Reviews (43)

Not just a Chick Flick!
I hope no one in Hollywood will attempt to remake this movie because it can't be done. I don't think any actors can duplicate the emotional realism and "connection" to the audience that Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood so effectively conveyed. I think this movie is far superior to any film adaptations of "Romeo and Juliet."

I mean, I'm the straight guy raised on Sci-Fi, and I practically wept when this movie ended. It's that real. In a way it's not possible to remake this film given the, er, "relaxed" social norms of today. Most young people watching this film will probably just shrug and say, "so what's the big deal?"

SITG is a snapshot of another era, yet all (or most) of us can relate to the question: "what if?" or "what might have been" when we look back at growing up and our love lives, no matter what era you grew up in. This film is not representative of my generation, neither with regard to the era in which it was filmed nor the era it depicts, yet I was transfixed by it. If you can relate to that kind of experience then this film will touch you like no other film.

SITG helped launch Warren Beatty's career. Natalie Wood was, of course, already a star but this was arguably one of her most sensational performances. I always felt she sort of overdid her performances a bit--eye and facial movements seemed over exaggerated, etc., but physically and emotionally she still owns the screen. Many have already pointed out that her tragic death was foreshadowed in the scene in the bathtub and at the waterfall (and the boat on/from which she died was named, yep, you guessed it).

I actually like Pat Hingle's (Commissioner Gordon from the Batman films) over the top performance as Ace Stamper: "You want that? You got it boy! I'll get it for you! This world is your oyster!" He's not so much a character as a characature--in this case he's the emotional polar opposite of Jim Backus as the father in "Rebel Without A Cause."

Complex, raw, brilliantly acted. Leaves you with many questions. When Deanie hugs Bud Jr you almost know that she's thinking "what if?" while projecting her love to a pure and innocent child. I just can't believe that encounter was the end and the two of them said goodbye forever. The film begs for a sequel yet no sequel can do it justice. It can and should stand alone.

A Genuine Masterpiece, Art Sometimes Imitates Life to a T
Opinions on this movie and its message are as varied as the backgrounds of the people who've seen it. Though the story took place back in the roaring 20's, I was growing up with very much the same parental and social pressures in the early 80's, so I identify strongly with this movie. Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty) and Deanie Loomis (Natalie Wood) are two teenagers madly in love during the roaring 20's in smalltown Kansas. They are so emotionally and physically overwrought that it's all they can do to keep from experiencing full-blown intimacy. They don't dare, because their parents, peers, and neighbors know everything that goes on and, what they don't, they manage to find out somehow. The social repercussions can be disastrous.

Deanie comes from a poor family, and her mother is an overbearing woman who corners her about her relations with Bud, because "no nice girl" has provocative feelings for a man--not even after marriage. Deanie's guilt and frustration can be seen in the way she hugs her pillow and lays suggestively alone in her room, then goes to blow kisses to her photos of Bud above her dresser and follows this with prayer.

Bud is a high school football hero, the son of a rich oil baron who wants him to go off to college and excel in business. All Bud want's is to run his father's ranch and be happily married to Deanie. His father won't hear a word he says, and also gives him bad advice as to how to deal with his pent-up physical desires toward Deanie by having a tryst with the town tramp.

This is a costly mistake, as it makes Bud physically ill, and Deanie, pushed over the edge by having to read Wordsworth's poem about the end of love, begins to go through the stages of a mental breakdown. The words tell her something she doesn't want to hear, and the fact that everyone in school is talking about Bud's infidelity only makes it worse for her.

The signs that Deanie isn't well are very apparent, but her stubborn and overbearing mother (Audrey Christie) keeps denying that something is wrong, even after Deanie's shocking outburst in the bathroom. Her mother badgers her so much about her purity that Deanie finally snaps when asked, "Did he spoil you?" Deanie begins to scream to the delight of her nosey neighbors that she's as pure and virginal as the day she was born and runs to her bedroom naked, screaming that she hates her mother. This is what leads Deanie to the climax of her final cave-in.

