In this excellent Twentieth-Century Fox film-noir, the metropolis is a labyrinth of despair in which scavengers and predators survive by living off one another. Brooding cityscapes lower over puny humanity in bleak expressionist symbolism.

A prostitute has her purse snatched on the subway. It contains a microfilm, and a communist spy ring will go to any lengths to recover it. Two parallel investigations unfold as both spies and cops hunt down the precious information.

Anti-hero pickpocket Skip McCoy is played with scornful assurance by Richard Widmark. He knows the cops to be his moral equals and intellectual inferiors, so he taunts them: "Go on," he says to captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye), "drum up a charge. Throw me in. You've done it before." In this pitiless world, the cops are just one more gang on the streets. Just as Candy the hooker bribes Lightning Louie to get a lead, so the police are busy paying stool pigeons for information.

It is hard to believe that when Widmark made this film he was already in early middle age. The 39-year-old star, coming to the end of his contract with Fox, plays the upstart Skip McCoy with the irreverent brashness of a teenager. Today it may not be acceptable for the romantic lead to punch his love interest into unconsciousness then revive her by sloshing beer in her face, but by the mores of the period it signified toughness - and Candy, after all, is a fallen woman.

Jean Peters is radiant as Candy. Here, right in the middle of her five-year burst of B-movie fame, she is beautiful and engaging as the whore with the golden heart. She is the story's victim, a martyr to her beauty as much as anything else. She means well, but is constantly being manipulated by cynical men - Joey, Skip and the cops.

The real star of this movie is New York. Haunting urban panoramas and snidering subway stations offer a claustrophobic evocation of the city as a living, malevolent force. Like maggots in a rotting cheese, human figures scurry through the city's byways. Elevators, subway turnstiles, sidewalks - even a dumb waiter act as conduits for the flow of corrupt humanity. People cling to any niche that affords safety: Moe has her grimy rented room, Skip his tenebrous shack on the Hudson River. As the characters move and interact, they are framed by bridge architecture, or lattices of girders, or are divided by hanging winch tackle. The personality of the city is constantly imposing itself. The angles and crossbeams of the wharf timbers are an echo of the gridiron street plan, and the card-index cabinets in the squadroom mimic the Manhattan skyline. When Joey's exit from the subway is barred, it is as if the steel sinews of the city are ensnaring him.

A surprising proportion of this film is shot in extreme close-up. Character drives the plot, as it should, and the close-ups are used to augment character. When Skip interrogates Candy, the close-up captures the sexual energy between them, belying the hostility of Skip's words. Jean Peters' beauty is painted in light, in exquisite soft focus close-ups. The device is also employed to heighten the tension. The opening sequence, the purse snatch, contains no dialogue: the drama relies entirely on close-up for its powerful effect.

Snoopers, and snoopers upon snoopers, populate the film. Moe (Thelma Ritter) makes a living as an informant, and her place in the hierarchy is accepted, even by her victims. When Skip observes, "she's gotta eat", he is chanting a recurring refrain. Just as 'straight' New Yorkers peddle lamb chops or lumber, the Underworld traffics in the commodity of information.

And yet even the stool pigeons are superior to Joey and his communist friends. Joey's feet on Moe's bed symbolise a transgression of the most basic moral code. Joey is beyond the pale. Moe will not trade with Joey, even to preserve her life: " ... even in our crummy business, you gotta draw the line somewhere."

"Pick-Up" was made in the depths of the Cold War. Richard Nixon had just been chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, having made his name with his phoney Alger Hiss expose - bogus communist microfilm and all. The McCarthy show trials were a daily reality. We see the cops in the movie inveigh against "the traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb".

New York can be seen as a giant receptacle in which human offal cheats, squeals and murders. Containers form a leitmotif throughout the film. Moe carries her trade mark box of ties, and candy's purse, container of the microfilm, is the engine of the plot. Skip keeps his only possessions in a submerged crate, symbolising his secretive street-wisdom. The paupers' coffins, moving down the Hudson on a barge, are containers of just one more cargo being shifted around the pitiless metropolis.

The film is a masterpiece of composition. Candy is shown above the skulking Skip on the rickety gangway of the shack, signifying her moral ascendancy. When the gun is placed on the table, the extreme perspective makes it look bigger than Candy - violence is beginning to dwarf compassion. The lovers are eclipsed by the shadow of a stevedore's hook, reminding us that their love is neither pure nor absolute, but contingent upon the whims of the sinister city. Enyard the communist is a shadow on a wall, or a disembodied puff of cigarette smoke. He is like the lone alley cat amongst the garbage - a predatory phantom of the night. Camera shots from under taxi hoods, inside newspaper kiosks and through the bars of hospital beds constantly reinforce in us the awareness that we are all trapped in the metropolis. We are civilisation's mulch.


The best of the seven Sam Fuller movies that I've seen (including Park Row, Run of the Arrow, Verboten!, Shock Corridor, The Naked Kiss, The Big Red One, and this film), Pickup on South Street counts as one of the best film noirs. It represents Fuller at his most controlled. I like him when he's out of control, of course, but nearly everything in Pickup is perfect. The film is absolutely beautiful. Richard Widmark stars as a pickpocket who steals some microfilm that was meant to go to communist spies. Jean Peters plays the woman who was carrying the film for her boyfriend, played by Richard Kiley. Peters is forced to find Widmark and get it back. She finds him through a stool pigeon played by Thelma Ritter. Widmark and Peters are attracted to each other, which changes Peters loyalties (that, and the fact that she learns she's working for communists; the Cold War stuff is really interesting). The love story is done a little quickly and not entirely believable, but it's not so bad that it harms the film (unlike Fuller's previous film, Park Row). Richard Widmark is great. This must be one of his best roles, but I'm not so familiar with his career that I can say that for sure. Thelma Ritter gives the most memorable performance. Her role gives the film an unexpected emotional resonance, and her final scene in this film is as touching as any you will find in the cinema. I will never forget that. 10/10.


Director Samuel Fuller concocts a brilliant visual set-up: cocky pickpocket unwittingly lifts some microfilm from a woman's purse; it turns out she's a courier for the Communists, and now she and the grifter are being watched by the police. The Film Noir Formula is all its glory--before the ingredients became clichés--including waterfront locales, floozies, saxophones on the soundtrack, and one hell of a climactic fistfight. Performances by Richard Widmark and Jean Peters are right on target, and the smart, sharp script is quite colorful. Fabulous Thelma Ritter received an Oscar nomination for knockout supporting role as a "professional stoolie". Exciting, atmospheric, tough as nails. *** from ****


Directed by Samuel Fuller, who also wrote the screenplay, Pickup on South Street is a tough, brutal, well made film about a pickpocket (Richard Widmark) who inadvertently aquires top-secret microfilm and becomes a target for espionage agents. Also involved are Jean Peters as a tough broad who is used as a courier by her evil ex-lover Richard Kiley. It's film-noir at its best and although the performances are very good its grand character actress Thelma Ritter who steals the movie. As Moe a weary street peddler selling neck ties (and who also sells information) she is terrific in a role that brought her another Oscar nomination. Its amazing that Miss Ritter was nominated six times for an Academy Award and she never won. This should have been the role that copped it for her!


I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre!


I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10.


"Pickup On South Street" is a high speed drama about a small time criminal who suddenly finds himself embroiled in the activities of a group of communists. The action is presented in a very direct and dynamic style and the momentum is kept up by means of some brilliant editing. The use of a wide variety of different camera angles and effective close-ups also contribute to the overall impression of constant motion and vitality. Samuel Fuller's style of directing and the cinematography by Joseph MacDonald are excellent and there are many scenes which through their composition and lighting produce a strong sense of mood and atmosphere.

Ace pickpocket and repeat offender Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) gets into deep water when he steals a wallet from a young woman named Candy (Jean Peters) on the New York subway. She was being used by her ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) to make a delivery to one of his contacts in a communist organisation and unknown to her, she was carrying US Government secrets recorded on microfilm. Two FBI agents had been following Candy and witnessed the theft. One of the agents continues to tail her back to Joey's apartment and the other, Zara (Willis Bouchey), visits Police Captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye). Zara explains that the FBI has been following Candy for some months as part of their pursuit of the ringleader of a communist group.

