mark.waltz The streets of Manhattan take a real beating in this vivid depiction of true events that make the original Dead End Kids and the Jets and Sharks of West Side Story seem trivial. Those two looks at the lives of New York City tough are excellent time capsules but this takes real life and turns it into one of the great social dramas of all time, a true sleeper if there ever was one.Looking at the elevated Metro North near 110th Street (my neighborhood) is a far cry from the location footage in a handful of films using the same shots of the stone underpasses. Shots of all over Manhattan give a dark and eerie look at the harsh world that had most of the country petrified of the image of America that it gave the rest of the world."Hatred has killed my son", the mother of a murdered blind Puerto Rican boy attacked by American hoods exclaims. Accused of pulling a knife, the deceased boy himself is accused of accelerating the crime against him, although it appears that even his own screaming sister didn't make an attempt to pull him into the tenement as the bigoted white teens approached as if they were preparing to slaughter a chicken for dinner. "Take a look. San Juan's polluting the water", one of the monster teens complains before the gang tries to drown a young Puerto Rican boy. The same kid testifies on the behalf of one of them who came to his rescue. Of course, the older Puerto Rican teenagers mistook what he did, and it is only the belief of that white boy's mother (Shelley Winters) that indicates to assistant D.A. Burt Lancaster (her old beau) that he might be innocent.In a major comparison with the song "Gee Officer Krupke", one of the Italian American gang members describes his life much like one of the West side Jets did the same year on film, as did the original novel and original Broadway production of both stories. Each group viciously insults the other with no stone unturned in the hateful racial slurs against each of the other is used.Of course, there is a political subplot with D.A. Edward Andrews hoping for higher office by winning this case, giving the analogy of votes bought by blood rather than promises of justice. Telly Savalas is a rather vicious detective while Dina Merrill plays Lancaster's upper-crust wife who finds the hard way the ugliness of the street. A definite forgotten gem, this is one of the quintessential social horror stories that had been exploding off screen since the end of the second world war. It isn't the artistic triumph of "West Side Story", but it does not sugar-coat anything. This isn't about the Puerto Ricans being made the unwelcome intruders; They are equally presented as young savages as well with clues dropped here and there, adding shocking facts to each of the revelations. A great predecessor to John Frankenheimer's later masterpiece "The Manchurian Candidate", this ends up being just equally as important and for many people who remember these violent years, much more identifiable.

Retired508 The movie starts out with 3 young thugs obviously bent on killing someone.And they do. Much of the movie revolves around whether or not this was 1st degree murder. What else could it be? The only thing missing was a letter to the victim announcing what was going to happen. Regardless of motives,it was preplanned and executed. That's first degree. The supposed trial, which we are told first is a grand jury hearing,is as far from reality as one could imagine. Grand jury hearings are not trials, with defense lawyers and newspapers present, ending with a judge pronouncing sentences.It only decides if there is enough evidence to have a trial later. And to believe that a D.A. would scream at and impugn his own witnesses is pure hokum. Let's fact it, the whole film is pure Hollywood foolishness with all the requisite character types included (even a nasty D.A. running for governor sitting at the prosecution table.) By the way, it was Lancaster's father that changed his name not him. And to believe that a D.A. would continue on a case after getting beaten up by the defendant's friends? Really!Lancaster is excellent, but that's all the film has going for it.

wes-connors Over the opening credits, three teenagers swagger into New York City's Spanish Harlem, with trouble on their minds. In broad daylight, they viciously stab to death a blind 15-year-old harmonica player. The perpetrators are revealed to be members of the "Thunderbirds", an Italian street gang. This victim was a member of the "Horsemen", a rival Puerto Rican gang. Due to the victim's blindness and young age, district attorney Edward Andrews (as Daniel "Dan" Cole) decides to seek the death penalty. He has an eye on the Governor's office. Tough guy prosecutor Burt Lancaster (as Hank Bell) is assigned the case...We learn Lancaster moved out of the poor neighborhood and married wealthy Vassar socialite Dina Merrill (as Karin), after dating pitifully sympathetic Shelley Winters (as Mary). Left behind, Ms. Winters raised impressionable blond Stanley Kristien (as Danny Di Pace), one of the knife-wielders. Rounding out the trio are seemingly psychotic John Davis Chandler (as Arthur Reardon) and illiterate head-banger Neil Nephew (as Anthony "Batman" Aposto). While investigating the murder, Mr. Lancaster begins to question the death penalty he is directed to pursue...Based on "A Matter of Conviction" by "Blackboard Jungle" novelist Evan Hunter, this film asks us to look at a handicapped Hispanic teenager's killers as individuals with problems of their own. That's quite daring. This is, of course, the first step in actually changing things and helping prevent violence. Director John Frankenheimer handles the task well. After your initial revulsion, you're with him. Going for a weird balance of realism and showiness, Mr. Frankenheimer introduces the killers with choreography. For the actual crime, he becomes aloof, shooting it through reflection while a young woman screams. Finally, we become intimate with the characters...While we're asked to understand the killers and contemplate their action, Frankenheimer does not dismiss their flaws. We see these more fully in two subsequent attacks. In a public swimming pool, young Rafael Lopez (as Jose) is terrorized while dozens of tightly-attired onlookers cavort. Frankenheimer may have gone overboard with the towel-swatting background twosome, but the foot in young Lopez' face is effective. The young actors play this scene admirably. There is also a nail-biting close-up attack on Ms. Merrill in an elevator. Her character is given an edginess Merrill rarely saw in her movie scripts, but the role isn't fully developed. Even less is gleamed from Ms. Winters, who mainly sits and emotes. The most obvious dramatic moment ("He's your son!") never happens and it all ends too easily.******* The Young Savages (5/24/61) John Frankenheimer ~ Burt Lancaster, Stanley Kristien, John Davis Chandler, Neil Nephew

MartinHafer Uggghhh! This movie was perhaps the worst "social commentary" film I have ever seen--much worse than the very, very preachy KNOCK ON ANY DOOR and incredibly embarrassing and completely unbelievable towards the end. It's really a shame, as the first 85% of the film was excellent--offering many different perspectives on how to prosecute young urban hoodlums. Some are pushing for restraint and a liberal approach to the "misunderstood youths" while others are pushing for the "thugs" to get the chair. This debate was worth exploring, though I must admit that at times, the film didn't take a middle ground. And, in a movie full of "black and white thinking", you are left without any real answers--just diatribe and propaganda.However, despite this unevenness, the last 15 minutes or so completely destroyed the film--making it 100% ridiculous and schmaltzy! Instead of pushing for the death penalty (which at least one of the accused CLEARLY deserved or at least 150 years in prison), the District Attorney, in mid-trial, begins campaigning for the Defense!!! And, he concludes by declaring that they are all victims of society and should not face 1st degree murder charges!!!!! If this REALLY happened, the D.A. would most likely be before a disciplinary committee or get sent to a sanitarium! Sure, Burt Lancaster was seeking "truth", but the only truth I saw was a completely one-sided bleeding- heart film that made me want to wretch. DON'T pretend to offer both sides and then conclude the movie with nothing but pure preachy propaganda!! To me, this made the film seem very dishonest and contrived. Avoid this movie and watch most any other courtroom drama!The saddest part of this film is that it was directed by John Frankenheimer. Around this same time period, he gave us some of the greatest films of the 60s (Seven Days in May, The Manchurian Candidate and Seconds). This, on the other hand, was just too cheap and poorly written--why did he agree to do this bad film?!