Bud's sister Ginny is the town trollup, but she is more sympathetic than despicable once you see what a selfish and domineering man Ace Stamper (Pat Hingle) is. It's very obvious, before losing control, that the repressed Deanie is fascinated by Bud's uninhibited flapper sister, and it shows in her deteriorating behavior. Deanie cuts off her hair and puts on a slinky red flapper dress as she sings a song she heard Ginny warble, and goes to the school dance with a friend of Bud's to show him she can be worldly too.

Her plans for a reunion are ruined by the ultimate rejection Bud gives her after turning a cold shoulder to her even before his romp with Juanita, and she would be successful in trying to drown herself in the town falls if not for the local villagers pulling her out in time.

Deanie is placed in an institution and Bud goes off to college, intentionally flunking out, and he takes up with a girl whose parents own a pizza place. The stock market crash of '29 hits hard, and it's not until Bud's father jumps out a hotel window that he can finally be at peace and do what he wants--except for being with Deanie.

Two and a half years have gone by, and Deanie is ready to go home after her time in the institution. She's engaged to a fellow patient who is going to be a doctor, but her psychiatrist urges her to see Bud once more for closure before she weds. Her mother is against this and tries to convince her friends not to indulge her, lying that Deanie was upstairs crying in hysterics. For once, her father takes her side and tells the girls where they can find him.

The end is pivotal to the film, and it shows how much more Deanie has grown up than Bud. Peace at last, and the hope of going on to something new. This film is a tragic love story, but it's also a phoenix rising from the ashes. It's powerful and mellowdramatic, but this is the genius of Elia Kazan's direction. Most of the film is seen through Deanie's eyes, from her young, misty-eyed idealism to her adult realizations that her hero is nothing but an overgrown boy with burdens he's brought on himself. Even the way they're dressed speaks volumes about the changes each of them has made.

This film is terribly moving, and if you grew up in the same repressive climate, you will get a lot out of it. Even if you haven't, this is such a beautiful and perfectly done account of so many people's reality, distorted a bit because most people see things in their own way. One particular performance to pay attention to is Barbara Loden as Bud's irrepressible sister Ginny. There is more to this character than a lot of people are giving significance to, and Loden turns out a highly impressive performance. I urge you to add this video to your library as it is more than worth your time, and make sure you have a kleenex handy. Something tells me you're going to need it.

A little too soapy ...
I like Natalie Wood, and her performance here is outstanding, but I found this film to be a little over-the-top and mirrored soap operas in some ways. First, the whole psychosexual drama, (or overdrama). Second, the fact that NONE of the parents in the film listened to their teenagers. When Deanie's mom talks to her, she doesn't give her a chance to confide any of her own feelings about Bud. Mom just says, "Don't do this, don't do that, and be good little girl." Even worse, Bud's dad just talks and talks, totally oblivious to what Bud wants out of life. The parents are what drive these two teens crazy, not their hormones.

I must say that I was pleased with the ending though. (Spoiler ahead). I halfway expected for Deanie and Bud to get together at the end of the film somehow, but Elia Kazan didn't wrap it up with a little bow at the end. A point in his favor. I like the close with Natalie repeating the lines from Wordsworth's poem in her head too. That's a powerful reminder that she has grown up, she is mentally stable, and she's ready to move on with her life.

Glory in the Flower
Splendor in The Grass, Directed by the late Elis Kazan is undoubtly something most of us who look at love and life idealistically have all gone through. Based in rural Southeast Kansas in 1928, this passonate love story about two young lovers who are troubled by the sexual urges they have for one another and the sexual represson of this age. Warren Beatty makes his film debute as "Bud" Natalie Woods's character "Deanie" love interest. "Bud" is torn between his love and sexually desire toward "Deanie" and his father who is pressuring him into attending Yale to get his degree. "Deanie" as a young "good girl" is urged by her mother to not let a boy "spoil" her. Reluctantly, "Bud" agrees to his fathers wishes and breaks his relationship off with "Deanie" sending her into a "psychopathic" spin. The lesson to be learned is that life will go on no matter how much heart break you suffer, "What Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass." Absolutely a wonderful love story with a surprise ending. I found both Warren and Natalie's preformance at such a young age exciting, knowing what outstanding preformers they grew up to be. Bring your girlfriends and watch this movie!!!

