Home > Drama >

Crime in the Streets

AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Crime in the Streets (1956)

June. 10,1956
|
6.6
|
NR
| Drama Thriller Crime
AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

A social worker tries to end juvenile crime by getting involved with a street gang.

...

Watch Trailer

Free Trial Channels

AD
Show More

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Doomtomylo
1956/06/10

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

More
ChampDavSlim
1956/06/11

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

More
Mehdi Hoffman
1956/06/12

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

More
Delight
1956/06/13

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

More
sol-
1956/06/14

Discovering that a disenfranchised local youth is planning a revenge murder, an altruistic social worker desperately tries to prevent the crime without police intervention in this juvenile delinquency drama directed by Don Siegel. The film is not particularly subtle with its agenda as lead actor James Whitmore bluntly states such truisms as "you can't tell a kid to be good" and as all parents find themselves exasperated by their kids in the most melodramatic manner possible. Will Kuluva is especially over-the-top as Sal Mineo's father who tries to get through to the boy by telling him that he wants to kiss him (!) while on the side telling Whitmore that he "has to hit" Mineo since it is all that the boy understands. The film features a phenomenal early turn by John Cassavetes though as the youth planning the murder with lots of subtle nuances whenever he listens to Whitmore lecture and as he plays on the fears of his friends. The real star of the show though is Siegel's directing work. Fresh from 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', Siegel shoots the film with a myriad of intense close-ups as his young cast emote. The film also opens with a deathly intense pre-credits scene as good as anything Siegel ever directed. This is an odd movie: one hand, it is distractingly didactic; on the other hand, it looks so great and Cassavetes is so solid that is nevertheless involving.

More
MartinHafer
1956/06/15

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.

More
dougdoepke
1956/06/16

The film reminds me of one of those powerhouse Studio One TV plays of the early '50's. And that's a key problem. The movie comes across as a filmed stage play as though the format hasn't changed at all. I expect TV playwrite Reginald Rose had a lot to do with that approach, while ace action director Don Siegel simply followed out the script in uninvolved fashion. In short, the screenplay is way too talky, under-produced, and poorly staged. Never once, for example, did I forget that the street scene was mounted on a sound stage, with all kinds of traffic noises at the same time cars seldom pass on the roadway. Also, the few sets are so unrelentingly dreary and without a shred of adornment, you might think the deficiency is in the people rather than the conditions. After all, a shred or two would be more realistic, even in a slum. So, why rub our nose in it.Then too, the screenplay repeats about every delinquency cliché of the day—alienation, no father, poverty, to cite a few. Now, there is some truth in these clichés, as there is in most clichés. The trouble is the script simply parades them in unoriginal fashion leaving the impression of having seen it all before. Worse, that intense actor John Cassavetes is given little to do but brood and posture and look 27 instead of the supposed 18. And what's with dressing him in a yuppie v-neck sweater that looks like it belongs on a Harvard freshman.Nonetheless, it is an accomplished cast with some colorful characterizations. Mineo's excellent as the reluctant delinquent, Gregg fairly oozes bread-winner exhaustion, and little Votrian can look pathetic on cue. At the same time, Rydell's sadistic grin suggests needed malevolence, while Whitmore's social worker is happily no miracle man. Clearly, this is an earnest effort whose heart is in the right place. Still and all, the positives are too few to outweigh the stagy negatives. In short, there're good reasons this obscurity is not included among the delinquency classics of the day.

More
Manitoba
1956/06/17

I just saw this movie at the Don S. film festival at Film Forum, and this movie was surprisingly better than I could have expected. While it is a little preachy at times, the performances by Cassevetes and Mineo are mind-blowing in how touching and nuanced they are at such a young age.From the beginning it is clear that this film was made on a small set in Hollywood, but you quickly forget about this and can easily become wrapped up in the story - an almost reverse Crime and Punishment parable. Cassevetes and Mineo overcome an of the actors' deficiencies even though most of the other performances such as the mother, Mineo's father, are also superb (the only truly cornball performances come from the preachy social worker, the sappy little brother and a couple of the stereotyped gang members).The director does an amazing job of making this small slum world feel so small (the set is probably half a city block in size on the set) and tense.Film Forum displayed Scorcese's personal copy, which was unfortunately quite damaged. Hopefully, the studio which owns this film will reprint a clean 35 mm copy or print a restored DVD. For fans of the "youth gone wild" genre or simple of Cassevetes, this movie is a true waiting-to-be rediscovered gem

More