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

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

clanciai This is a heart-rending story that would have been almost unbearable if it were not for the exceptionally poignant performance of Edward G. Robinson as an old man getting caught in a web of urban corruption. Sam Jaffe's brief but equally upsetting performance is on the same level, and it's like a nightmare of helplessness of old age. At the same time, a character like this wouldn't fit anyone but Robinson - he made many such characters before, but they all mount up to this one, lost in a world that because of his old age refuses to take him seriously or even believe him, since he alone knows the truth but can't understand it or make it credible, since it is too evil for human understanding. Even his son (Martin Balsam) ultimately fails him, while the end comes as a surprise, since it should have turned another way. It's a great story, all the characters are excellent, and the events and circumstances of this asphalt jungle of a hostile city environment are quite typical of 1970 - that's how the world was in those days, with psychiatry as the infallible authority of human life. Although it is very late, this is still a noir and one of the very darkest as such. When you try to settle after the film you feel very old and lost, like the too convincing old honest Robinson.

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.

moonspinner55 An elderly man pays a visit to his lifelong Polish friend in his neighborhood candy store--but just as they are discussing the $1000 his friend has saved up, a black man with a rubber hose walks in and beats the shopkeeper to the ground. The old man attempts to intervene and gets whacked on the noggin, too; when he finally comes around, surrounded by strangers and a police officer, his friend has died (of an apparent heart attack) and the money is missing. Edward G. Robinson stars in this run-of-the-mill TV-movie from Aaron Spelling Productions (he also served as Spelling's assistant on the film). It's cheaply-rendered and with no payoff, although the star, ever the consummate professional, manages a solid performance. Robinson's condescending family doesn't buy his story (they want him under a doctor's care), the police mock him, and an alleged witness (Naomi Stevens, who can't read a line without overacting) hysterically throws him out of her apartment (I was surprised she didn't scream "rape!" just for kicks). Luther Davis' teleplay, taken from an original treatment by Arnold Horwitt, spares Robinson no shortage of horrors--he's even attacked by a laughing group of schoolchildren, who do everything but point their fingers at him. Frustrating, annoying picture delivered all on one melodramatic note.

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.