Q: A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.

What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).

Verdict: barely entertaining.

*My rate: 4/10
A: negative
Q: '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.
A: positive
Q: As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.
A: positive
Q: Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed "Phone Booth",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),"Intermission",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),"Blue Crush",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),"All The Real Girls",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view.
A: positive