Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I have done quite a few reviews on IMDb and this film is unique in that I never saw the entire movie. It was so terribly stupid and unfunny that I just couldn't sit through it--though I tried.

The biggest problem with this and any Mel Brooks movie I call "the Mel quotient". In other words, the better his movie, the less of him you see in the film. Think about it--The Producers and Young Frankenstein were great films and he was barely in them at all. BUT, films like Life Stinks and Space Balls are chock full of Mel and are pretty dopey movies (yes, I DID NOT LIKE Space Balls--but this isn't the place to talk about that).

Second, apart from cancer, rectal itch and mental retardation, I can't think of a less funny topic than homelessness. This is just a comedy breaker. Think about it, folks. The FUNNIEST(?) scene in the movie has Mel making whoopee with Leslie Ann Warren in a dumpster!! And this is funny in what way?

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I find it hard to understand why this piece of utter trash was repackaged. The only saving grace in the whole thing is the body of Ariauna in her sexy uniform. Her humour is also to be appreciated. She is a definite plus but alas it would take a magician to salvage this garbage. However she must be positively recognised for her heroic effort & true professionalism. Can't say the same for her co star Lilith with her whining voice that grates on your nervous system. Appeared disinterested & gave the impression that just her presence on the set was all that was needed. All said apart from Ariauna's performance it is indeed utter trash.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.

Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
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)