radbond This film was made in 1970 when the average life expectancy of a white male in the U.S. was 68 so Emile Pulska has a right to be proud that he is celebrating his 70th birthday. When he claims that his friend was murdered and he was attacked during a visit to the decaying center of the city (unnamed in this film), his family suspects he getting senile. After all, didn't the police report state that a woman customer was in the friend's store when he had a heart attack and Emile fell down hitting his head? No matter how hard Emile tries to show his family the truth of his allegations, they don't want to believe him. They fled the city for the suburbs as so many other white Americans were doing at that time and anyway those things don't happen in our world. But there are people who know Emile is telling the truth, that he's causing trouble and has to be gotten rid of. People like the police and the city government. In the end, Emile proves to his son he was right with his dying word "See?" after being shot. This is a bleak film, typical of those in the early 70's, which shows the American city to be totally corrupt and rotten to the core. Excellent and worth a look if you are sick of the pablum that we are fed today.

utgard14 Man, TV movies in the '70s were so much better than they are today. Hell, many of them are even better than theatrical films today. This is an engrossing movie starring the great Edward G. Robinson as an elderly man who sees his friend murdered but can't get anyone to believe him. It's a well-written and fairly gritty picture with a fine cast of familiar faces backing up Robinson, who's just dynamite. The ending is a bit of a downer but that was the '70s for you. Other reviewers seem to be picking on "why didn't anyone believe him" as a major flaw with the film. I just can't disagree more. I mean, were we watching the same movie? First, there's the underlying theme of how the elderly are treated at the heart of all this. The well-meaning but full-of-it shrink even compares them to adolescents. Second, there's the fact that there wasn't one shred of evidence to back him up. They spent the majority of the film showing him trying to convince people only to have it repeated over and over that there simply was no proof. So it was his word versus the evidence, which is all that would matter in reality to anyone but those who loved him. The son was the most sympathetic to his plight and even that wasn't much. The daughter-in-law, the real villain of the piece in my view, seemed like she couldn't muster an ounce of sympathy for the sweet old man. I half-expected her to be in on the cover-up! There simply was nothing to back up what he was saying. And the shrink going out investigating, which at least one reviewer took issue with, was more about the shrink trying to prove to the old man that he was wrong than it was about trying to seriously investigate the case.

jarrodmcdonald-1 Someone uploaded this classic old TV movie on YouTube yesterday. Within hours it had thousands of views, so that might suggest people were bored and had nothing better to do than watch Eddie Robinson in something from 1970, or else this was something people had been eager to see for a long time. You can tell it was close to the end of his life because of his advanced age on camera. He plays a man turning 70, but in real life he was 76 almost 77 when he filmed his part. He has scenes where he goes up and down stairs (once all the way down a fire escape) and stretches where he is wandering streets in a bad part of town. So obviously the actor was fit enough for the role, but it sounds like he has emphysema because there are a lot of weird deep breaths in his line deliveries (he would die of cancer just over two years later). I felt the performances were very good, from both Robinson and Martin Balsam who plays his son. That's why I'm giving it a score of 8. Also, Sam Jaffe has a memorable turn as a murder victim, and so does Ruth Roman as a barfly who helps crooks. In fact Roman comes the closest to upstaging Robinson, and she's hardly trying-- she's simply that good. But of course the script is focused on Robinson's character, an old man who tries to convince others he did actually see a murder and his life is in danger. Since a lot is said to establish him as a man who always told the truth, it's rather ridiculous they all think he's lying in this instance. The dialogue is downright terrible where they're all coming up with excuses why they shouldn't believe him. Also, it was entirely unbelievable that Robinson could get away from the killer so easily during a scene where a hotel room catches fire. I am sure a real killer would have let the drapes burn and prevented our hero from escaping. Meanwhile, Ed Asner appears as a well-meaning shrink who strangely starts to play detective and goes with Balsam out into the streets to find out whether Robinson did in fact witness a murder. Since they've gone out of their way to say Robinson is suffering from paranoia, why would they all of a sudden think there is any merit in his story? Also, why would a psychiatrist think he can do a better job than the police, and when would he find the time to leave his other patients to investigate? Not very realistic at all.Overall the story has some interesting characters and performances. And I would say the far-fetched plot does manage to build to a memorable ending. But there is something lacking, something still not fully satisfying. Either Robinson's character should have been presented as someone with a real history of paranoid schizophrenia or he should have been known as a compulsive liar, a man who usually never told the truth about business or family matters. If he had these character defects in the past, it would make his true story that much more difficult to swallow. Another possibility was they could have had the killer threatening to harm his family and forcing him to live in fear in a more realistic way.

MartinHafer The fundamental theme in this film is so flawed that it is not a particularly good movie...and it's a shame as I love Edward G. Robinson and really wanted to love "The Old Man Who Cried Wolf".When the story begins, Emile (Robinson) goes to visit an old friend he hasn't seen in many years, Abe (Sam Jaffe). However, a man comes into Abe's shop and beats him with a rubber hose and steals the $1000 he'd been saving to send to family back in Poland. Now here's the part that just didn't ring true. Emile is beaten as well and when he awakens the police immediately assume that Abe died of natural causes and there was no attacker. At the same time, a really annoying neighbor woman vehemently denies anyone else had been there and says that Abe never had $1000 in cash. How would she know this since she wasn't there?! Yet, inexplicably the entire case is chalked up to an old man losing his faculties...even though he never had a history of mental impairment. Plus, the intensity at which the nasty neighbor insisted nothing happened is very suspicious in and of itself. Yet, oddly, folks assume Emile is confabulating this story. It just defies common sense and essentially ruined the film. Why should he have to prove he ISN'T demented and why does everyone ignore him?!So is there anything about this film worth seeing? Well, Robinson's performance is quite good as he was the consummate professional. But it's also so very sad that he wasn't given a better written story. Provide REAL reasons for folks to not believe Emile or at least build up to this better. Instead, it seems as if part of the story is missing...like they forgot to explain why people didn't believe Emile. Fortunately, this was not his final film as it would have been sad if this was his final film considering his terrific battery of work.