The Perils of Puberty
The quotation from Wordsworth's poem from which William Inge derived the title of his screenplay (for which he received an Academy Award) offers an insight into the tendency of young people to ignore or minimize the importance of certain decisions they make which can have significant long-term impact on their adult lives. This is essentially a sad movie in several respects as Wilma Dean Loomis (Natalie Wood) and Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty) struggle without much success to establish a stable relationship while in high school. Both are goaded (driven?) by parents who set ambitious goals for them which frustrate and confuse them. By nature, most adolescents live day-to-day, measuring their happiness in terms of immediate and sustainable social acceptance. For them, tomorrow will somehow take care of itself. Bud seems to live an unexamined life whereas, early on, Wilma seems emotionally vulnerable to self-doubt. Bud is content to get along by going along whereas Wilma becomes increasingly more dependent on carefree Bud. As directed by Elia Kazan, most of the main characters in this film are (to varying degrees) dysfunctional. As a result, communication between and among them is seldom successful. This is especially true of the relationship between Bud and his father (Pat Hingle), perhaps most evident while Bud struggles with his life at Yale.

While seeing Splendor in the Grass again recently, I was much less sympathetic with Wilma and Bud than when I first saw it decades ago. Oh sure, that is partly explained by my current age and all of my life experiences as a father and (now) a grandfather. But I also now think that the film (because of Inge's script and Kazan's use of it) too often substitutes melodrama for drama. There is almost no personal development by Bud throughout the film. Wilma recognizes that after seeing him for probably the last time. In contrast, she seems to have learned a number of important life lessons (albeit at a substantial cost) and now possesses -- as the film ends -- a worldly wisdom which Bud will never obtain. This is a brilliantly crafted soap opera. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, it was immensely popular because the emotional world it explores was then so accessible and because that world was presented so simplistically. My guess (only a guess) is that most of today's teenagers will find this film to be quaint. A few may find it endearing. For me, it retains some of its charm but not much else. ... Read more

Description

The evil is back. The Exorcist novelist and Academy Award-winning screenwriter William Peter Blatty triumphs again with this spellbinding sequel starring George C. Scott.Year: 1990 ... Read more

Reviews (92)

Uh, It Was..... Wierd.
OK Just for a warning. I just finished watching this movie, so maybe my opinion isn't the best. I usually watch a movie and don't like it, but then when I watch it again I like it. However, I don't want to watch this one again. I found it quite boring and it unfortunately departed from the story set by The Exorcist and Exorcist 2 The Heretic. To be perfectly honest, I LOVED the 2nd film, and I think this one should have followed where that one ended. But, William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist 3 goes in a completely different direction. Not like Halloween 3 Season Of The Witch (which I loved), but it doesn't have Kitty Winn, or Linda Blair, and that's unfortunate.

The film begins confusing enough (only to get more confusing in the end) with some weird "Dream Sequence" and then goes on so that we can meat Lt. William Kinderman (George C Scott), the officer who knew Father Karras (Jason Miller). It is now the 15th anniversary of Karras' death, as he fell out a window while exorcising little Reagan. Kinderman begins to investigate a handfull of deaths that are in the exact same way "The Gemini Killer" murdered his victoms. Meanwhile, there's a paitient in room 11 who looks just like Karras, and claims to be The Gemini Killer. The movie then starts to fade as "The Gemini Killer" starts babbling about rturning from the dead and it all gets very confsing just to lead to a dissapointing conclusion.

...the moment it began, I got bored and went to take a nap (a 3 hour one) and the next day I watched THE WHOLE THING. Despite my hearts protests to turn the movie off and ditch it. Well, after watching it, I thought "Wow. The biggest waste of time movie EVER. And I just watched it". Well, I haven't gained anything from watching it as I did watching the firstand second.

If you ACTUALLY DID enjoy William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist 3, I'd recomend the first and second film, as well as the Omen Trilogy.

