L'empire du crime

The history of early-twentieth-century organized crime, and the response of law enforcement, narrated on the budget of a high-school sex-ed movie. Martin Scorsese recommended this movie as the ultimate exemplar of visual storytelling on a well-worn shoestring, and he knows whereof he speaks: even Sam Fuller never had to portray a shooting death by dissolving to stock footage of a firing gun.

Dizzy, Dumb, and Downright Inaccurate with just about Everything. Where to Start? Why does IMDb put a Date of 1960 on the Thing and then in the Synopsis say it was "released to theaters in 1957"?

The 1950's were Ripe with Pro-Govt Propaganda from the Very Start of the Conservative Decade. Government Agencies, Law-Enforcement, Hell even the "Dog Catcher" could do No Wrong. It was an attempt to "Control" the Population, Shut-Up, Don't Ask Questions, Toe the Line, and be Good Consumers, No Worries, Big Brother is "Looking Out for You".

For the Most Part...It Worked.

"Gangbusters" was Produced for TV in 1952, this is a Compilation of Episodes Released to Movie Theaters in 1957. It is Riddled with Ridiculous Didactics, Smug, and Condescending. A Product of its Era. With Ed Wood Like Acting and Editing, the Film is Disorienting as it Clunks its way through every "Headliner" of Thirties "Gangsterdom".

Most of the Budget was probably Spent on "Tommy Guns" and Bullet Drums. It's pretty Bad even for Early TV. Kids of the Day Enjoyed it as Entertainment, but for Adults it's as Low-Brow as it gets. There are even a few Scenes that Reek of Exploitation with Pistols in the Garter-Belt and Extremely Tight Sweaters and Skirts.

What a Hoot!

Note...Good title though.

This feature-length movie has been edited from episodes of the 1952 TV series, Gangbusters. The style is government informative shorts presented by police agents and promoting their exploits. It dramatizes various gang crews and their ultimate downfalls. Some of the famous names include Pretty-Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, and Ma Barker.

In a way, this is an interesting look into early television. As a movie, it is little vignettes that don't gel together. Sure, I remember the shootout with the Barkers. Maybe the final Bonnie and Clyde shootout helps informed the later movie. Far more often, this is a weak production of disjointed scenes and I don't know the vast majority of these actors. The constant changing of the characters do not help.

So how did this teenage drive-in freak miss a title like this back in '57. Just lucky, I guess. However you look at the 90-minutes, the result is a mess. It's a composite made up of episodes from a 1952 TV series "Gangbusters", while the editing shows more fascination with tommy-guns than anything else. It doesn't matter who the real life desperado is- Dillinger, Karpis, Pretty Boy Floyd- it's the tommy guns that do the talking. Then too, I love the way the Hollywood splatter seldom hits its mark. That way, we get extended bursts. Since there's no plot, just a collection of shoot-outs, don't expect a story. One notable exception is Jean Harvey as the formidable Ma Barker. Her fiery demeanor is scarier than any of the male desperadoes. Looks like her talents could fit into an A-production in an otherwise brief career.

True to its "Dragnet" time period, the aim (if you can call it that) is to laud law enforcement ( here, the FBI) as they gun down a succession of Public Enemy #1's. Also true to the period, the gang molls sport twin peaks and tight skirts- so guys, there are two paramount compensations. Nonetheless, it's a movie unlike any I've seen, or ever want to see.

TCM showed this movie in October 2016 along with other movies about the FBI. Three of the movies covered gangsters efforts to free one of their own in Kansas City. Those three were "G-Men" (1935), "The FBI Story" (1959, and...this one. The only reason I started watching "Guns Don't Argue" is because Lash LaRue was in the cast, and I wanted to see him play something other than Lash LaRue. By the time his scenes were finished I was near the end of the movie, so I stuck it out. The only reason to watch this movie is to see how similar stories were told by filmmakers with different budgets to work with or, in this case, with no budget at all. In two of the segments the bad guys have face lifts. The first, with the Al Karpis character, results in no change of appearance. The second, at the end involving John Dillinger (played by a guy I always liked -- Myron Healey) resulted in no change either, except for a mustache that kind of looked like a black caterpillar that I kept expecting to walk of his face. A couple of the reviewers stated this looked like an attempt by right-wing individuals trying to put forward their viewpoint. I don't see that; this movie is too incoherent. The only thing that comes out looking bad in this movie are the people who decided to put it together and, if they made any money, the laugh is on us, not them.