empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a film that on the surface would seem to be all about J.Edgar Hoover giving himself a a big pat on the back for fighting Klansmen,going after Indian killers, hunting the famous gangsters of the 1930's, fighting Nazi's in the US and South America during world war 2 and Commies in New York during the early 1950's. Of course in 1959 we did not know about Mr. Hoover's obsession for keeping secret files on honest Americans, bugging people like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, but worst of all,his secret love affair with his deputy director,Clyde Tolson( If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest seeing the film Citizen Cohn). Hoover aside, This story of a life in the FBI as told by Jimmy Stewart makes for a decent, but dated film. Vera Miles as his devoted wife is also good. But Jimmy is the movie. As much as Hoover controlled production and always made sure the FBI was seen without fault, Jimmy Stewart gave the film a human side,quite an achievement considering Hoover was always looking over his shoulder. The background score is also pleasant. I have read recent online articles suggesting that this is a forgotten film. Jimmy Stewart was one of the greatest film stars of all time and none of his films should be forgotten. TCM was the last network to show it a long time ago and I hope they show it again.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHas anyone noticed that James Earl Jones is the waiter who is serving when Hagarty's wife reveals that she is pregnant while they are at the restaurant next to the lake. I watched this movie on a video that I had taped off of the television. When I watched this scene I thought I recognized the voice of Jones when the \"waiter\" laughed at the end. I rewound the tape then slowly stepped through that part as the camera pulled back and showed the waiter. Listen closely as the waiter laughs when Hagarty looks up and tells him that they are going to have a baby, then watch closely or slow down the scene when the camera shows the waiter, albeit, quickly.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI first saw this film as a young boy and recently purchased it on DVD.
James Stewart brings great depth to the role of Chip Hardesty, a hardworking and dedicated FBI agent. His life in the Bureau is intercut with his family life, which is not all rosy. His wife (an excellent portrayal by Vera Miles) lives in fear of the dangerous nature of his job, and they even separate for a time; Chip's best friend and fellow agent Sam Crandall (Murray Hamilton) is killed in a gunfight; Chip's son, Mike, enlists in the Marines during World War II. Through it all, the family carries on with bravery and dignity.
The action sequences are quite exciting and the semi-documentary style of the film works effectively. And the music by Max Steiner says it all; fidelity, bravery and integrity.
This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the FBI and, yes, to J. Edgar Hoover as well. If Mr. Hoover's type of vigilance had been observed, we might have been spared 9/11, the surge in crimes against children and many of the venal politicians we've had to put up with since his passing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie has a great written genre story. It features all of the usual Columbo ingredients; The way Lt. Columbo approaches and bonds to his suspect, the way the mystery unravels for him, Columbo's dog, the cat and mouse play, which is great in this one and luckily as well some good relieving humor, mostly involving the Columbo character. It's all written despite the fact that it doesn't even have a truly original concept. Columbo hunting down a detective/murder novel writer had been done more than once before in a Columbo movie.
It's also an extremely well directed movie from James Frawley, who after this directed 5 more Columbo movies, in the '70's and '80's. He provided the movie with style and some truly great and memorable sequences.
It's one of the slower moving Columbo movies, despite not having a too long running time. This style and approach doesn't always work out well for a Columbo movie but in this movie it does, which is perhaps not in the least thanks to the acting performances of the movie.
Most Columbo movie either starred a big well known star or a star from the early days of film-making, as the movie its murderer. This movie stars the rather unknown 81 year old Ruth Gordon. She didn't starred in an awful lot of movies throughout her career but she is still well known to some, mostly for her role in \"Rosemary's Baby\", which also won her an Oscar. She had a realistic and somewhat unusual style of acting, which some people might not like though. It earned her 4 more Oscar nominations throughout her career, prior to her win for \"Rosemary's Baby\", in 1969. She has some great interaction as well with Peter Falk in their sequences together.