In order to identify the pickpocket, Tiger calls in a "stoolie" called Moe (Thelma Ritter) who after being given a precise description of the "cannon's" method of working makes a list of eight possible suspects. Once Tiger sees Skip's name on the list he's immediately convinced that he's the man that they need to track down and he sends two detectives to arrest him. When Skip is brought into Tiger's office, Zara tells him about the microfilm and Tiger offers to drop any charges if he'll co-operate with the investigation. Skip is flippant and arrogant. He clearly doesn't trust Tiger and denies all knowledge of the theft on the subway.

Joey orders Candy to find out who stole the microfilm and then retrieve it. Candy pays Moe for Skip's address and when Skip returns from being questioned by Tiger, he finds Candy searching his home and knocks her unconscious before stealing her money. When she recovers, Skip demands payment of $25,000 for the microfilm. She tells Joey about Skip's demand and Joey's boss gives him a gun and orders him to recover the microfilm by the following evening.

Skip and Candy are attracted to each other and it's because of their uneasy, developing relationship that a means evolves by which they are able to shake off the attentions of the police. It soon becomes apparent, however, that resolving matters with the communist gang will only be achieved by more direct action.

The depictions of Skip, Candy and Moe as characters that inhabit a seedy world in which they are forced to face considerable risks on a daily basis are powerful and compelling.

Moe's work as a police informer is dependent on her knowledge of the people in her community but also those people know what she does and any one of them could seek their revenge at any time. She appears to be cunning and streetwise but also has her vulnerable side as she describes herself as "an old clock running down" and saves money to be able to have a decent burial in an exclusive cemetery in Long Island. Her belief that "every buck has a meaning of its own" leads her to sell any information regardless of danger, friendships or principles and yet there is one occasion where she refuses and this proves fatal. Thelma Ritter's performance certainly merited the Oscar nomination she earned for her role.

Skip is a violent criminal with no concern for his victims and having already been convicted three times in the past, lives under the constant threat of being jailed for life if convicted again. Despite this, he still continues with his criminal activities and strangely, is merely philosophical when Moe betrays his whereabouts and then later, he even ensures that Moe receives the type of burial she valued so highly. Candy is an ex-hooker and someone whose activities constantly put her in peril but behind her hardened exterior a warmer side gradually becomes more evident. Widmark and Peters are both perfect for their roles and like Ritter portray the different facets of their personalities with great style and conviction.


Every now and then there gets released this movie no one has ever heard of and got shot in a very short time with very little money and resource but everybody goes crazy about and turns out to be a surprisingly great one. This also happened in the '50's with quite a few little movies, that not a lot of people have ever heard of. There are really some unknown great surprising little jewels from the '50's that are worth digging out. "Panic in the Streets" is another movie like that that springs to the mind. Both are movies that aren't really like the usual genre flicks from their time and are also made with limited resources.

I was really surprised at how much I ended up liking this movie. It was truly a movie that got better and better as it progressed. Like all 'old' movies it tends to begin sort of slow but once you get into the story and it's characters you're in for a real treat with this movie.

The movie has a really great story that involves espionage, though the movie doesn't start of like that. It begins as this typical crime-thriller with a touch of film-noir to it. But "Pickup on South Street" just isn't really a movie by the numbers so it starts to take its own directions pretty soon on. It ensures that the movie remains a surprising but above all also really refreshing one to watch.

I also really liked the characters within this movie. None of them are really good guys and they all of their flaws and weaknesses. Really humane. It also especially features a great performance from Thelma Ritter, who even received a well deserved Oscar nomination for. It has really got to be one of the greatest female roles I have ever seen.

Even despite its somewhat obvious low budget this is simply one great, original, special little movie that deserves to be seen by more!

10/10


Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) pick-pockets Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet which contains an important microfiche that is intended for the Communist cause. She is being followed by 2 federal agents that are waiting to pounce once she hands the microfiche over to her contact. However, Skip steals the purse on the subway under everyone's noses and so starts a hunt for him by both the police and Joey (Richard Kiley) and Candy who want the microfiche back. Skip can only be traced through Moe (Thelma Ritter) who sells information on criminals. It is made clear to Skip that what he has stolen is important and both sides want the film, but he intends to hold out for a high price. This leads to Joey hunting after him and a conflict between Joey and Jean, who has fallen in love with Skip. Joey has a deadline to deliver the microfiche to his boss.

Its a well-acted film and it has a good beginning that gets you involved straight away. Its a bit unrealistic how Jean Peters immediately falls in love with Widmark, but this point is necessary as otherwise why would she later hold out from Joey. Its a good film.


Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations.

Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller enthused this adaptation with heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice.

Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 50s, and i'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy, all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent, and is the films heart. However it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically.

It's a B movie in texture but an A film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is the best of its most intriguing director. 9/10


Samuel Fuller is hardly one of America's great directors. I'm not sure he qualifies as one of Hollywood's great craftsmen. But he certainly ranks up there with the best of Hollywood's true professionals who were willing to march to their own music. During the time he worked for Hollywood studios, he knew how to take an assignment, shape the middling material handed to him and then turn it quickly and efficiently into something usually better than its parts...on time and on budget. Pickup on South Street is a case in point. On the surface it's one more of Hollywood's early Fifties' anti-Commie movies, complete with appeals to patriotism, a hard-boiled hero and a slimy (and copiously perspiring) bad guy. Fuller turns this bag of Hollywood clichés into a taut, exciting drama with any number of off-kilter twists. The hero, Skip McCoy, is a three-time loser, a petty crook with soft fingers who doesn't change his stripes until the very end. The girl in the caper, Candy, has a level of virtue that would be easy to step over if you're so inclined. One of the most appealing characters, Moe Williams, is a stoolie. And in an unusual approach to Hollywood's battle against Commies, the appeals to patriotism fall on deaf ears; the hero isn't motivated by anything so ennobling. He just wants payback for a personal reason, and winds up becoming...at least for now...a good guy.

Plus, all the actors were mostly assigned to Fuller by the studio. He had to make do. Richard Widmark by now had established his presence as an actor and star, but Jean Peters is a surprise. She gives a fine portrait of a woman sexy and dumb, and no better than her boy friends...or her clients...want her to be. And Richard Kiley, who later would become a two- time Tony award winning star on Broadway, is convincingly slippery and cowardly. It's hard to remember that he was the actor who inflicted on us, I mean introduced to us, "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha,

More than anything else, this tale of a pickpocket who picks a purse in a subway car and finds himself with microfilmed secrets instead of cash, pursued by the Feds and the Commies, moves straight ahead with great economy. The whole enterprise, with a classic noir look, only takes 80 minutes to tell. The dialogue, with Fuller as screenwriter, has that party corny, partly pungent hard-boiled pulp fiction style. "That muffin you grifted...she's okay," one character says to Skip about Candy. Fuller moves us just fast enough from scene to scene to keep us hanging on what will come next. Then Fuller throws in the character of Moe Williams. All of a sudden the story ratchets up to a whole new level of interest, part comedy relief and part sad inevitability.

The thing I like best about the movie is how the opening exemplifies Fuller's talents and strengths. In 2 minutes and 15 seconds, starting right after the credits, Fuller is able to instantly power up the movie, to establish for us what the story is about, and to show us what kind of characters -- Skip and Candy -- we're going to be involved with. And he does this with so much enticing curiosity in that hot, packed subway car that we can just about feel Fuller setting the hook to catch us.

Says Glenn Erickson, in my opinion one of the best of movie critics, "In what should be an inconsequential story, Sam Fuller defines his peculiar view of Americanism from the bottom up: stiff-necked, aggressive self-interest that when fully expressed recognizes what's wrong and what's right and isn't afraid to fight for it. As always in his work, the individuals who fight the hardest for their country are the ones least likely to benefit from the effort." He's right, and it makes for a movie still vivid after 55 years.


and anyone who watches this film will agree. This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.

Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight. Ritter is in top form as informer "Moe" she survives in the Bowery section of NY, acting as a stool pigeon for NYC police.

