Console best movie i've ever seen.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

joe-pearce-1 This is a film very much of its time and it is almost impossible to convey the surprise it would have engendered back then in audiences when it gave us Robert Wagner as a cold-bloodied psychopath, Mr. Wagner having previously been cast, usually to excellent effect, only as admirable and good-looking (very) young men. Reviewers keep comparing its story line to PSYCHO's, but that is pure nonsense. First viewing PSYCHO when it came out, you had no idea that teen semi-idol Anthony Perkins was the killer; the only non-narrative shock element in it was having star Janet Leigh killed off by the end of the film's first half. Seeing Wagner as a psychopath back in 1956 had that same kind of stunning non-narrative shock for viewers, especially since we know he's the bad guy almost from the opening frame. Also, although the story is pretty dark, it is not a noir because noirs almost always depend on an innocent, or at least anti-heroic, male lead who gets into trouble because of, and is often destroyed by, a femme fatale. In this film, there is only one fatal character and it is the male lead. Wagner does it very well, Joanne Woodward is moving as his (first) victim, and even beautiful Virginia Leith comes over pretty well. Jeffrey Hunter as a young, pipe-smoking college professor comes over basically, given his later career identification, as a young pipe-smoking and beardless Jesus Christ, with glasses! But the film is quite good. What keeps it from being truly memorable or even great is that it is based on one of the very great mystery novels of the period by Ira Levin (his first success, and long before ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE STEPFORD WIVES and THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, it quite literally made his name), and that novel has one of the greatest of all surprises in a mystery novel midway through it, one that could make you drop the book in shock while exclaiming, "Oh, my God!", but it is that effective because you are reading a narrative in which the author can disguise certain plot elements in words, and the shock cannot be duplicated on the screen by virtue of the fact that you can actually SEE the characters going through all their machinations, so that such surprise elements cannot be hidden from the viewer. Too bad, though, because if a writer/director could come up with a way to duplicate Levin's written surprise, he might have a totally brilliant mystery film to offer. In fact, it's nearest relationship to many of Hitchcock's later films is that it is a beautifully filmed daylight thriller. Indeed, most of the worst things in the film happen around noontime, in broad daylight and in glorious Technicolor, and that can be hard to pull off. It is pulled off very well here, indeed. Finally, since I am of the film's period, I can attest to the fact that this movie really does provide a legitimate 1950s atmosphere - visually, ethically and morally. You wouldn't really be all that surprised to see Dwight D. Eisenhower walking through Robert Wagner's college campus!

treywillwest A striking cross between gritty Noir and colorful-if-sad '50s family melodrama, this is a unique and, I think, rather complex Hollywood movie. The sociopathic anti-hero (protagonist-villain?) seems to be a wholesome stud-muffin who wants the American dream: financial independence, indeed wealth. A dark variation on the Rebel Without a Cause, he is fatherless and the Oedipal tension with his mother is not subtle. Indeed, the first of his girlfriends that we meet has a striking similarity to Mom. His chosen path to affluence is to marry into money, and each time the rich chicks he dates do something that alienates their wealthy families, like getting pregnant out of wedlock, he kills them in retaliation. His murders are not a way to procure wealth but a way to free himself from romantic obligations that will not bring wealth. Thus, his criminal actions can be seen as a result of social prohibitions on divorce and abortion, at least as much as of misogyny. The killer is then simultaneously a patriarchal abuser and a rebel against patriarchal morality. The killer is brought down by a group of conspirators working with one of the victim's viciously patriarchal, capitalist father. He dies in a subterranean excavation in the dessert and his crimes, and the embarrassment to a "proper family" that would come with their revelation, are buried with him. The ending is "happy" exactly because all the horror of American society remains hidden behind the face of patriarchal "normalcy."

evening1 I rarely rank a film as high as an 8 but Joanne Woodward's work here merits it.She is amazingly touching and convincing as a naive and idealistic pregnant coed who would like to believe her boyfriend loves her for who she is, and not for her father's fortune.It's painful to watch as Robert Wagner says things that belie his true, predatory nature, and Dorie takes each subtle blow with silent consternation. Suspense builds inexorably until the trusting Dorie finds herself perched on that rooftop, the ultimate sitting duck. Bud's push must constitute a classic moment of film horror.Also compelling was Robert Quarry as an innocent man -- looking far too old to be a collegian bunking in a dorm -- who plays perfectly into Bud's machinations.Several puzzling questions distracted from the film's overall fine quality. I questioned Dorie's reaction to having tumbled down the bleacher steps. Clearly she was lovesick and gullible; however, it strained credulity for her not to notice that something had been just a tad suspicious. (And she pulled herself together too easily from what would have been a significant body blow.) Nor did I get how Bud entered into the surviving sister's life, without so much as mentioning that he had known Dorie. This was a superb thriller and it leaves me curious to see more of both Ms. Woodward and Wagner.

kenjha The Levin bestseller about a cold-blooded social climber becomes an ineffective film. This was the first film that Oswald directed and his inexperience (or lack of talent) shows in the melodramatic presentation and poor acting. With this film Wagner tried to branch out into meatier roles, but his wooden performance clearly shows his limitations as an actor. His acting is so unnatural that one can almost see him thinking before delivering his lines. Leith is even worse as the heiress he pursues. Faring better is Woodward, in only her second film, managing to make her whiny character sympathetic. Hunter also does OK as a police detective. The score is loud and distracting.