Le carré d'as

In this comic book style gangster flick Jack Palance gives a good but sometimes dreamy performance.He was definitely a great performer and by the end of the movie you do find his character admirable.The film suffers from the fact that the director instead of making a full scale dramatic gangster epic(The Godfather,Part-II etc.),well at least he could've tried instead whenever the plot thickens, an idiotic comedy scene or a parody of a violent scene ruins the whole feel.The supporting cast is o.k. and so is the screenplay.A special mention should be made for the art design which is pretty authentic.

The most beautiful shot comes near the climax when Palance's character get's out of his car and walks into his club.

Nearly O.K. but nothing special.

In the 1970s, I am pretty sure that regular movie producers didn't think seriously about casting Jack Palance in a movie with comic elements. But that didn't stop Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus doing so in this early effort by them. Actually, the movie is a mix between seriousness and comedy, and as you can probably imagine, the end results are a real mess. Seeing people get graphically killed along with other acts of violence does not mix well with the movie's stabs at goofy humor. But there are further problems with this exercise. The low budget was apparently almost all spent on renting antique cars and props, because the set design is often something you'd see in a high school play. The biggest problem with the movie, however, is how incredibly boring it is. It won't take long for you to start nodding off and having no interest in these uninteresting characters.

A mixed bag of tones runs through this gangster picture, veering from comedy to violence and pathos and back again. The mix doesn't always work, but makes for some good scenes here and there. Palance is effective, even subdued more than he often was during the era, and he's backed up by some talent (the always underused Carol Lynley, Adam Roarke, etc.) Obviously not well remembered, but possibly worth a look.

When I was a kid in Ohio, I had a good friend whose parents had a well-decorated house each Christmas season. But their neighbor, a couple of doors away, had one of those displays with hundreds of lights - on the house, trees, shrubs, along the long driveway, etc. There were figures on the roof and in the yard yard, and the owner spent hundreds - if not thousands - of dollars each year, not including massive utility bills. These were really nice homes, and the man could well-afford it.

Across the street, lived a top personality from one of the radio stations, with the most popular afternoon program, and his specialty was very funny and clever comedy. He did absolutely nothing to his home, except to post a well-painted, large sign in his yard, which said, "Please see our display across the street!"

I thought of this as I watched this flick - the second of a double-feature which our PBS station has, featuring older movies, each Saturday evening. "The Defiant Ones," a truly great film was first, and then this one followed.

In the same vein as the DJ I referenced above, I would only paraphrase by saying: "See my comment under the heading "rmt124" in this section!"

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Palance totally overacts; and that is the best thing I have to say. The tone of the movie is all over the map and the dramatic parts are not dramatic and the forced comedic scenes are actually the best dramatic parts of the movie. It is so bad, you can't even make fun of it (believe me- we tried). Overall, it was truly painful. The only reason to watch this movie is to see martin kove at his best, unless you like watching people chew- Palance et al. seem to have some cud in their mouths the entire movie- maybe it was aspirin to overcome the pain of making the movie!