IN: Review: I liked it! The plot was weird, Drew Barrymore and DC making out was awkward for both of them. Drews acting was dodgy in places but this could be down to her life at the time. Dennis Christopher as the shrink was pretty cool, and as always he does his best - i'm a major Dennis fan anyway, that's why i bought the DVD.

I didn't get the ending! that weird animatronic red skeleton thing looked just like it was out of filmschool, which is OK i guess but it could have been more.

....and the whole thing with the knife- if it was that uncomfortable why didn't they just get rid of it?

It was very confusing as to when it was the Doppelganger weird thing or when it was DC-or was it Dennis all the time? Because the Doppelganger made out with Dennis and Patrick. In the scenes with Patrick if it was Dennis as the Doppelganger then I think Patrick would notice.

The music was OK but obtrusive in places, the whole orchestral score seemed to be revolving around a theme but this theme was overdone.

A big mix of lots of blood and gratuitus shots of Drew nude.

All in all a bit of a GPM-Guilty Pleasure Movie. Don't read too much into it, don't look for secret messages and a fantastic script because you wont find it. There are some diamond moments and goofs galore- WATCH IT AND JUST HAVE A BIT OF FUN WITH IT!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: When a stiff turns up with pneumonic plague (a variant of bubonic plague), U.S. Public Health Service official Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) immediately quarantines everyone whom he knows was near the body. Unfortunately, the stiff got that way by being murdered, and there's a good chance that the murderer will start spreading the plague, leading to an epidemic. Enter Police Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas), who is enlisted to track down the murderer as soon as possible and avert a possible national disaster.

While Panic in the Streets is a quality film, it suffers from being slightly unfocused and a bit too sprawling (my reason for bringing the score down to an eight). It wanders the genres from noirish gangster to medical disaster, police procedural, thriller and even romance.

This is not director Elia Kazan's best work, but saying that is a bit disingenuous. Kazan is the helmer responsible such masterpieces as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and East of Eden (1955), after all. This film predates those, but Kazan has said that he was already "untethered" by the studio. Taking that freedom too far may partially account for the sprawl. The film is set in New Orleans, a city where Kazan "used to wander around . . . night and day so I knew it well". He wanted to exploit the environment. "It's so terrific and colorful. I wanted boats, steam engines, warehouses, jazz joints--all of New Orleans".

Kazan handles each genre of Panic in the Streets well, but they could be connected better. The film would have benefited by staying with just one or two of its moods. The sprawl in terms of setting would have still worked. Part of the dilemma may have been caused by the fact that Panic in the Streets was an attempt to merge two stories by writers Edna and Edward Anhalt, "Quarantine" and "Some Like 'Em Cold".

The gangster material, which ends up in firmly in thriller territory with an extended chase scene near the end of the film, is probably the highlight. Not surprisingly, Kazan has said that he believes the villains are "more colorful--I never had much affection for the good guys anyway. I don't like puritans". A close second is the only material that approaches the "panic" of the title--the discovery of the plague and the attempts to track down the exposed, inoculate them and contain the disease. While there is plenty of suspense during these two "moods", much of the film is also a fairly straightforward drama, with pacing more typical of that genre.

The dialogue throughout is excellent. The stylistic difference to many modern films could hardly be more pronounced. It is intelligent, delivered quickly and well enunciated by each character. Conflict isn't created by "dumb" decisions but smart moves; events and characters' actions are more like a chess game. When unusual stances are taken, such as Reed withholding the plague from the newspapers, he gives relatively lengthy justifications for his decisions, which other characters argue over.

In light of this, it's interesting that Kazan believed that "propriety, religion, ethics and the middle class are all murdering us". That idea works its way into the film through the alterations to the norm, or allowances away from it, made by the protagonists. For example, head gangster Blackie (Jack Palance in his first film role) is offered a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he'll cooperate with combating the plague.

The technical aspects of the film are fine, if nothing exceptional, but the real reasons to watch are the performances, the intriguing scenario and the well-written dialogue.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive