SunnyHello Nice effects though.

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

antoniocasaca123 "Who's that knocking at my door" is an excellent first film by Martin Scorsese, with a first half of great level and a second half with some irregularities and that for that reason does not have the same high level of the first. The influences of the French "nouvelle vague" are more than evident in this first work of Scorsese, more concretely the first films of Jean-Luc Godard, of the first half of the decade of 60, notably the nonlinear narrative, the style of the dialogues, the scenes "non-sense", the multiple cinematic "honors" (references to films "the searchers", "the man who shot liberty valance", "rio bravo"), artistic (references to actors John Wayne and Lee Marvin) and even musicals (references to Percy Sledge and others). Even considering these (good) influences, Scorsese's style and themes are well-grounded in his first film: psychological analysis of a man disintegrated from society, the marginality of the streets, a fatal woman, the religion, and so on. The choice of songs is also remarkable, which has become a "mark" in Scorsese's films. Harvey Keitel has his debut as an actor here and is excellent, he would collaborate with Scorsese in more films. The filmmaker's second film, "Boxcar Bertha", also notable, would emerge five years after this, in 1972, he also with notable influences of "nouvelle vague", but with a more regular and consistent narrative, although the theme of this "who's that knocking at my door" seems to me perhaps more powerful than that of "boxcar bertha".

SnoopyStyle John Wayne fan J.R. (Harvey Keitel) and his friends are local Italian petty ruffians on the streets of New York. He meets and gets engaged to a girl. When she tells him about being raped, he is disbelieving, angry, and heartbroken. With his religious conviction, he can't marry a non-virgin and returns to his old thug life.The actors are all amateurs. This is Martin Scorsese's feature debut. It's a black and white indie. Harvey Keitel is still a student actor. Despite that, one can see the inherit skills of these guys. Scorsese is trying various camera moves. He's an artist playing with his paint. There is a real unpredictable sense of violence and there is his music sense. It's not polished by any means but one can see Scorsese trying something in almost every scene. There are scenes that ramble on but those have a visceral sense of uncertainty. The technical aspect varies and it can feel disjointed especially the dream sequences. The sexual dream comes out of nowhere which doesn't fit the rest of the movie. There is the ambient noise which may be deliberate but probably the byproduct of guerrilla student filmmaking. Keitel is exuding energy as the lead. He's the focus even at such a young age. I do wonder why the female lead has no name. To be fair, most characters do not have names. One would expect JR call her by her name at least once. Is it a continuing Scorsese limitation with female characters? I can only call up one strong female lead in his writing. There are a few more in his other works. It's probably a limitation of simply being a dude. It's hard to write what one doesn't know. Overall, this is a crystal ball that predicts Scorsese's rise as one of the great American directors.

Howlin Wolf All of the classic Scorsese preoccupations (masculinity, fraternal bonding, religion, movies, music... ) are already here, and touched upon to quietly devastating effect.Heresy as it may be to say this, this film makes me wish that Keitel had swapped places with De Niro, as Marty's primary leading man, before Leo came along...It's refreshing in 1967 to see Scorsese wrestling with the treatment of women. The idea that everything goes back to 'blame', and that it's somehow the woman's responsibility to 'repent', instead of requiring a man to deal with his own insecurities. The subject presents perhaps a necessary reminder for some, that females have been getting a raw deal for a long time... even if fewer people were addressing it, back then.(and just in case anyone is tempted to say anything... I'm a social justice pacifist, not a social justice warrior... It means you can hold a contrary opinion, and I won't fight you over it... but I still think you're wrong!) :-)The main takeaway from this is: Don't expect the mere existence of suffering and pain to be the factor which repairs something that is broken... because sometimes, it can't.They should have kept "I Call First" as the title, by the way!This is a fabulous film, and despite having seen it for the first time today, is already up there with "Raging Bull" as my favourite Scorsese work (it's probably a coincidence that they're both in black and white!)

moonspinner55 Striking, if aimless debut from writer-director Martin Scorsese, involving a well-dressed but feckless young man (Harvey Keitel, in his acting debut) on the streets of New York who meets a lovely single girl reading a foreign magazine and strikes up a conversation about movies; soon after, they begin dating, however she volunteers more about her past than he is able to handle. What began as a short film from film student Scorsese was eventually expanded upon and, with a title change or two, released to some acclaim in 1967. The sexual montage, featuring Keitel and his 'broads' (and set to "The End" by the Doors) is a fabulous example of cinematic sound and fury: the perfect marriage between silvery black-and-white cinematography, kinetic editing, great music and lusty bodies on display. Unfortunately, Scorsese as a writer had not developed a true ear for canny dialogue, and the characters fail to emerge as a result. Still, an almost-dynamic first try, and a must-see for film historians. Keitel, marvelously youthful and muscular, is more callow than expressive, though he gives the picture its pulse; the cinematography from Richard Coll and Michael Wadley also helps. **1/2 from ****