The only other film in which I have seen Peters is "Niagara", and she certainly proves her acting ability here, complete with Brooklyn accent. Widmark is appropriately menacing, as the anti-hero who must discern what the right thing is, despite his need for cash.

The photography is brilliant. The neon, the subway station (though it looks cleaner than the real thing!) the harbor shack where Widmark lives as a transient. Excellent use is made of the city, with "Lightning Louie" in Chinatown; the many flavors and appetites of the city are addressed here; the political climate of the time is a haunting backdrop. 10/10.


This is yet another gritty and compelling film directed by Sam Fuller in the early 1950s. This minimalist and fast-working director has something unusual for his earlier films--a cast with some stars. Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Richard Kiley star in this film about a group of Communist agents who are trying to sneak secrets out of America--and they'll stop at nothing to succeed.

The film starts with Peters on a subway car being watched by federal agents. They know she is a link in a long espionage chain. Unknown to everyone is the wild card in the equation--a small-time pickpocket (Widmark) is also on the train and he manages to steal the secrets that Peters is carrying. Widmark thinks it's just another purse he's ransacked--only later does he realize the seriousness of what he's stolen. Now it's Widmark on his own--with Commies and the FBI hot on his trail.

Widmark and the rest are exceptional and the film is gripping from start to finish. Although she didn't get top billing, a special mention should be made of Thelma Ritter. This supporting actress had perhaps the performance of her lifetime as a stool pigeon. Seldom was she given this much of a chance to act and I was impressed by her ability to play a broken down and sad old lady.

As far as the script and directing go, they are very good--but with one small exception. At first, I loved the way Widmark and Peters interacted. It's one of the few times on film you'll see a woman punched square in the mouth! Now THAT'S tough. Later, inexplicably, they become amazingly close--too close to be believable. Still, with so much great drama and such an effective Noir-like film, this can be overlooked. See this film.


Sam Fuller's excellent PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is the pick of the bunch from a number of early 50's Cold War-influenced low-budget noir vehicles. With a running length of under 80 minutes, PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is tough, gritty, explosive and endlessly entertaining.

Widmark stars as pickpocket Skip McCoy, who has already been picked up three times. Yet McCoy can't keep his wandering fingers out of trouble- and trouble is exactly what he slides into when he grifts the wallet of gangster's moll Candy (Jean Peters). Candy's wallet contains a roll of microfilm invaluable to the Communist movement, and it's her last job for ex-boyfriend Richard Kiley to make the delivery. However, when Widmark lifts it, Peters must do whatever it takes to re-claim the film she (initially) knows nothing about.

It's a tasty set-up, with Widmark's character, while not the psycho of KISS OF DEATH, a real live-wire, unpredictable and tough, yet curiously charming.When Bogart or Mitchum stepped into a film noir role you knew what you were going to get: a lone anti-hero maintaining his moral integrity and winning out in the end (Bogart), or an overly-laconic guy who allows himself to be drawn into a trap (Mitchum). With Widmark you just don't know what you are going to get, and with his incredibly modern acting style (his films always hold up well) he is amazing to watch. Here he is torn between making a big score for himself by selling the film, or handing it over to the police and fighting the "Commies" on the right side of the law. And he still has to pretend he never pickpocketed Peters to avoid the fatal fourth rap on his sheet.

Peters gets her best role as the moll-with-a-heart-of-gold Candy. Widmark's unpredictability is perhaps best expressed in his scenes with Peters; the gorgeous tramp quickly (and rather unbelievably- the romance angle is rather rushed)falls under Widmark's spell, yet Widmark alternates between kissing her or slapping her around. Peters hard-edged beauty, yet lack of over-lacquered Hollywood glamour (Lana Turner would never have worked well in this role), is a major asset to the film. Candy is not innocent, yet she's very vulnerable, constantly being passed between and slapped around by men. Widmark knocks her cold on first meeting and wakes her by pouring beer over her face, yet by the final act he's a lot more tender to her (after she cops one hell of a going-over from Kiley). The scene in the hospital with Peters and Widmark shouldn't work, but it does.

Thelma Ritter is brilliant as stoolie Moe, well-deserving of her Oscar nomination. Ritter's performance, like everything else in the film, is gritty, real and heartbreakingly honest. Her death scene is stunning. Fuller's camera movements and location settings are particularly interesting. Fuller loved a good close-up, and PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is full of uncomfortable, cloistering tight shots that only enhance the tension of the plot. Fuller isn't afraid to let the camera linger on a shot for longer than standard Old-Hollywood really allowed, yet stunningly pulls away from Ritter's death scene to give the audience maximum impact. The urban locales and unusual, confronting camera angles give PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET, a bold, uncompromisingly modern look.

10/10.


Pickup on South Street (1953), directed by movie maverick Samuel Fuller, contains a stunning opening that establishes a double complication. Subway rider Candy (Susan Peters) collides with pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark dipped in shades of Sinatra cool). She's unaware that she carries valuable microfilm; McCoy is unaware of grifting it. Both are unaware of being observed by two federal agents. Thus the grift sets in motion a degree of knowledges. Candy is doubly watched (Skip and the police) and therefore doubly naive; Skip, the overconfident petty thief, is singularly unaware, trailed by federal agents; the feds, all knowing, are ultimately helpless. They can't stop the "passing" of government secrets or the spread of communism.


Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is anomalous: A "Red Scare" movie devoid of hysteria, in which the Communist threat is nothing more than the McGuffin that ignites the plot. Pickpocket Richard Widmark relieves loose woman Jean Peters of her wallet containing a strip of microfilm; unbeknownst to either of them, it harbors secrets vital to the Cold War. Peters, as it happens, was under surveillance by FBI agents who are as nonplussed by the theft as the man who's running her, cowardly comsymp Richard Kiley. In trying to retrieve the precious film, both sides enlist the help of Thelma Ritter, a streetwise old jane who's always on the earie and willing to sell what she hears.

Fuller draws from an opulent palette of tempos and tonalities in telling the story, which becomes a race against the clock of escalating brutality. From the subways to the waterfront, his midsummer Manhattan takes on a sweaty sheen that's almost pungent. The love scenes between Peters and Widmark become an unstable mixture of the tumultuous and the tender, and they're scored to "Again," a song introduced by Ida Lupino in Road House, also starring Widmark. The pace slackens for Ritter's beautifully written and played death scene -- among the most poignant vignettes in all noir, and a kind of mirage-oasis in a film parched of sentimentality. This is writer/director Fuller's only work in the strictest confines of the noir cycle; his later explorations of American pathology (The Crimson Kimono, The Naked Kiss, Underworld U.S.A.) never resulted in a synthesis as satisfying as Pickup on South Street.


The only thing about this film that bums me out is that the DVD is so expensive. It's too much for my budget at the moment, or I would purchase it, because the film is a good example of film noir...and I enjoy watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.

Criterion produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much. That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is good but nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.

The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse. (say that three times!). Everyone but Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant. She and Widmark are the stars of this film.

Peters does a decent job of playing the cheap floozy but loses her credibility early on by "falling in love" with Widmark on the first meeting even though he's nasty to her. Only in world of film!! Too bad, because that ludicrous romance part of the story takes away from it.

This an average film noir which means good, but not great and certainly not worth owning at a price of $25-$35. For that price, one could do a lot better in the film noir market.


From the opening scene aboard a crowded train where a ruthless pickpocket is at work (RICHARD WIDMARK) stealing from a woman's purse (JEAN PETERS), PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET is relentlessly fascinating to watch. Partly it's because the acting is uniformly strong from the entire cast, the B&W photography is crisp and adds to the starkness of the story and characters, and because Samuel Fuller's direction puts him in the same league with the biggies like John (ASPHALT JUNGLE) Huston. In fact, it has the same urgency as the Huston film about a heist that goes wrong--but the payoff is not quite as strong.

JEAN PETERS is excellent as the hard-edged girl whom Widmark describes as being "knocked around a lot". She gives a lot of raw energy and sex appeal to her role of the not too bright woman carrying a micro-film in her purse for her boyfriend (RICHARD KILEY), something the FBI already knows about. They're on her trail when the theft occurs.

