IN: Review: 'Panic in the Streets (1950)' owes more to British noir that its American counterparts. Like Reed's 'The Third Man (1949)' and Dassin's 'Night and the City (1950),' director Elia Kazan chose to film largely on location, capturing the fresh and vibrant decadence of the New Orleans slums. In a decision borrowed from the masters of Italian neorealism, he also hired many non-professional actors for minor roles, lending an air of authenticity to the cityscape. However, any further comparisons with neorealism would be misguided, for 'Panic in the Streets' is pure melodrama, of the best kind. A murdered illegal immigrant, fished out of the bay, is found to be infected with pneumonic plague, a deadly air-borne mutation of bubonic plague, which is transmitted from human-to-human and, untreated, has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark), an officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, convinces the doubtful police-chief (Paul Douglas) to undertake a city-wide manhunt for the men responsible for the homicide, lest they also be infected with the illness.

In my younger years, I found Wolfgang Petersen's 'Outbreak (1995)' to be among the most horrifying movies I'd ever seen. That thriller, which owes plenty to 'Panic in the Streets' {working title: "Outbreak"}, terrified me so efficiently because it depicted the ebola virus as both an invisible and invincible killer how does one defend themselves against such a thing? Kazan's film is the first (that I know of) to approach the subject of biological epidemics, though it has difficulty ascribing visual recognition to an enemy that is basically undetectable to the human eye; it instead uses Jack Palance as a human personification of the Plague. Despite his venturing out among the filthy dregs of human society, you never get the sense that Clinton Reed is placing his own life at risk {some viewers have noted that Reed never inoculated himself against the plague, though I think it's safe to assume that he did so at the same time as the morgue staff}. Nevertheless, there's still a strong sense of urgency in the hunt for the infected man's killers, underground street-rats who pollute the sewers with their misdeeds.

In medieval times, when the Black Death (now widely believed to have been bubonic plague) swept across the civilised world, killing a third of Europe's population, many identified the destruction as being the work of the Devil. Jack Palance's character, Blackie, serves effectively as Satan in human form: the angular-jawed thug can occasionally be charming and charismatic, but is always liable to explode into fits of violence; his two hoodlums (played by Guy Thomajan and Zero Mostel), through terror more than anything else, are constantly grovelling at his feet. When one lackey falls ill with fever, Blackie deduces that the man's immigrant cousin must have "brought something in with him" (the irony of his conclusion not passing unnoticed), and so attempts to ascertain what this presumably valuable object must be. He cradles the dying Poldi in his arms, a grotesque display of faux affection that is both pathetic and unsettling. Blackie/Satan is finally stopped not by the authorities, but by the burden of his own infection/evil as he attempts to board a cargo ship, the primary vessel by which the Plague spread across Europe.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this "documentary" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.

I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is the first out of the Guinea Pig series, and is one of the more infamous films out of the collection.

It took me a long time to finally man up and get my hands on a copy of this notorious group of films. I bought the Guinea Pig Box Set and decided to watch the collection in order by release date. So I popped this sucker in and sat down.

From what I had read on the internet, and realizing the content involved in this film, I was expecting to test my nerves in full force. This ended up not being the case.

The film focuses on a group of men who kidnap a woman and begin torturing her with the hopes of discovering the human breaking point, and how long a human can tolerate pain.

Sounds like one sick flick right? Wrong. The film fails to shock. This may be because I have become desensitized over the years do to my obsession with horror, but I think it is safe to say that any true gorehound could sit through this with ease.

On the other hand an individual who does not have a well knowledge of this type of film will most likely be overwhelmed and disgusted by the images they see on the screen. Though it failed to shock me the film contains some pretty mean spirited and graphic scenes of violence. Including the ripping out of fingernails, intestines thrown at an unconscious woman, and a needle through the eye.

Overall I think for majority of the gorehounds on this board that you should just get your hands on a copy of this film for the novelty of it, but I suggest that for any new comers to these type of films that you should work your way up to this one.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive