Gatto Nero I recently re-watched this classic on it's own. Because the 1st time I watched it was back-to-back with the original, "High Sierra". Big mistake. The original one with Bogart & Lupino is one of my all-time favorites and watching this remake right afterwards did not help me appreciate it the way it deserves to be.This remake actually is good on it's own merit. The original will always be the "better" version for me but this remake is not bad at all. Let me break it down...Palance's take on 'Mad' Dog Earle was very good. Palance is no Bogie, but he gave the role his own unique touch. And besides, who better than Palance, at the time, to take the role that Bogart made his own. With his sinister visage, Palance brought a different take on Mad Dog than Bogart's. I really got to see this second time around as I revisited this film.Winters take on 'Marie' was not bad either. Lupino I believe did it better but Winters held her own. I especially liked her Samba dance moves. And her 'I wanna die' scene. She had okay chemistry with Palance. But I feel Bogart & Lupino had more.Lori Nelson's take on 'Velma' was right on par with Joan Leslie's. And you can actually believe Palance falling for her rather than Winters 'Marie'Lee Marvin's take on 'Babe' was not bad but Alan Curtis was better. Curtis had the handsome bad boy look and Marvin just looks bad and mean. Curtis you could believe got Lupino out of a club but Marvin taking Winters, nah. Pedro Gonzalez Gonzalez plays 'Chico'. A very Mexican stereotype role. In the original, his was named 'Algernon' and it was played by Willie Best in a very black stereotypical role. I really dislike the scene where Lee Marvin's 'Babe' kicks 'Chico' and makes him fall and thinks it's funny. Gonzalez really has nothing to do but be a servant to Palance and his gang and not much else.Lon Chaney Jr. as 'Big Mac'. Great casting. He did a great take on the role made famous by Donald McBride. It was so great to see Chaney and Palance together. Earl Holliman as 'Red'. Not bad but Arthur Kennedy's was way better. Holliman played 'Red' like a good ole dumb country boy while Kennedy's was like a grown-up Dead End Kid, like a Billy Halop. But still it was nice to see Holliman and Marvin want-to-be gangsters.Perry Lopez as 'Mendoza'. It was okay but Cornel Wilde's was way much better. The scene where Palance tells a "bedtime story" of what happens to guys who talk to much was handle way much better with Bogart and Wilde.Howard St. John as 'Doc Banton' was very good. Actually just as good as Henry Hull's take on it. I especially like the way Howard looks at Palance when he talks about 'Velma'. Howard's look is priceless.Ralph Moody as 'Pa'was really good also. Almost just as good as Henry Traver's take. I really liked his scenes with Palance talking about 'Velma'James Millican as 'Jack Kranmer'. It was really good. Almost as slimy as Barton MacLane's 'Jake Kranmer'. But I prefer MacLane's. Richard Davalos as 'Lon Preisser' was not that bad. You can see Nelson's 'Velma' falling for Davalos pretty boy. In the original, played by John Eldredge, the spelling was 'Lon Preiser'In the part of 'Pard', the dog in this one was cute but Zero in the original was way, way much better.Now as for the unbilled bit parts, these are the ones that stood out for me: Nick Adams as the 'Bellboy' who is so nervous he can't stop shaking the tray with cups on it was memorable. Paul Brinegar as the bus driver who says the funny line "Just like a woman, doesn't know whether she's coming or going." Mae Clarke as Mabel Baughman, really concerned about her daughter and who and what is Palance is all about. Hugh Sanders as her husband was somewhat wasted in a very small bit role. A very young Dennis Hopper has a funny scene as Winter's dance partner. Hopper is drunk and horny and is pushed down by an angry Palance as he gets to frisky and comfortable with Winters. Hopper would have a better and bigger role that same year along with Nick Adams , in the now famous cult film, "Rebel Without a Cause." Dub Taylor as 'ED' the gas station attendant talking briefly with Palance was a nice one. and a couple of Three Stooges foils were also on board. Big Mickey Simpson and Robert Williams. Williams had a more showy and longer role than Simpson's. All in all, a great film just for the cast alone. Don't miss it. Just don't see it back-to-back with the original.

DKosty123 This is a movie you will enjoy very much if your a fan of Jack Palance, Lee Marvin, Shelly Winters or the cast. Turner Classic movies ran this movie immediately after Humphrey Bogarts classic High Sierra recently. When you watch this one after the classic 1941 Raoul Walsh production, you immediately realize they are the same film.While it is nice to have color, in reality Walsh in many instances uses better camera angles. As far as comparing the casts, comparing Bogart in one of his best roles to Palance is a win-win as they both are great performances.I think one of the reasons Walsh is better is that Walsh had already directed a movie where the hero's were not exactly heroes before High Sierra. I highly recommend checking out Walsh's Dark Command which broke the mold for western movies much the way High Sierra & this remake break the mold for gangster movies.Mad Dog gets a parole from jail so that Big Mac can use him to pull of one last big heist. The characters are revealed to the viewer much like peeling skins from from an Onion. When you reach the core of each character, your really glad you stuck around for the story.

Sprinter But this one was dreadful. You just know how this must have gone down. They dust off a good but forgotten script for cheap, find some usually pretty good actors willing to work for cheap and load up the cameras with just enough color film. If any directors actually show up for work, they tell the actors to just get the lines out as written when the cameras roll and then rush on to the next scene. No time for any of that fancy Hollywood acting today. Just get 'er done.Casting? Some unused talent here, but there is no chemistry between any of the characters and the love interest is, well, uninteresting. It looks like nobody in or around this movie cared about it. Why should I?Yes, I did see this one after seeing the Bogart version. Now, I have nothing against remakes when they are done well, as some are. "Cape Fear" comes to mind. But this one was senseless, and so is watching it. If you want to see this movie, see "High Sierra". Now that's a good flick.

trimmerb1234 Nobody could match Jack Palance as a fearsome heavy and here, playing a freshly sprung ex-con lead bank robber, his authority over a couple of "punks" - junior gang members - including later-to-be star heavy in his own right, Lee Marvin, is powerful and utterly convincing. Nice details early on such as when presumptuous Marvin attempts to grab at the plan for the caper and 6'4" Palance without a word or look just brushes him aside with a sweep of the arm promises much - but little ultimately is delivered. Enter "Pard" the mongrel mutt to the accompaniment then and later of cutesy music. The furry friendly creature, loyal to the last, refuses to budge from the screen to the very end - unfortunately. This seemed symptomatic of the movie's uncertain tone - veering from tough as nails crime caper to family fare. Who was to blame? Was it Palance who possessed a face and physique that uniquely qualified him to be the ultimate brute always wanting to demonstrate a reassuring sensitive thoughtful side?