THELMA RITTER adds realism to her portrait of a woman called "Moe" who buys and sells anything to make a profit and ends up paying for it with her life. She's particularly touching in her final scene with Kiley.

This one is guaranteed to hold your attention through its one hour and twenty minute running time. Good noir from Fox and notable for the performances of Widmark, Peters and Ritter.


'Shock Corridor (1963)' was my first film from Samuel Fuller, and there I was impressed with the director's astute blending of B-movie and big-budget aesthetics, even if the story itself was pure schlock. 'Pickup on South Street (1953)' was released a decade earlier in Fuller's career, obviously produced on a larger budget from a big-name studio, Twentieth Century-Fox. Nevertheless, the visuals are still notable in that there's a somewhat raw, naturalistic element to the photography, not unlike Dassin's 'The Night and the City (1950)' and Kazan's 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' {the latter was also shot by cinematographer Joe McDonald}. In some scenes, Fuller shoves the camera so close to his actors' faces that they're out of focus, bluntly registering the intimate thoughts, emotions and brief inflections that are communicated through that most revealing of facial features, the eye. Though (unexpectedly) prone to melodrama, and with just a hint of anti-Communist propaganda, 'Pickup on South Street' is a strong film noir that succeeds most outstandingly in its evocation of setting  the underground of New York City.

When just-out-of-prison pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) snags the purse of a woman on the subway (Jean Peters), he pockets more than he'd originally bargained for. The woman, Candy, and her cowardly ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) had been smuggling top-secret information to the Communists, and McKoy has unexpectedly retrieved an important roll of micro-film. Will he turn in the MacGuffin to the proper authorities, or sell it to the highest bidder? If 'Pickup on South Street' has a flaw, it's that the story seems designed solely to bolster an anti-Communist agenda, reeking of propaganda like nothing since WWII {Dwight Taylor, who supplied the story, also notably wrote 'The Thin Man Goes Home (1944),' the only propagandistic movie of the series}. For no apparent reason, every identifiable character  even the smugly self-serving Skip McCoy  eventually becomes a self-sacrificing patriot, the transformation predictable from the outset. In traditional film noir, the unapologetic criminal always gets his comeuppance, the rational punishment for his sins, but apparently not when they've served their country; patriotism wipes the slate clean.

Richard Widmark, an actor who I'm really beginning to like, plays the haughty pickpocket with composure, though always with that hint of ill-ease that suggests he's biting off more than he can chew. The opening scene on the train is the film's finest, as McCoy breathlessly and silently fishes around in his victim's hand bag, recalling Bresson's 'Pickpocket (1959).' Thelma Ritter is terrific as a tired street-woman who'll peddle information to anybody willing to pay for it (though, of course, she draws the line at Commies). Jean Peters is well-cast as the trashy dame passing information to the other side, playing the role almost completely devoid of glamour; Fuller reportedly cast the actress on the observation that she had the slightly bow-legged strut of a prostitute. Nevertheless, Peters must suffer a contrived love affair with Widmark that really brings down the film's attempts at realism. Fascinatingly, upon its release, 'Pickup on South Street' was promptly condemned as Communist propaganda by the FBI, and the Communist Party condemned it for being the exact opposite. Go figure.


This crime thriller is sort of like a film noir, though changes the context from post-war to Cold War and has something relatively decent to say about humanity. In "Pickup on South Street", policemen are good guys, criminals are genuine guys, and the only enemies are "The Commies", who are ultimately differentiated from the good-guys in that they are emotionally personable, driven by an actual care for their own worth, as shown in the constant tracked-in close-ups that speckle the movie.

This movie revolves around characters. The personalities in this film are rather unique and detailed: Skip the pick-pocket who is able to stare down any danger, and sometimes while going through their personal possessions; Moe the informer who is just trying to save up for a spectacular funeral, but who manages to capture the hearts and respect of nearly all the other characters (and the audience); Candy, the ill-named innocent girl who only thinks she's doing government work and doesn't fully comprehend the conspiracy she's involved with; and Joey, the ex-boyfriend evil Commie baddie who is trying to hide everything from everybody and, ironically, is the worst person at doing it. Throw in a bunch of very colorful supporting characters (such as the guy with the chopsticks and the policemen) and "Pickup on South Street" treats you to a splendor of personalities as they hunt down the mysterious and accidentally stolen microfilm frames.

--PolarisDiB


This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus. It turns out Candy was doing a favor for her (ex?)boyfriend, who's working for the "commies".

Superficially, there's a mystery here regarding Candy's motives and Skip spends much of the film determining her motives. Actually he seems to just initially assume that she's a "commie", going so far as to pour beer in her face in a callous gesture. But the real question is  what's going on with Skip? What are his motives, and why does Candy like him so much? Why do we (the audience) want to like him so much? Basically what the film-makers have done here is create a very striking "male fatale" in Widmark's character and his performance. Just as the male audience tends to ponder through the length of a film like "The Big Sleep" or "The Glass Key" along with the main characters whether the female character is trustworthy or just a pretty face, the film-makers have here created a similar quandary for female viewers. Widmark is handsome, and there's also a charm in his boyish insouciance  but the first two times he meets our leading lady, he robs her and then punches her in the face. Eventually the question becomes  would Skip sink so low as to sell out his country for a buck (his comments to the police, like "you're waving a flag at ME?" make us suspect he would) or is he simply out for revenge for the murder of his friend Moe (Thelma Ritter)? I'm not sure that the film gives us a conclusive answer either way.

Thelma Ritter's character work deserves special mention  she has created a truly indelible character here. Fuller isn't afraid to give her plenty of "business"  in the form of physical objects that she uses to draw the audience into her world, particularly her used ties. Another example of Fuller's "business" would be the scene with Victor Perry (an actor I've seen elsewhere used to less effect) using the chopsticks to intimidate Candy.

The emphasis on Moe's relationship with Skip provides one of cinema's most revealing "honor among thieves" themes. In fact Skip has the same kind of ease and the same kind of casual relationship with the police, with the notable exception of Capt. Tiger (Murvyn Vye) who has a grudge against him. I loved the scene where he invited the cops in by name and offered them a beer when they came to pick him up at his shack. Those are the kind of details that make this film feel real  whether or not it really is "realistic" or whether that would matter are entirely separate questions.

All told, I would say this is an essential crime film which displays a lot of the best and most durable attributes of the "film noir" school of film-making. A predictable plot is off-set by a host of colorful characters (uniformly well-performed), cheap sets are disguised by the film's unrelenting pace, and the final product feels a lot more substantial than it probably is. This is the best film I've seen so far by Sam Fuller and helps me to see better why he's regarded as a master director  here he accomplished some things that I think he tried but ultimately failed to do in other films like "The Crimson Kimono" and "Shock Corridor" as far as very emphatic acting styles and really gripping suspense. This is one of my favorite performances from Widmark that I've seen so far  and Widmark was a talent that I'm tempted to say (based on the few extraordinary films I've seen with him) was comparable to that of Alan Ladd or Humphrey Bogart, although arguably he didn't make as many classic films.


Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.

Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.

Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.

Grade: A+


Director Sam Fuller has something of a cult following, particularly in Europe. Yet the bulk of his films are more than forgettable. He did however direct one really terrific movie in "Pickup on South Street". Made pretty early on in his career, the movies that followed were vastly inferior.

From the first to the last frame, "Pickup" works on all levels. It's filmed with flawless fluidity, boasting fine performances all round. Richard Widmark and Thelma Ritter both players with a fine record of top notch performances, are at their peak. Widmark, who was no stranger at playing villains, while truly mean to the core, still manages to reveal just the slightest humanity which makes his character fascinating as well as making Jean Peters character's falling for him all the more credible.

Fuller holds no punches in this genuinely tough movie. There is a scene in which Jean Peters get roughed up by Widmark. It's truly shocking in its reality. This is not a case of carefully choreographed photography.

Less self conscious than many film noir's of the period this remains a great example of the genre.


In what will probably find itself on my list of Fuller's best movies (that is, once I see more of them that just this and Shock Corridor), Pickup on South Street is a film noir where the femme fatale, as well as the male protagonist, are not the stereotypical ones in the genre. Like most of his other works, Fuller injects his own experiences and the sense of New York style that is usually absent in the Hollywood noirs. On a small budget- at least for the likes of Darryl F. Zanuck- Fuller and his actors create personas that are likable even in such a dark atmosphere. The good guys are basically the ones who won't get violent with you even as they're looking for an extra buck.

Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter are all terrific in the lead parts. Widmark is one only a few actors I can think of who could've really pulled off this character. He's a little like Bugs Bunny, as he can be a wise-ass who is a little sneaky. On the other hand, the character of Skip McCoy does have a set of values in his life. He doesn't go into other people's affairs, and doesn't try and care about much of the working world outside of his little shack on the river, after being sent away for three years. He slips up, unbeknownst to him, when he pickpockets a woman (Peters) on the train, and lifts an item that's under the eye of the Government. It may have some secrets that could make him a lot of money. But at what cost is the centerpiece of the film, as it involves stoolie Moe (Ritter is one of the finest, and most believable, character actors from the period), the woman's ex (a volatile Kiley), and the police department.

Aside from the thematic elements, which are told with a keen dramatic, journalistic style (as was Fuller's previous position, along with boxer), the dialog is fresh and involving. There's a spontaneity in many of Fuller's camera moves. And what a third act. This is a lean, tight film-noir that is worth checking out even if you're not familiar with Fuller (it's comparatively less bizarre than some of his later works).


This 1953 Sam Fuller movie contains some of his best work, and its sad that he couldn't continue to get the backing of major Hollywood studios to do his stuff. The story line goes something like this. A tough hard broad (read prostitute) is riding the subway one hot summer day, and gets her pocketbook picked by Skip McCoy. What Skip (and the dame) don't realize is that she is also carrying some microfilm to be passed to commie spies. This opening shot without dialogue, and mostly in tight close-ups is a beaut,one of the many that Fuller uses throughout the movie. Playing the babe known as Candy is Jean Peters, who was never better nor better looking. One forgets how beautiful she was, and she handles this role very well. The Pickpocket is played by Richard Widmark, who had already made his mark, and set his style with 1947's Kiss Of Death as the crazy creep with the creepy laugh, and although he's a little "softer" here, he's still scary. These hard edged characters do have soft spots here and there, but its noir and nasty all the way. The standout performance belongs to the wonderful Thelma Ritter,who plays Moe the stoolie saving up her dough to pay for her own funeral. Ritter received a well deserved Oscar nomination for her performance, but lost out to the boring but popular performance of Donna Reed as the B girl (read prostitute) in "From Here To Eternity." Hollywood loves it when a good girl goes bad, and loves to Oscar them even though their performance is usually awful. See for instance Shirley Jones in "Elmer Gantry. Set among the docks and dives of New York City, with crisp black and white photography by the great Joe MacDonald,and some very good art direction. Especially good is the set representing the New York City subways and Widmark's shack near the river. Made at the height of the cold war and red scare, the villian of the piece is the ordinary looking commie, played by Richard Kiley who is much more dangerous than the pickpocket who is a criminal but is just trying to make a living and above all is a loyal American.


Thelma Ritter did steal the picture. I just finished watching it again. I couldn't help becoming emotional in her final scene. She didn't get the Oscar. That's why you shouldn't put too much faith in Oscars. Richard Widmark never had a better part and was perfect casting as a 3-D, flawed human being. Jean Peters was great as the streetwise, tough girl in her best role ever. And Richard Kiley must have been very good; why else would I have hated him so. Yes, it was heavy handed on the patriotism; but, without it, you don't have much of a film. Watch their faces! The top three stars didn't really need much script. I would like to have seen them do this film without dialogue. If you've ever seen Ray Milland and Rita Gam in "The Thief", maybe you know what I mean. When I was a kid in 1956 on my first trip to NYC, I made my Bronx uncle drive us to the foot of South Street looking for No. 66. That's when I knew that Hollywood couldn't be trusted. But I did find the river.

I'm not giving away much of the story because I hate it when I know what happens before I see it for myself. If you have seen it, no elucidation is necessary. Just maybe, someone who is reading these comments hasn't seen "Pickup On South Street". You will like it; just don't go looking for 66 South Street in New York City.


Richard Widmark is a tainted character in this movie. He is a professional pickpocket. He's been in prison three times, yet at the beginning of the film, he tries to make it four. Thelma Ritter is a busy body selling information to almost everybody. Jean Peters is amazing as the girl flamed by Widmark.

This is a period piece during the McCarthy era where the Red Scare ruled the politics and is worked into this plot quite nicely. What is unusual about this film is that Peters & Ritter are both victims of violent beatings in an era where women were seldom more than sex objects in films. This is what makes this film noir as women often got different roles in this type of film.

The film is only 87 minutes long and was obviously made by Fox as the under card for double features in the theater. The sets show it is a limited budget film. The script made J Edgar Hoover mad because patriotism is given short shrift. Hoover wanted it changed.

Instead, it became a B under card picture that was a sleeper hit in 1953. The script & acting in it are better than other big features were that year.


Samuel Fuller is an interesting filmmaker, mainly because he had some very inconsistent politics in his films. While "Shock Corridor" and "The Naked Kiss" represented the hypocrisies and lunacy of America and "The Big Red One" was an effective portrait of the horrors of war, "Merrill's Marauders" painted war as necessary hell and "Pickup on South Street" is about the dangers of communist spies. All of his films make for very entertaining viewing, and even though he was often pigeonholed as a b-filmmaker, Fuller was just as good as any of the major studio contractors. "Pickup on South Street" is no exception, and despite the dated themes, the film-making style is remarkably ahead of its time. Its also a very quickly-pace, tight, and occasionally brutal film noir.

The acting across the board is fantastic. Richard Widmark makes for a great anti-hero and Jean Peters is quite sexy as a girl who works for her communist spy boyfriend. The show stealer is Thlema Ritter however, in an absolutely delightful performance as a police stoolie. The angles Fuller employs are great, making the acting sequences all the more exciting and brutal (this is very violent for its time). The camera continuously moves around just as Tarantino and his school would do forty years later. "Pickup on South Street" is a great action-paced noir thriller. "Shock Corridor" remains my favorite Fuller film, but this is a very close second. (8/10)


This is a pretty decent example of film noir. The setting is the early 50's with the Communists trying to steal weapon secrets from the US Government.

Richard Widmark is the suave pickpocket without scruples. He gives a pretty decent performance but there is nothing A-List about him. The interesting thing was that he was not only an anti-hero but through most of the film, an unlikeable anti-hero. That is not very normal. Jean Peters gave a so-so performance as the hooker with the heart of gold. That great character actress Thelma Ritter shines as the stool-pigeon.

The plot had its fair share of twists and turns, wisecracks and tough talk. There is a fight scene near the end of the movie (in the subway station) that was pretty gritty and exciting.

I think noir fans (like myself) will enjoy this film. For non-noir viewers, it may seem a little dated and the whole Commie thing a tad overdone.


I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.

Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.


This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the "Corpse Eaters Drinking Game": Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.

The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!


Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.

This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of "The Highest Honor" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story.


I had seen this movie long time back, but found it amazing and to this day it has never stopped amazing me.

A wonderful movie that describes the account of a group of Australian commandos who tried to sink some Japanese ships at the Singapore harbor during the height of WW2.

These commandos are caught in plain-clothes and they are considered to be spies by the Japanese captors. But something happens that hasn't been explored much in any Hollywood WW2 movie that I have seen.

A close and friendly bonding develops between the captors and the captives. They begin to respect each other, while the captain of the captured Australian soldiers become the best of friends with a senior Japanese prison guard. This is the most wonderful part of the whole movie and it really tugs your heart.

Soon, one day as the two friends are conversing, the Aussie captain learns that some other captives are going to be tried and executed for the sinking of the Jap ships in the Singapore harbor.

He mentions that it was his team and not some other's that had sunk the ships to his Japanese friend, and upon hearing this the Japanese guard tells him to keep quiet as it might lead to his whole group getting executed. But the captain remains adamant on confessing this to the Japanese authorities.

Finally, the Japanese authorities sentence them to death in the most respectful way that is according to their rules. This is the Highest Honor accorded to the captured warriors in Japan.