LEGION A MOVIE GREAT ON ITS OWN TERMS!
To start off with, this movie should have been called " Legion " not " Exorcist 3 "; obviously, Mr. William Peter Blatty { in a director debut nothing short of astonishing } was under some studio pressure to sell the movie as a sequel to attract mviegoers. " Legion " is a continuation of Det. Kinderman---played wonderfully and world weary by the magnificant George C. Scott---dealing with grisly murders that AT FIRST appear to be the work of a copycat of the ruthless and evil " Gemmini Killer "
James Venemin. But later on Kinderman gets more than he ever bargined for: following the murder of his friend Father Dyer who is admitted into a hospital { a gruesome one that appears to be the work of the killer Kinderman is after }, the detective is blown away to find in a " isolation tank " in the psyche ward of the hospital...Father Karras! But Father Karras is claiming to be James Venimen , who appears often to the viewer as a particular psychopathic Brad Douriff { who is iddeally evil here playing the role with satanic glee }!

This movie contains very little gore; is thought provoking, atmospheric and VERY scary. And seeing the " Exorcist " s 1 or 2 is completly uneccesary to understand it and to enjoy this movie which deals with the evils of Man, as one reviewer said befor, the silence of God, demons both figuritively and literly, and most compelling, Kinderman's stuggling faith.

Kaenan James

Nothing can beat the original
This one sucks, and I never even seen it, The first one was the best, its declared as the scariest movie ever. none of these even comes close.

Wonderfully directed, but a little too "talky"
I really tried hard to find something--anything--to push this film over into the 4 star territory, but I just could not do it. That would be dishonest of me to give the impression that it was of film of such classic status.
Don't get me wrong, this is definitely a worthwhile movie and not a waste of time to watch by any means. Blatty's directing is very unique and at times extremely artistic in its creepiness. He is incredibly talented at creating an eerie vibe by using bizarre camera shots and borderline psychedelia, and personally I think he should have directed more horror films. The story, within the world of the Exorcist films, is believable and not necessarily a "roll your eyes in disbelief" kind of plot. Bringing back Jason Miller lends credibility to it that may not have been given otherwise.
My only gripes are the confused acting of George C. Scott--not his typical kind of role and I just don't see him meshing with the strange behavior of Kinderman all that well--and the extraordinary amount of dialogue. Blatty likes to really bash us over the head with conversations, especially between Scott and Brad Dourif. These seemingly endless rantings get very tiresome after the first five minutes of sitting there watching these guys go back and forth, not to mention having to deal with Dourif's constant overacting. Blatty wants us to know just how clever he can be (as well as how nonsensical he can be, considering some of Scott's lines), but this is overkill.
Aside from those points, it is certainly a very visually enthralling film. I remember reading about TE3 in Fangoria before it came out and, upon seeing the final product, noticed that some of the gorier scenes--which had clearly been filmed--were left out. One scene I recall from a photo in the magazine showed the priest in the confessional holding his head in his lap after the old lady got to him. Removing that was probably a good decision since this sort of film leaves the horror to your own imagination rather than shoving it in your face.

The Exorcist III
The Exorcist III is fantastic.I had heard so many good things about it and it was everything I expected.George C. Scott does an amazing and touching job as Lt. Kinderman.Jason Miller reprises his role as the priest from the original.The characters are great.The dialogue is reasonable.The plot is great.Even though it isn't better than the original it is an excellent sequel.The story really interested me.I'm glad they talked about the stairs from the original and included it in this one.(SPOILERS)The voice in the reconciliation scene was really creepy.The way they described one of the priests and black boys death was terrible but also interesting.Make sure to check this one out.A woman crawls by unnoticed - on the ceiling like a fly.A long- dead killer claims victim after victim.Flames erupt, snakes slither, the ground opens and reveals a writhing pit of the damned.The evil is back.(8/10)

"Amazing! A sequel that stands on its own and still creeps me out at times."

-- Robin Clifford, REELING REVIEWS ... Read more

Reviews (13)

A very satisfying movie
I love this movie. In a world where movies consist mostly of horny school kids and people who only believe in multiple sex partners and drive by shootings, this movie is such a refreshing change. It concentrates on normal people just trying to make lives for themselves. This is a movie that probably most of middle America can relate to on some level. Jane Fonda is beautiful, and Robert DeNiro is so sweet and endearing. Yeah, it's a chick flick...you got a problem with that?