The movie also stars a still young G.D. Spradlin. I say young because I only know him from his latest productions out of his career, despite the fact that he already was 57 at the time of this Columbo production. He is still alive but retired from acting, ever since 1999.
An even better than usual Columbo movie entry.
8/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.
But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.
It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the \"death bed\" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.
The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the one in which the diminutive Ruth Gordon plays an Agatha-Christie type of murder mystery author who locks her nephew by marriage into a safe. Gordon believes that he murdered her niece and the young fellow dies of suffocation, while Gordon is traveling back and forth to New York. He manages, however, to leave behind some clues, scratches on a couple of black safe deposit boxes and an improvised and well-hidden note. Columbo enters the case, suspects her at once, and solves the mystery by simply using his supernatural mystical intuitive powers. Oh, and Mariette Hartley is on hand as Gordon's secretary and would-be blackmailer. Hartley is, I believe, the grand daughter of the psychologist B. F. Skinner. I'm not sure her ancestry had anything to do with her attractive belly button, which is on display during a belly dance sequence, but I've always admired Skinner anyway.
The murder is well handled. It's a good plot, and none of the performers or crew fluff anything. But the outstanding figure here is Ruth Gordon, only a skosh over five feet tall. She was over 80 years old and looked it. There are moments when she almost teeters, but she consistently exudes charm. Her acting is idiosyncratic. You can never be sure when she's being serious or when she's putting Columbo and the audience on. She's given some good lines too. What humor there is comes from Gordon. Columbo doesn't have any of his frequent comic moments.
All in all, a nice job by everyone concerned.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**SPOILERS** Since the disappearance at sea of her favorite niece Phyllis murder mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, Ruth Gordon, has strong suspicions that it was Phyllis' husband Edmund Galvin, Charles Frank, who was responsible for her death. In fact Abigail is convinced that he murdered her and made it look like a tragic accident.
Knowing that there's no evidence to have Edmund arrested for Phyillis' death and deciding to take the law into her own hands Abigail cooks up this elaborate plan to do him in and make it look, like Phyllis' death, a tragic accident. Getting Edmund to secretly come over to her mansion to give him the combination to her walk-in safe, as she's about to leave on vacation for New York City, Abigail tricks him into going inside locking the startled and surprised Edmund in. With the safe being soundproof nobody at the mansion the butler maid and Abigail's personal secretary Veronica, Mariette Hartley, hear him screaming for help and the next day Edmund is found suffocated to death. Veronica discovered Edmund's body as she was about to put away, for safe keeping, Abigail's latest murder mystery manuscript.
Lt. Columbo, Peter Falk, is called on the case involving the strange death of Edmund Garvin to determine if it's a murder or a tragic accident. Going through Edmund's apartment Columbo is puzzled to find out that he doesn't have a single photo of his late wife, who's been missing for just a month! This ties into what Abigail always felt about him in Edmund not being in love with Phyllis and also a suspect in her, in Abigail's mind, murder.
Columbo a big fan, together with his wife, of Abigail's murder mystery novels has a hard time realizing that she in fact was responsible for Edmund's death. All the evidence points to Abigil including a pair of missing car keys that was Edmunds. This all proved that Abgail was in fact in the house, not on her way to the airport, when Edmund was locked inside the walk-in safe.
Going through all the evidence Columbo comes up with this strange conclusion that Edmund must have left some evidence inside the safe in writing to who his killer is. That conclusion is quickly checkmated when it's found out that Edmund didn't even have a pen or pencil as well as light, with the safe light-bulb burned out, on him to write it. There's also something very odd that's inside the safe that has been on Lt. Columbo's mind ever since he came on the case. This has to do with the black paint residue that was found under the dead Edmund's fingernails and on his belt buckle!