This is the most awesome part of the film where the Aussie soldiers are awaiting their imminent death and the tense indecision of the friendly Japanese guard who is still not ready to believe that why did his Aussie friend confess being guilty.

I won't give away the ending here. But it is more poignant than one can even imagine and can easily move one to tears.

All in all, an excellent underrated movie that possibly didn't get the recognition that it deserved internationally. Get one copy today and be mesmerized.


I saw this Australian film about 10 years ago and have never forgotten it. The movie shows the horror of war in a way that Hollywood usually glosses over. The relationship between the soldiers of the two warring countries is highlighted by the differences in culture and the ultimate knowledge that in the end we are all really not different on the inside. If you can find any type of copy of this--buy or rent it. You won't be disappointed, just awed.


It's been so long since I've seen this movie (at least 15 years) and yet it still haunts me with a vivid image of the horrific consequences that prisoners of war can face despite the terms of the Geneva Convention.

A unit of Australian underwater demolitions experts are captured in an archipelago near Japan following a successful mission to set mines in a Japanese harbor.

Once in prison these men expect the same treatment as any other POWs but to their dismay soon learn from a friendly Japanese prison guard that they are being tried as spies since they were out of uniform when captured. The consequences of such an infraction, by Japanese martial code, is execution by beheading.

Despite their pleas, and the pleas of the sympathetic prison guard, the day of reckoning approaches like a ticking time bomb. The tension is so high you will actually hear the ticking, though it may just be your chest pounding with the percussion of a marching execution squad.

The ending is actually too painful to reenact in my head much less write it here. But I can promise you-- you'll never forget it. Good luck finding the video in the U.S.


I was overtaken by the emotion. Unforgettable rendering of a wartime story which is unknown to most people. The performances were faultless and outstanding.


This is the story of Australian commandos who are captured out of uniform after a raid. Since they are out of uniform, they are, justly, treated as spies. As such, they are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Japanese court-martial, out of admiration for their heroism, authorizes that they be given a warrior's death. Of course, under the code of Bushido, this means that they are to be beheaded. A fate for which, as westerners, they are unprepared.


This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam.


A delightful piece of cinema storytelling in a simple but effective way. Cinema after all is a visual media and Igor used its full potential. A young restless man boards a train with no destination in mind. In one of the compartments he meets with a girl. Words are not exchanged but their laundry washing are and from there we are taken on a ride with other peculiar characters and situations. The two leads are perfectly cast as their unique features tell you a story that needs no words.


What an amazing film. With very little dialogue, the whole story is told with glances and body language. Very involving almost voyeuristic. My only gripe is that it has not been released on video in Australia and is therefore only available on TV. What a waste.


I always wondered what happened with that magic kind of feeling the old Slovenian movies seemed to have in them... Well, in time I wondered if that feeling was just the nostalgia. Or did that "feeling" decide to pack its bags and say "goodbye" somewhere in the middle of our cinematic history, and then never came back? Or did it? Because for me, it came back the first time I saw "Ekspres, Ekspres". And it was it's old self again.

There are three qualities of this movie that makes it somewhat unique and as enjoying as it is to watch - the smooth flow of the story, the warmth of the colors and, what I appreciated the most - the lack of excessive use of verbal communication (something many of other (not just) Slovenian screenwriters should at least consider). There is no use for words, when you can understand each other just as well (yeah, or better) by other means in use. Just watch Bakovic and Cerar. Uh.

So this, in only so many words, is why I would recommend "Ekspres, Ekspres" to all of you, as a must-see Slovenian movie, regardless of what you may heard of Slovenian films (if you ever even heard anything , that is...).

Oh, and that scene, where Bakovic is dancing to Vivaldi's music... A treat.

Treat yourself. Watch it.


... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.

Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this.


A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details.


Go, Igor, go, you are the proof that Slovenian films may, should and must be different. There's soul in it, and this is rare. Don't let anybody put you down!


I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).

I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective "jump" moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The "edge of dreamland" muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.

Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile ("Cujo"?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, "I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at" look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.

While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the "Witch Mountain" movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.

The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.

Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about "Blade Runner". :-)


I've seen this movie more than once. It was on par with a lot of the spooky stuff that was being shown in television movies back then. The only problem I had was with the title for the obvious reasons... One immediately thinks of the famous snack cake by Drake's! Leaving off the first part, 'Hound of Hell' would have sufficed.

Richard Crenna always manages to bring a sense of seriousness to anything he does, anyway - whether the plot is good or bad. But this was an enjoyable Halloween fare offered by the CBS network. I loved the part where Crenna takes a flight to some obscure country to find the mystic who would help him conquer the evil beast. He asks the cab driver how to find this guy. Great dialogue between the native cab driver and Crenna in terms of the cabby dissing his own people's ethnic beliefs. 'Aw, Mr. Barry, I left that stuff behind when I came down from the mountains...' - referring to the mystic who rarely sees or advises people, and nobody knows how to really contact him.

As far as supernatural fare goes, this movie is still enjoyable.


Yes it was a little low budget, but this movie shows love! The only bad things about it was that you can tell the budget on this film would not compare to "Waterworld" and though the plot was good, the film never really tapped into it's full potential! Strong performances from everyone and the suspense makes it worthwhile to watch on a rainy night.


Not only does this film have one of the great movie titles, it sports the third teaming of 70s child actors Ike Eissenman and Kim Richards. I seem to remember this film being broadcast Halloween week back in '78 going against Linda Blair in Stranger in our House. I missed it on the first run choosing to see the other film. Later, on repeat, I saw I made the right choice. The movie is not really bad, but, really lacks any chills or surprises. Although, I did like the scene where Richard Crenna shoots the family dog to no avail.


The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed!


Before Cujo,there was Lucky the devil dog. In 1978,on Halloween night the movie"Devil Dog,The Hound of Hell" premiered. A story of a family getting a new puppy (from a farmer who just happen to be in the neighborhood selling fruits and vegetables) because their dog Skipper was killed.Coencidence? Everyone loves the new dog,but there is something strange about him.

It isn't long until the father Mike Barry(Richard Crenna,First Blood)starts to notice.His wife Betty(Yvette Mimieux,Where The Boys Are,Jackson County Jail,Snowbeast)is different and his kids Charlie and Bonnie(Ike Eisenman,Witch Mountain and Fantastic Vourage and Kim Richards,Witch Mountain,Nanny and the Professor,Hello Larry,Tuff-Turf)also have changed. Does the dog have something to do with it? He's determined to find out and do whatever it takes to save his family.

This movie is great because it has Ike and Kim playing a darker side of themselves than what we saw on those witch mountain movies. This is one of the many 70's made-for-TV horror movies that was actually scary for a made-for-TV horror movie. The music was creepy and even the ending which I won't tell made you think.

This movie also stars Ken Kercheval(Cliff Barnes of Dallas)and R.G. Armstrong(who couldn't stay away from devil movies remember"Race with the Devil"?)

It's worth watching.


No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in "Jackson County Jail," sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney "Witch Mountain" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ("Night Tide") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo.


Those childhood memories...when things were new, and we were filled with curiosity about the world around us; as we took those initial first steps in the long journey we call life.

One of the initial memories I have from childhood is this animated program "Galaxy Express 999," about a young boy named Tetsuro, who goes on a train ride around the galaxy, in the hopes of gaining a mechanical body in order to avenge the senseless death of his mother at the hands of cold-hearted, trophy gathering mechanical hunters. Accompanying Tetsuro on his journey is Maetel, a woman of exquisite golden beauty who reminds him of the mother he lost all those years ago...

Back in the early-80's, as a boy who attended kindergarten and the early years of elementary school in Seoul, South Korea, "Galaxy Express 999" was a phenomenally popular animated program imported from Japan, which inspired young boys who tuned in to dream of countless adventures in their often tumultuous and exciting journey through life that awaited them. The memories of tuning into this animated program on weekdays between 8 to 9pm before bed time...

Those were some wonderful memories, never to be had again...

As I moved to America, and while residing here for over 2 decades, I sometimes wondered about that time and place, in a country thousands of miles away divided from America by an enormously vast ocean, of this childhood program, with its hit theme song, and of the boy named Tetsuro, his protective companion Maetel, the enigmatic train conductor, and of the spacefaring train Galaxy Express 999.