Fantastic Love Story Concerning Illiteracy!!
In this film,Stanley(Robert DeNiro),a hard worker, unable to read or write is befriended by a blue class hardworking widow,Iris(Jane Fonda) who teaches DeNiro how to read and write in which their friendship later blossoms into love.It's a fantastic love story concerning illiteracy!!

A Small Triumph
Roger Ebert and the Maltin crew have been unnecessarily unkind to this film, each giving it only two-and-a-half stars. Ebert's Sun-Times review of this film is not available at his Web site or at imdb.com, so I cannot comment on his criticisms. The Maltin crew, in "Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide," complains that the movie is flat and underdeveloped.

There is some justification for the Maltin crew's comment. At the beginning of the film we find Iris (Jane Fonda) sharing her home with her children, her barely working sister, and her shiftless, dishonest brother-in-law. These last two characters disappear quickly from the film and make only brief reappearances. Their relationships with Iris are never developed. The two children are, for the most part, simply "there." There is, likewise, no exploration of Stanley's (De Niro) relationship with his father, except to show unexpressed love and respect. Nor is anything made of the relationship of Stanley with Iris' son. Nor of Stanley with his various employers. Neither Stanley nor Iris seem to have any friends, at least we never see them. There is some very limited development of Iris' relationship with her pregnant unwed daughter. There is a lot of exploration of the relationship between Stanley and Iris. The film is about them and really only about them. Anyone else in the film has little more than a brief walk-on. Is this film "flat" or "thin," or would it be more just to call it "lean?"

This was Martin Ritt's last film. Certainly, it must have mattered to him, and just as certainly he knew how to create a more richly textured film with well-developed subplots. Obviously, he chose not to. He chose instead to concentrate on the relationship between the two title characters and included other characters only if he needed them briefly to better define these two. Stanley and Iris are both tortured souls, troubled by demons, he with illiteracy, she with grief over the death of her husband. Each is afraid to confront these demons before they meet one another, and then not until a long time after their first meeting. They both have a sense of dignity. The harshness of life has taught them to suppress their feelings. They do not show emotion readily. Their lives are simple and dreary. Given who these characters are, it is clear that neither Fonda's nor De Niro's acting will catch fire. And to develop other story lines would simply be a distraction. So we have really just these two characters, and the strands of the story are his life, her life, and the slow cautious development of their life. Again, Ritt could have developed a richly textured film like Robert Benton's "Places in the Heart" (another film about people helping one another escape from adversity and also underappreciated by the critics). Obviously, that wasn't what he wanted. The film that Ritt wanted us to see is this simple straightforward one. In its own special way it is a wonderful film, and it closed Ritt's career in much the same way that "Madadayo" (yet another underappreciated film) closed Kurosawa's.

There are some other apparent weaknesses in the film, although they are not those claimed by the critics, and they too have their reasons. Fonda and De Niro speak a simple language but with a diction inapropriate to their class, and Fonda simply looks too good for a woman who must struggle to keep bread on the table. Neither sounds like they are from New England. Perhaps, they would be more convincing if they looked and spoke like working-class people, with horrible elocution and worse grammar. But that would distance them from us, make us too analytical about their situations and characters, and ultimately alienate us from them. Better to leave audience alienation to the films of Jean-Luc Godard, a director who alienates his audiences as a matter of principal. (He is, after all, a Brechtian.) Life is full of compromises, and so is art. Unlike some critics, I am not incredulous at a woman's of Iris' obvious intelligence and quality of expression having such a dead end job. I doubt few women would be either.

This is not a film about illiteracy. Stanley's illiteracy is simply the vehicle for bringing the characters together and creating his problems. This is a film about people damaged by life through no fault of their own, finally daring to look for some ray of hope. And please, let us not say how much better the film might have been had it ended in tragedy or, at least, further dreariness. Let us admit that we, the audience, also need to find happiness, that we crave to be loved and to feel pride, and let us not warily turn our backs to these characters who seek no more than that.

