another possibility was they could have had the killer threatening to harm his family and forcing him to live in fear in a more realistic way.

Alex da Silva Edward G. (Emile) is an old codger going about friendly business as he drops by to say "Hi" to fellow old codger Sam Jaffe (Abe). Well, someone doesn't like Jaffe too much, turns up and puts an end to Jaffe and his life journey. Eddie G. is a witness so takes a blow as well but he survives. When he awakes, his pal is dead and there is a network of witnesses who remember things differently. We, as the audience, know that he is telling the truth surrounding the demise of his friend. Can he get his message across? This is the 70's so, thankfully, the restrictive film legislative codes have been lifted and evil can now triumph. The soundtrack is cool in a nostalgic way and the film ends memorably. I have to admit to being disappointed but it is definitely not the note expected. That's what makes it memorable and that's the dilemma..The film leads us through the movements of an old guy being chased which gets annoying because guess what…… he falls over….Eeeurgh!.... Corny…..!! But this might just save the old guy. There isn't much more to understand or follow up in terms of character study. There are good guys and there are bad guys. We just go with the Eddie G flow.