It's that evidence, when put together with a number of other items in the safe, that in the end hangs Edmund's murder on the tricky and very cunning mystery writer Abigail Mitchell. Edmund let Abigail unknowingly convict herself in his final attempt as the air in the safe was being used up, by his breathing, in using burnt out matchsticks to write on Abigail last manuscript who murdered him: Abigail Mitchell!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI haven't really seen too many of the Columbo films... actually, I think I've only watched one or two, apart from this one. I've always liked Columbo, though, somehow without even having seen that much of him. Peter Falk is and has always been the perfect choice for the character, because of his looks, his voice and his charm. The perfect proof of this is that though the series started all the way back in 1968, the latest(and probably not last) of the films was made in 2003. That's 35 years. And Falk was 40 back when he made the first one. The series consists of 68 films(unless my count is off), all of which are made for TV. Everyone knows the character, even though no one has ever seen a film featuring him in the cinema. That is quite an accomplishment, if you ask me. The plot is pretty good. The only problem I have with it is that the killer and murder is revealed at the very beginning(though that may be the same for all of the Columbo films), leaving no mystery but how Columbo solves it, making it somewhat dull(since there's not much to look forward to at the end of the film). The pacing is good, there's hardly a scene where you're bored. The acting is very good, particularly that of Falk and Ruth Gordon. They have some great exchanges of dialog in the film. The characters are well-written and credible. The dialog and script is unusually good for a TV-movie. All in all, the film is, yes, surprisingly good for a TV-movie, and definitely worth watching for any fan of Columbo and/or crime/mystery flicks. 8/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is always satisfying when a detective wraps up a case and the criminal is brought to book. In this case the climax gives me even greater pleasure. To see the smug grin wiped off the face of Abigail Mitchell when she realises her victim has left \"deathbed testimony\" which leaves no doubt about her guilt is very satisfying.
Please understand: while I admire Ruth Gordon's performance, her character really, *really* irritates me. She is selfish and demanding. She gets her own way by putting on a simpering 'little girl' act which is embarrassing in a woman of her age. Worse, she has now set herself up as judge, jury and executioner against her dead niece's husband.
When Columbo is getting too close she tries to unnerve him by manipulating him into making an off-the-cuff speech to an audience of high-class ladies. He turns the tables perfectly by delivering a very warm and humane speech about the realities of police work.
Nothing can distract Columbo from the pursuit of justice. Abby's final appeal to his good nature is rejected because he has too much self-respect not to do his job well. Here is one situation you can't squirm out of Ms Mitchell!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPickup On South Street is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. An example of the directing: When Candy (Jean Peters) starts going through her purse and notices her wallet is missing, an alarm goes off in the background in the building she's in -- as if it's an alarm going off in her head. It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just \"clicks\" that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.
Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for \"Moe,\" the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter. Later, in her apartment, you are not seeing a movie -- you're seeing a real person. I've never seen anyone \"act\" so real I felt like I was looking into a real room until Ritter's performance -- right down to the way her hair stuck out a bit when she removed her hat.
About a million other things just *worked,* from the way Lightning Louie picks up money with his chopsticks to the way Candy's jewelry clicks when she flicks Moe's hand away from her brooch, to the way Moe gets the dollars and change from the police captain across the FBI guy's chest -- and even the way the captain opens his filing cabinet, like he's been doing it in that way in that room for many years. \"Pickup On South Street\" is detailed moves (directing) with consummate performances (acting) and superb now-nostalgic visuals of the day, such as the panel truck, the boards leading to the shack out on the water, the dumbwaiter, -- and the unforgettable place Skip stashes his pocket pickings. Wonderful stuff.
\"Pickup On South Street\" is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a \"three-time loser\" and Candy as a youngish woman who has \"knocked around\" a lot. When these people behave a little more badly than you'd expect, it's in sort of novel ways that make it seem you're looking in at people you'd never otherwise imagine -- and yet you know that they are possible because the actors make them so recognizably human.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirector 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 ****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirected 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!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI 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!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery 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
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSkip 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSkip 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
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nand 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPickup 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSamuel 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrom 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 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
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSamuel 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+
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirector 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn 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).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThelma 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRichard 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.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"