It takes a certain meanness to rate this film, as did the Maltin team, at the same level as "The Toxic Avenger." And how should one react to Roger Ebert, who gave this film a thumbs down while granting three-and-a-half stars to Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" (1977), an amateurish ultraviolent film that begins with the brutal murder of a young girl and ends with the horrific vengence exacted by her parents? A modern American suburban version of "The Virgin Spring?" I don't think so, no matter what Wes Craven may claim as his inspiration.

I may be too uncritical, but I like "Stanley & Iris." I am won over by its simplicity and its nobility. I do not find it be either flat or underdeveloped. Ebert and the Maltin team were clearly disappointed, perhaps, because they were expecting a different film. "Stanley & Iris" is not a great film, but in its quiet, humble, dignified way it is certainly at least a good film, and we are diminished if we dismiss it too coolly.

REALLY HEARTWARMING BUT...
it is as if these people are not living in America or like it was in set mid seventies.Though de Niro and Jane Fonda are excellent you feel sadness throughout the whole movie except for the last bit.I felt like I should give them alms.

It's okay...
I was flipping through the channels at home and I came upon this movie. What interested me was that Robert DeNiro played a man that was unable to read and write. I am a special education teacher that teaches learning disabled students. I thought that the movie could teach them how important reading and writing was in every day life. I think that for this purpose the movie has served me well. The story, etc. was okay. 8th graders were interested enough to watch it through. ... Read more

Description

Gena Rowlands plays a nervous actress on the brink of a breakdown as she prepares for the opening night of her Broadway play. The entire movie takes place in the few days prior to the opening and shows the backstage turmoil of a doomed production. Rowlands begins to fall apart when an adoring fan dies in an accident and she is forced to look hard at her life. Starring: Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes, Joan Blondell, Ben Gazzara. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

TAKING THE ODDS.....
Excellent, hardbitten crime drama brilliantly directed by Robert Wise about three men planning a bank robbery. Ex-cop Burke (Ed Begley) recruits bitter, aging racist Earl Slater (Robert Ryan) and urban jazz muscian/singer Johnny Ingram (Harry Belafonte) for the big heist. The money will change and better all of their lives for different reasons. Ingram especially, as he's indebted to a brutal gangster with his gambling debts. Burke is hopelessly enthusiastic but Slater and Ingram are skeptical and don't trust each other because of Slater's blatant racism towards Ingram. As the tension of the planning of the robbery mounts, so does the antagonism between the two men. That such ignorance should exist between people who have the same goal is intelligently played out with a realistic script. Belafonte, Ryan and Begley give convincing performances as do Shelley Winters, Gloria Grahame and Kim Hamilton as the women in Slater's and Ingram's lives. Haunting b&w photography expresses the bleak and depressing world of the men and the individual anxieties experienced by each. A smoky jazz club, stark city streets, cramped apartments, the stares of strangers---all contribute to the claustrophobic atmosphere of the film. The tense, moody jazz score underlies the tense feeling that something is going to go horribly wrong. When it does, the brewing hatred between Slater and Ingram finally and (literally) explodes. Don't miss this exciting film if you like good, gritty adult noir crime dramas. The DVD is a good print and you can't beat the price.