Many, many years passed...

Last summer while I was in Korea, I was able to track down a copy of the original "Galaxy Express 999" (1979) on DVD, and it brought back a lot of nostalgic, heartfelt memories. "Galaxy Express 999" remains as captivating as the first time you discovered it all those years ago, opening up those nostalgic memories of new discoveries, an important stepping stone for young boys who tuned in and embarked on their life's journey into manhood.

Here's to wonderful memories. "Good-bye, Maetel. Good-bye, Galaxy Express 999...

Good-bye, to my childhood."

10/10


I saw this as a child in the late eighties and I must say, Galaxy Express is one of those films that sticks in your imagination for a long time. If you've never understood the appeal of anime, discovering this film may be your golden ticket to Otaku-town.

The story is as delicate and poetic as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The cell animation, while somewhat traditional, possesses a vivid style that explosively portrays Leiji Matsumoto's great talent for character design and visual storytelling.

This is one of those unique children's films like Star Wars, The Dark Crystal and The Wizard of Oz that completely transcends 'family entertainment' status and stands as a classic of cinema on its own terms.

I highly recommend this film.


Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it.


Galaxy Express 999 (Ginga tetsudô Three-Nine). Made in 1979. Directed by Rintaro. Based on the original work by Leiji Matsumoto.

What little I know of the history of GALAXY EXPRESS 999, it was first published as a popular manga in 1970's and was created by Leiji Matsumoto. GE999 is set in the same Star Wars-type of space universe as Matsumoto's other famous space manga: CAPTAIN HARLOCK. In fact space pirate Harlock and other characters from that manga (including Queen Emeraldas and Tochirô Oyama) make appearances in GE999. GE999 was a success as a manga and was soon followed by also popular anime series which included over 100 episodes. It was aired in 1978. A year later came this anime film, which isn't a sequel to the series, but summaries the main points of the story in two hours long movie.

The story is set in unidentified Star Wars-type of future where journeying to different planets has become a possibility. People of the future can have themselves mechanical bodies in which they can live hundreds of years, maybe even forever. The protagonist, Tetsurô Hoshino, is a young boy who witnesses how a cruel Count Mecha, whose entire body is made of mechanical parts, kills Tetsurô's mother. Tetsurô swears revenge and is convinced that he can only achieve it by having a mechanical body. To obtain it he must travel to a far-away planet with space train Galaxy Express 999. However, since Tetsurô comes from poverty, he has no money to obtain the expensive ticket. By a chance coincidence he meets a beautiful young woman, Maetel, who bears a resemblance to his dead mother. Maetel offers a ticket for Tetsurô on a condition that she accompanies him on his journey. And so the journey begins

I first saw this film last October, about six months from now, and again yesterday. I feel that I must first tell about the thing that bothered me the most in this film: it seems very rushed. Then again what can you expect from 2 hours long movie that tries to tell the main points of over 100 episodes long series? Whatever the case, the situations change with a fast speed and Tetsurô meets other important characters in the story mostly by pure chance. I feel makers should have either left something out or include extra 30 minutes.

However, there's no arguing that GE999 has deserved its place as an anime classic. The animation itself, very faithful to the style of Matsumoto's manga, is detailed and beautiful to watch. Even after almost 30 years of its release the animation has not become "out of date" but puts many later anime films in shame. The music through out the film is enjoyable to listen even if somewhat "old" these day (it was the 70's after all). I have not heard any English dub of this film so I can only comment the Japanese audio which is good. Voice actors give life to their characters, most memorable ones being Masako Nozawa (mainly known as the voice of Goku through out the entire Dragon Ball saga) as the excited and young Tetsurô, and Masako Ikeda as the calm and mysterious Maetel. The supporting characters are not left in shadows, but also have a life of their own, most memorable to me being waitress Claire.

The story itself is suitable for both those who are looking for an entertainment for couple of hours, as well as for those who try to find deeper messages. GE999 is an entertaining adventure film but can also be seen as Tetsurô's journey from boyhood to manhood. The whole film is told from his point of view, so we are forced to feel what he feels. I think many people can relate to Tetsurô, for despite the fantasy elements, he is a very realistic character: young, hot headed, awkward and naive. We follow him as he starts to see differences between humans and machines and come to conclusion whether he wants the mechanical body or not. Maetel on the other hand stays as a mystery in the film and even in the end, when she reveals who and what she really is, it doesn't much answer to anything. Maetel can be seen as a dream of a growing young man, always close but just out of reach.

It's is the strange yet beautiful relationship between Tetsurô and Maetel that still awakes talking and questions, and fascinates after the decades. People have argued if their relationship is that of a two friends, of mother and son, or of two possible lovers (which wakes a lot of critique since Maetel's age is unknown and Tetsurô hasn't even reached his puberty yet). Without any means to sound deep, I think the best term to describe them is "soul mates". There is no question that the two feel devotion, caring and love for each others, yet it goes beyond that of friendship, family and lovers. I think that if their relationship would be stuffed in any of those categories, it would take something out of the whole film and of the characters. The ending scene, even if you already know what is going to happen, is still very touching and memorable.

All in all, despite the rushing of plot and some corny scenes, GALAXY EXPRESS 999 holds its place as an anime classic amongst the films like Katsuhiro Otomo's AKIRA (1988) and Mamoru Oshii's GHOST IN THE SHELL (1995). The film is directed by Rintaro, who had previous experience of Leiji Matsumoto's works as he had worked in CAPTAIN HARLOCK series. Later Rinatro directed a wonderful looking METROPOLIS (2001) that also questions the difference between humans and machines.

GALAXY EXPRESS 999 (1979) is a classic that should be seen at least once by every anime fan.


One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out.


Anyone who thinks anime is nothing but sex and violence will be silenced forever after watching this movie. This is a fine movie that tells about Tetsuro's quest to avenge his mother's death, but also grows up in the process. The journey on the train sort of represents Tetsuro's journey from boyhood to manhood. The music and visual styles of the movie are a bit dated (you can tell it's a 70's movie) and the animation is only slightly better than your average "Star Blazers" episode. But the story and the characters are so strong, it really doesn't matter. A must-see for any animation fan!


What can I say ? An action and allegorical tale which has just about everything. Basically a coming of age tale about a young boy who is thrust into a position of having to save the world ..... and more. He meets a dazzling array of heroes and villains, and has quite a time telling them apart. A definite must-see.


This early Anime movie was a rather good film that I caught once on the Science Fiction channel when Anime was actually popular here in America and not the ratings disaster that adult swim claims it is on the cartoon network. I quite frankly think it has less to do with it being less popular and more with the fact people would rather now buy dvds are watch the episodes uncut on the internet. This film though probably did not have all that many cuts and the voice work was okay for a dubbed movie, though I would rather watch the original Japanese version. Americans tend to use some rather annoying voices for children in anything dubbed. This film features a young boy who boards a train called the Galaxy Express in the hopes that he can make it to a planet that has the technology to turn him into a robot. He wishes to become a robot to avenge his mother, who was brutally murdered at the hands of a robot who hunts humans for fun. During the course of his adventures he becomes friends with the various workers aboard the train as well as a woman that resembles his deceased mother, a beautiful woman named Matel, who as with most woman in Anime movies has a secret that could either be really good for our young hero, or really bad. He goes from planet to planet too as the train makes various stops and he runs into a space pirate named Captain Harlock who apparently starred in his own animated cartoon series, so basically the Galaxy Express takes place in that universe. All in all a very good ride with a rather strange and unexpected ending. There would be a sequel to this one, but it was not quite as good as this one, however the ending was a bit more final than it was here.


I've watched a bunch of episodes of Cold Case since its premiered (especially now that it immediately follows The Amazing Race, but this was one of the best instances of writing and acting I've seen from the house of Bruckheimer. The casting, especially of the younger officers, was spot on, and the script and editing, the soundtrack, and the acting made this episode a tour d'force. If I were the producers I would submit this episode for Emmy consideration. It amazing how complete a portrait was made of Coop and Jimmy within the confines of s 48 minute episode; that takes a lot of talented people doing their best. I hope there's is advance warning of when this episode is repeated, because I'm sure I'll notice a lot that I did not notice the first time around.


What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful.


This was one of the all time best episodes. Officer Sean Cooper was murdered in his patrol car back in '68. A dying convict in the state penitentiary reveals that he stole a block of heroin from the car after the shooting. His case is reopened with the presumption that he was corrupted as a policeman.

Further investigation into him as a police officer and a human being reveals a war veteran involved in a forbidden love. This type of love was considered shameful and something to at least keep hidden at that time.

While this isn't the type of love I personally support, he was still a policeman and a human being and shouldn't have been killed for it. The sound track was excellent (keeps me watching the DVR), and the selective use of black and white mixed with color to emphasize one object or give a particular feeling to a scene was especially appealing. I shall be watching this one in repeat!


this was a fantastic episode. i saw a clip from it on YouTube, and i vowed that should it ever show on TV, i would glue myself to the set in order to watch. i wound up watching it with a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, and the two of us cried at the end. this was a truly well-written, heartfelt episode of the forbidden love between two cops who, i felt, really were (in Coop's words) "the Lucky Ones". it is episodes like this one that really make Cold Case one of the most captivating and much-loved works of television magic on CBS. i anxiously await more episodes, and a re-run of "Forever Blue" because i will always watch it again and again.


I have watched quite a few Cold Case episodes over the years, beginning with Season 1 episodes back in 2003-2004. And while most have been good, this particular episode was not only the best of the best, but has few rivals in the Emmy categories. Though some may not agree with the story content (i.e. the male-to-male romantic relationship), I doubt that anyone could watch this without being deeply moved within their spirit.

The story is essentially about a case that was reopened, based on the testimony from a dying drug dealer. The two central actors are two police officers in the 1960's named Sean Coop (aka, the cold case victim who goes by his last name, Coop) and his partner, Jimmy Bruno.

In the story, Coop is single, a Vietnam war vet, with a deeply troubled past. Jimmy, however, is married, with children no less. Both are partners on the police force and form not only a friendship, but a secret romantic relationship that they both must hide from a deeply and obviously homophobic culture prevalent at that time.

The flashback scenes of their lives are mostly in black and white, with bits of color now and then sprinkled throughout. Examples include their red squad car, the yellow curtains gently blowing by the window in Jimmy's bedroom, where Jimmy's wife watched Coop and Jimmy drink, fight, and then kiss each other while being in an alcohol-induced state. I found it interesting that only selected items were colored in the flashback scenes, with everything else in black and white. I still have not figured out the color scheme and rationale.

The clearly homophobic tension between fellow patrol officers and the two central actors only heightens the intensity of the episode. One key emotional scene was when Coop was confronted by his father after the baptism of Jimmy's baby. In this scene, Coop's father, Sarge, who was a respected fellow officer on the force, confronts Coop about the rumors surrounding Coop's relationship with Jimmy. One can feel sorry for Coop, at this point, as the shame and disgrace of Coop's father was heaped upon Coop - "You are not going to disgrace our family...and you're not my son, either." - clearly indicative of the hostile views of same-sex relationships of that era.

Additional tension can also be seen in the police locker room where Coop and another officer go at it after Coop and Jimmy are labeled "Batman and Robin homos".

As for the relationship between Coop and Jimmy, it's obvious that Coop wanted more of Jimmy in his life. Once can see the tension in Jimmy's face as he must choose between his commitment to his wife and kids, his church, and yet his undying devotion to Coop.

In the end, Jimmy walks away from Coop, realizing that he cannot have both Coop and his family at the same time. Sadly, Coop is killed, perhaps because of his relationship with Jimmy, but Coop may also have been killed for his knowledge of drug money and police corruption that reached higher up in the force.

The most moving scene in the whole episode was when Coop, as he sat dying from gunshot wounds in his squad car, quietly spoke his last words over his police radio to his partner: "Jimmy...we were the lucky ones. Don't forget that."

The soundtrack selection was outstanding throughout the episode. I enjoyed the final scene with the actor Chad Everett, playing the still grieving Jimmy, only much older by now, and clearly still missing his former partner, Coop.

I highly recommend this episode and consider it the best. It is without a doubt the most well-written, well-acted, and well done of all Cold Case episodes that I've ever seen.


A convict serving time comes forward to give the Cold Case unit information about the murder of a policeman, committed years before. The murder of Sean Cooper, a good cop, was never solved. Naturally, the detectives believe the new evidence will help them put together all the pieces of the puzzle that frustrated their colleagues.

In flashbacks we are taken to the baptism of James Bruno's baby. Sean and Jimmy were partners. There is tension as Sean, who is the godfather, arrives disheveled and late for the rite. Eileen Bruno doesn't appear to be happy being there. The real mystery is revealed by her. She caught Sean, who was drinking with Jimmy in the backyard, kiss her husband, and more shocking yet, Jimmy responding willingly.

Somehow at the station the partners become the center of gossip. Sean has not endeared himself to his superior because he discovered the involvement with a criminal in his area who controlled the drug business. Sean realizes this man is in with the drug strong man because he always makes an excuse to free the scum bags Sean and Jimmy haul into the station all the time. The pressure is too much on Jimmy. Sean is comfortable in his homosexuality and wants to be honest about it. Cooper's own father doesn't want anything to do with a queer son. Even his superior McCree wants him out of his jurisdiction, but the case is complicated because Cooper comes from a long line of Irish men serving in the police force. Sean is killed because his homosexual condition, and for knowing too much on his peers' involvement in taking dirty money.

Tom Petit wrote this honest portrayal of the life of a police officer in the closet and his secret love with another fellow cop. We thought it was a frank account of a serious matter no one talked about in those days. Sometimes the people involved with the show, fearing reprisals from sponsors, or the networks, don't dare to present these real situations. Jeannot Szwarc, shows a sensitive approach to this thorny issue, which is dealt without the sensationalism the case might have been shown with a different team.

There is a rare Chad Everett appearance as the older Jimmy Bruno. His take is right on target with a touch of sentimentality that doesn't get out of hand. Shane Johnson makes an excellent contribution to the show as Sean Cooper. The cast is marvelous and it includes good all around performances from everyone under Mr. Szwarc's direction.

In this episode, Nick Vera, gets closer to his neighbor, the mother of the basketball player the detective took his ball away. Nick is heading for romance with the woman!


I watch Cold Case because of the real life experiences depicted. This one was very close to me and touched me deeply, so beautifully handled, thanks, Merideth. All the characters are well developed 3D especially Coop. The material is still difficult to approach, the US is far behind the developed nations of the world. only this kind of honest actual experiential portrayal and treatment makes an impact on the population. of course, not everyone sees things the same way but i am heartened that 3/4 of the men polled in the under 30 crowd voted the same as me 10. you're reaching the hard ones - i will forever reserve the "best episode" place for this episode. Please continue taking chances and accept my heartfelt gratitude.


Reading some of the comments on the message boards here I was expecting this movie to be a complete letdown - but when I watched it I could not stop laughing! It has officially become my new favourite movie.

I don't know what all the hate here is about, maybe it's because a movie of this kind has never really been around before. I am at a loss to name another completely female driven comedy. Plenty of comedies will have one or two actresses in the lead, but there will be a lot of supporting male characters. This one was almost ALL women - with the exception of Seth Meyers, Justin Hartley and the brief appearance of Will Arnett - and it worked. All of the actresses delivered very funny performances (especially Missi Pyle) from a quirky and lovable script.

The charm of this film, to me, seems to be in its subtle feminist message: accepting who you are, female success in the public sphere, the strength of female friendships and breaking gender roles. Light-hearted though it is, each of the lead characters face a challenge as their attempts to be more 'fun' conflict with their feminist values and who they knew themselves to be.

Missi Pyle proposed that this film missed a theatrical release because of its all-female cast and lack of a big-name actor to get the studios behind it, and I have to agree. Everyone I've recommended this film to has loved it and I think it's a shame that a comedy celebrating female dorkiness hasn't been widely accepted and successful.

I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind or a love of female-centred comedy.


Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable