AaronCapenBanner Don Siegel directed this socially aware drama that stars James Whitmore as a local social worker doing his best to educate and dissuade the youth to not turn to a life of crime, and join a gang. There are two gangs to contend with, the Dukes & the Hornets, but it is the Hornets that concern him most since their leader(played by John Cassavetes) is bent on punishing the neighbor who identified one of his gang to the police for carrying a gun. Sal Mineo and Mark Rydell play followers of his, who get entangled in the revenge plot that Whitmore desperately tries to prevent, before lives are lost or futures ruined. Good direction and cast, but film is too preachy and obvious to succeed.

edwagreen The sociology of all sociological films is this 1956 excellent view of urban life, filled with social problems and the rise of gangs and ensuing violence. It's an absolutely wonderful film.John Cassavetes, as Frankie, the boy craving attention, is just fabulous here and Sal Mineo, always good, especially when he is a follower and conflicted, is hesitant in going along with Frankie's plans to rub out an elderly man who blew the whistle on their friend. Peter Votrian, who plays their accomplice, is terrific. He is absolutely demented and actually enjoys what the trio plan to do.James Whitmore is the social worker here who knows that Frankie and the guys are up to no good.There is a wonderful performance by Virginia Gregg as Frankie's exhausted, over-worked waitress mother, who knows that she can't control him but pleads with him. You'd remember Ms. Gregg the year before as the nurse in "Ill Cry Tomorrow." She gave Susan Hayward her first drink in the film. Ditto for the gentleman who played the Italian father of Mineo.The film, though extremely liberally slanted, provides an excellent view of urban decay and the rise of juvenile delinquency as a result. The ending in itself is ****.A wonderful picture.

MartinHafer 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.

dougdoepke 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.