Seminal "film noir," the last of the cycle.
Odds Against Tomorrow is arguably the final entry in the "film noir" genre, filmed in exquisite shades of gray and black that underscore its truly dark tale of bigotry and class alienation.
Ryan scores again in his corrosive portrait of a loser from the South strapped with Dust Bowl angst, able abetted by director Robert Wise. Wise, lest we forget, directed Ryan ten years earlier in The Set-up, another classic entry that is now compared with Raging Bull as the best film about boxing.
Ryan allied himself with Wise because the two shared the same ethical belief systems: both were avowed Liberals, and both were committed to making films that not only had a message but which also bore a distinct artistic imprint: from cinematographer John Alton's subtle exploration of black and white film to his daring use of infrared film in the film's opening minutes; to Abraham Polonsky's stark screenplay of desperate people living on the edge, Odds Against Tomorrow achieves its goals in a grim, humorless expose that indicts greed and prejudice. Holding the film firmly in his grasp, Ryan proves again that his acting skills traverse the origins of his psychopathy in a spine-chilling tour de force. Reprising his disturbing portrayal of the cagey, Jew-hating bigot in Crossfire, his role as the loser Earl Slater in Odds Against Tomorrow allows for more complexity to explain his motivations.
Besides Ryan, "noir" stalwarts Ed Begley and Gloria Grahame elevate the film considerably. Grahame, as many "noir" aficianados are aware, was also featured in Crossfire, achieving fame as one of filmdom's "noir" females, duplicitous, alienated and jaded. Ed Begley turns in another realistic portrait as the disgraced ex-cop with an axe to grind, while Harry Belafonte's down-on-his-luck gambler emerges as a man afflicted with a gambling addiction that covers up his deep insecurities. Viewers should also take note that the film is chock full of secondary players, including a very young Cicely Tyson and Wayne Rogers, along with character actors, Will Kuluva, Lew Gallo, Richard Bright (possibly the first depiction of homosexuality in the cinema), and William Zuckert. The score by the Modern Jazz Quartet is aptly spare, underscoring the grim tale. Finally, observant viewers may notice that the nightclub bouncer who lends Belafonte a pistol in a smoky Harlem nightclub bares a striking resemblance to James Earl Jones (in fact it is his brother, Robert Earl Jones). Kudos to all involved in this "noir" masterpiece.

Feels like a triple-length "Twilight Zone" episode
Prior reviews of this movie (see below) cover its style and substance very well, so I won't attempt to duplicate their efforts. I will only add that while this is a fine film, it moves excruciatingly slowly by today's standards. So if you're expecting fast-paced action, this isn't the movie for you. The pacing and style -- and even the "twist" ending -- reminded me of the old "Twilight Zone," which was produced in the same era. It's not too far off the mark to think of this as a triple-length TZ episode! Worth noting, however, is the great moody soundtrack featuring the Modern Jazz Quartet. If you can find this on CD, buy it!

Robert Wise's Invisible Oscar
Director Robert Wise is probably most identified with his two Oscar winning musicals, West Side Story and The Sound of Music. Wise's Odds Against Tomorrow, a 1959 film produced at the end of the noir cycle should have earned him his first Oscar, but that year Ben Hur's eleven Academy Awards left little in the wake of cinematic honors. Odds Against Tomorrow may have been slighted by the Academy and the box office, but it unassumingly remains as one of the first films to address racism towards blacks in American society. Wise's casting of African American Harry Belafonte as Johnny Ingram and Robert Ryan as the bigot Earl Slater revealed the racial tensions that marked the social undercurrent of the 1950's. Odds Against Tomorrow may have been an emblematic precursor to the racial violence that exploded into the consciousness of mainstream America during the 1960's. The film's plot is structured around a planned bank hiest involving a retired police detective (Ed Begley), a gambling, jazz musician (Belafonte) and a psychotic loner (Ryan). The three protagonists are drawn together by the lure of money; each thinking that a big score will erase the haunting failures of their past. Unlike other noir films in which lust, greed, or deception caused a downward spiral for the protagonist, our trio's well devised plan unravels from within. Earl's seething malevolence and resentment towards Johnny causes the caper to disintegrate. James Coburn deservedly won an Oscar for his role as an alcoholic, abusive father in Affliction; Ryan's portrayal of an emotionally unstable, violent, racist is equally noteworthy. Noir critics cite the Richard Widmark characterizations of Tommy Udo and Alec Stiles as the most devious, psychotic criminals to shock film audiences; but it is Ryan armed only with a cold stare and a few callous words who could really bring burning hatred to a violent boil. In Odds Against Tomorrow, Ryan's scenes in the tavern, elevator, and gas station, are but a few glimpses into the mind of an unstable, dangerous man. Shelly Winters is cast as the insecure loner who desperately smothers Earl with love that is not returned. Gloria Grahame appears as the strange apartment neighbor who inexplicably is drawn to the abusive Earl. Director Wise craftfully places characters in scenes that drip with realism. The mob boss, the homosexual henchman, the bartender, the black elevator operator, and Jonny's estranged wife create a multi-dimensional atmosphere that does not distract from the central flow of events. Wise's camera work is exceptional as he allows viewers quick images of hallways, city streets, and concrete highrises. The opening shot of a fire hydrant on a desolate street corner which is suddenly invaded by wind swept newspaper is chilling. Wise is also not adverse to draw his camera away from city settings where noir scenery could easily be captured. Instead he mixes urban concrete and smokey club interiors with panned shots of open highways and cold Novemember landscapes dotted with leafless trees. Wise also contrasts the concepts of day and night into the picture's climax. Not constrained within the limits of shadows, darkness, and night, which characterize most noir films, Wise utilizes the impending nightfall as a scenic metaphor. Odds Against Tomorrow is one of the greatest noir pictures ever made. It may have been the last exemplar of screen noir in American film making.

