This movie is one of a very popular genre in the 1950s--the angry and disaffected teen film. Some of them (such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Blackboard Jungle") were very good. Some were downright awful (they made a bazillion B-films using this theme such as "Beatniks" and "Teenage Crime Wave"). Many, like "Crime in the Streets", fall in between. And, like most of these films, the 'teens' in this film are mostly actors in their twenties and even thirties, though a few (Sal Mineo) were actually teens.
John Cassavetes plays the nominal leader of a gang of incredibly clean-cut looking punks. They begin the film with a rumble with a rival gang and terrorize the neighborhood. One of the neighbors (the familiar-faced Malcolm Atterbury) calls the police when he sees them in action, as Cassavetes takes it very personally--and plans on getting revenge. In the meantime, an incredibly earnest social worker (James Whitmore) comes on VERY strong and tries to point the guys in the right direction before it's too late. Will niceness or evil prevail?
The biggest problem I had with this film wasn't the fault of any of the people who made this film. It was released as part of a DVD collection of film noir movies--and this is clearly NOT film noir. While there are a few qualities similar to noir, a teenage delinquent film with a crusading social worker sounds nothing like noir! Another problem, though minor, is that the film has been done too many times before and the writing is a bit too pat. It comes off as a bit fake as a result. BUT, the film still has something to offer--John Cassavetes strong performance. While never as famous as James Dean, Dennis Hopper or other actors who specialized in these sort of roles, I think he was better here than these more well-known actors. He IS the film and helps to make up for the writing deficiencies (particularly Whitmore's character who just comes on a bit too strong at times--though he did have some good scenes--especially towards the end). There are a few other nice performances in the film as well (such as Will Kuluva, Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg and Atterbury)--and this help the film to rise above the mediocrity of most delinquent teen films. Not great but worth seeing simply for the acting.
John Cassavetes plays the nominal leader of a gang of incredibly clean-cut looking punks. They begin the film with a rumble with a rival gang and terrorize the neighborhood. One of the neighbors (the familiar-faced Malcolm Atterbury) calls the police when he sees them in action, as Cassavetes takes it very personally--and plans on getting revenge. In the meantime, an incredibly earnest social worker (James Whitmore) comes on VERY strong and tries to point the guys in the right direction before it's too late. Will niceness or evil prevail?
The biggest problem I had with this film wasn't the fault of any of the people who made this film. It was released as part of a DVD collection of film noir movies--and this is clearly NOT film noir. While there are a few qualities similar to noir, a teenage delinquent film with a crusading social worker sounds nothing like noir! Another problem, though minor, is that the film has been done too many times before and the writing is a bit too pat. It comes off as a bit fake as a result. BUT, the film still has something to offer--John Cassavetes strong performance. While never as famous as James Dean, Dennis Hopper or other actors who specialized in these sort of roles, I think he was better here than these more well-known actors. He IS the film and helps to make up for the writing deficiencies (particularly Whitmore's character who just comes on a bit too strong at times--though he did have some good scenes--especially towards the end). There are a few other nice performances in the film as well (such as Will Kuluva, Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg and Atterbury)--and this help the film to rise above the mediocrity of most delinquent teen films. Not great but worth seeing simply for the acting.