VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

jarrodmcdonald-1 THE SNIPER is undoubtedly one of the top film noir dramas from the fifties-- and certainly one of the finest that Columbia ever produced. Impeccable cast, sharp direction, and a very suspenseful story--how can you wrong?And things kick off brilliantly as soon as we fade in. From the opening shot, where we are introduced to the main character pulling the drawer out to see the rifle, all the way to the celebrated final shot-- it's a story that holds your attention from start to finish.This was the first of nine occasions where director Edward Dmytryk would work with star Arthur Franz, who plays the troubled title character. It certainly helped that Franz wasn't allowed a showy or over-the-top performance, like we might find by Richard Widmark or Dan Duryea. The sniper could easily have been the guy next door, that's what is so grim about it.Probably the best part, though, is not the ending. It happens maybe fifteen minutes or so before the end of the movie. It's where he fires the rifle at the man painting the tall tower/chimney. The guy must have been 12 stories up. At first, when the painter is hit, he falls rather slowly-- then in the last few feet, he plummets quickly to the ground. It's very shocking. In fact, I think this part of THE SNIPER is more harrowing to watch than anything in VERTIGO where Hitchcock often uses rather artificial-looking process shots. Talk about dizzying heights! And the way it's staged with Franz's character watching from the bottom left hand corner of the frame, seeing that he's brought the painter down with such a sudden act of violence, sends chills down your spine. What great stunt work.

jzappa The heart of this well-mannered crime film is an outwardly normal young man who is, alas, as a preamble describes, "an enemy of womankind." On some inexplicable basis, he has a fuming bitterness against women that he dispatches, in cyclic phases, by shooting dames he spots from windows and rooftops as they walk the streets. Of course, this is alarming to the local public, and much civil distress is conveyed for the assassin to be caught. This is the incentive for greater pressure in the pursuit by the police and also for some reductive information on the issue of the sex offender.Stanley Kramer might have benefited from knowing his bounds. As a director, he had a masterful formality that left indelible images and ethical questions in our hearts. As a producer, he invariably fails to take both feet out of the director's tub and unfortunately straddles his job of protecting the director's vision with his insistence upon his own. Edward Dmytryk's direction stands astride the studio standard of storytelling and the immediacy of low-budget location shooting, and he intersperses the violence with lucid bangs of vicious power without showing one bead of blood. Regrettably however, the film is utterly scared that its ideas and points will go overlooked. Dmytryk, or should I say Kramer, batters them in, scene after scene.I can almost understand Kramer's transparent imposition upon John Cassavetes' A Child is Waiting or Hubert Cornfeld's Pressure Point, because they were films born out of his own strong conscience regarding patent social issues. The Sniper is, granted, a film about a disturbed character, likely tormented by a past of being misunderstood, rejected, outcast, but a level-headed gaze at this character through Dmytryk's voyeuristic passages need no further elevation. A grave lecture to society for not doing enough to imprison and rehabilitate the budding sex criminal is dutifully articulated in this visually innovative B film. But the sermon is neatly bookish and theoretical. It feels like just a noble pretext for trying a somewhat altered slant on a straightforward manhunt story.Kramer may stultify the impact of this drama, but Dmytryk gets his main guy Arthur Franz through desperate, haywire emotional transitions crisply, even if it's more through the director's venerated editing approach than any naturalism on the part of Franz. All I know is that I remember quite a few of his wordless scenes more vividly than those where Adolphe Menjou and a room full of suits are moralizing and lecturing one another.

nomoons11 Seeing this you'll get an idea of what's in the mind of people who aren't quite raised right.This is just a beautifully filmed little noir. The San Fransisco scenery is just stunning. A really well put together film about a guy who just doesn't like women who talk down to him. You can see him seething underneath as he slunks away in those instances but you just know that he's gonna pop...and he does.This one all comes down to getting people help for psychological problems early on in life. Some go through the system and never get what they need in the way of some kinda therapy and they eventually...fall through the cracks. This guy wants the help but it's just not their.I can't say enough at how well this film looks. Add substance and a really good story and that makes for a worthwhile watch. Give this one a go.

Jay Harris Stanley Kramer was in the beginning of his career, when his company made this film for Columbia. In 1952 Columbia was not yet, nor near the powerhouse movie studio they eventually became.The writers Edwin & Edna Anhalt were at the beginning of their noted writing careers.Edward Dymtryk was resuming his career after being involved with the Hollywood 10, blacklist & the HUAC.The cast includes many known performers of the era. Only a few stand out. The acting is just routine.The plot today is contrived, with scenes telegraphed in advance,cued by camera angles or music.It could have been shocking then. I doubt it though.It was filmed in San Francisco. To be blunt I was very disappointed since I have recently read some good reviews of this.I cannot remember what I thought of this film in 1952. I more than likely saw it as part of a double bill. I doubt it was the main feature.Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 68 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 10)