Robert Wise's "Invisible" Oscar
Director Robert Wise is probably most identified with his two Oscar winning musicals West Side Story and The Sound of Music. Wise's Odds Against Tomorrow, a 1959 film produced at the end of the noir cycle, should have earned him his first Oscar. Unfortunately that year, Ben Hur's unprecedented eleven Academy Awards left little in the wake of cinematic honors. Odds Against Tomorrow may have been slighted by the Academy and the box office, but it unassumingly remains as one of the first films to address racism towards blacks in American society. Wise's casting of African American Harry Belafonte as jazz musician Johnny Ingram and Robert Ryan as the bigot Earl Slater revealed the racial tensions that marked the social undercurrent of the 1950's. Odds Against Tomorrow may have been an emblematic precursor to the racial violence that exploded into the consciousness of mainstream America during the 1960's. The film's plot is structured around a planned bank hiest involving a retired police officer Dave Burke (Ed Begley), a gambling night club singer,Johnny and a psychotic loner Earl. The three protagonists are drawn together for the lure of money; each thinking that a lucrative monetary score will dissolve their personal demons. Unlike other noir films their well devised plan unravels from within. Earl's seething malevolence and resentment towards Johnny causes the caper to disintegrate. James Coburn deservedly won an Oscar for his role as an alcoholic, abusive father in Affliction; Ryan's portrayal of an emotionally unstable, violent racist is equally noteworthy. Noir critics often cite Richard Widmark's screen roles as Tommy Udo and Alec Stiles as the most paranoid psychotics to shock American morality, but it is Ryan who with only a cold silent stare or a few callous words could bring buried hatred to a bubling boil. In Odds Against Tomorrow, Ryan's scenes in the tavern, elevator, and gas station deliver convincing glimpses into the tormented mind of a dangerous man. Shelly Winters is cast as the insecure loner who desperately smothers Earl with love that is not returned. Gloria Grahame appears as the strange apartment neighbor who inexplicably is drawn to the abusive Earl. Wise craftfully places characters in scenes that drip with realism. The mob boss, the homosexual henchman, the bartender, the black elevator operator, and Johnny's estranged wife, create a multi-dimensional atmosphere that does not distract from the flow of events. Wise's extraordinary camera work allows viewers quick angle frames of hallways, city streets, highways, and city complexes. An opening shot of a desolate city street corner, marked only by a fire hydrant that is suddenly invaded by windswept newspaper is chilling. Wise is not adverse to draw his camera away from city settings where noir scenery could easily be captured. Instead he mixes urban concrete and smokey club interiors with panned shots of cold November landscapes and highways dotted with leafless trees. Wise also incorporates the contrast of day and night into the climax of the picture. Not constrained within the limits of shadows, darkness, and night which characterize most noir films; Wise utilizes the impending nightfall as a scenic metaphor for the doomed hiest. Odds Against Tomorrow is one of the greatest noir pictures ever made. It may have well been the last true noir film. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Nicely done Movie!!
Jackie Gleason and Art Carney again team up as two unemployed vaudiville actors who become prohibition agents and become targeted by the mob.It's a must see, nicely done movie!! ... Read more