La peur au ventre

Roy Earle is a professional criminal--one of the toughest and best at his job. When he is unexpectedly released from prison, it is because someone big wanted a big heist and they pulled strings to get him. On his way to the location of his new partners up in the Sierras, he meets a very poor family and befriends them. He also later befriends a cute little dog. Both these acts of kindness are very atypical for such a hardened man and, sadly, BOTH end up causing him nothing but grief in the end.

I am a film purist when it comes to remakes. My opinion has always been that if the original film is great, it shouldn't be remade--remakes are only for films with SERIOUS flaws that can corrected in the remake. So, I am a VERY difficult sell for a film like "I Died a Thousand Times", as it's a remake both of the classic Bogart picture "High Sierra" as well as Joel McCrea's "Colorado Territory"==and both films have a higher IMDb rating as well.

"I Died a Thousand Times" turns out to be an extremely well made film--mostly because it is practically an exact copy of "High Sierra" and because Jack Palance was quite nice in the lead. The only major differences is the wonderful color film stock--it looks great because of the wonderful mountain locations. As for the acting, it's about on par with the original. So, if it offers no real major advantage, why not just see the original--especially since it stars Humphrey Bogart and Ida Lupino and is a classic. This 1955 version could have become a classic--if the story had been original. Good but see the original!

I love Shelley Winters in almost everything she does.

However she is miscast.

So miscast, in fact, it throws off Jack Palance's performance.

Jack is a master at snarling and showing contempt.

It is what we like about him as a King-Heavy.

Here though, in every scene he wants to punch her in the face.

He knows that we know he can do better than Shelley Winters.

We want him to.

Their lack of chemistry is a pall over the whole story.

Like I said: Love them both, just not together.

This is a literal remake of Bogart's High Sierra. The same roads, towns and even on the same rocks where High Sierra was made. It is scene-for-scene the same movie. It is almost uncanny in that respect. I felt deja vu all the way through.

On the plus side the wide screen production and beautiful color are worthwhile, as is the good acting here which I think is equal to the original but that is a matter of each viewer's taste.

Lon Chaney Jr. is terrific in his role and more than holds his own opposite the usually scene-stealing Palance. Also a plus is a classic brute thug Lee Marvin performance. You also get very young Nick Adams, Dennis Hopper and Perry Lopez doing good work.

Lone Pine, Whitney Portal Road and the Sierras never looked better and they are the main reason you might want to watch this if you are vulnerable to being put off by the striking literal remake nature of this film project.

This is a remake of High Sierra with Humphrey Bogart and Ida Lapino. Not quite as good as the original, although it has obviously talented, and great actors. It makes you wonder why they would remake a classic like High Sierra with minimal changes just 14 years later. One interesting difference between the original and this movie... In High Sierra Willie Best plays a stereotypical comical black man (Algernon) in a servile role at the camp. The remake had a comical Hispanic (Chico) played by Pedro Gonzalez Gonzalez. Both are incredibly insulting by current standards. It makes you wonder about the changes in the culture from 1941 to 1955.

Nobody could match Jack Palance as a fearsome heavy and here, playing a freshly sprung ex-con lead bank robber, his authority over a couple of "punks" - junior gang members - including later-to-be star heavy in his own right, Lee Marvin, is powerful and utterly convincing. Nice details early on such as when presumptuous Marvin attempts to grab at the plan for the caper and 6'4" Palance without a word or look just brushes him aside with a sweep of the arm promises much - but little ultimately is delivered. Enter "Pard" the mongrel mutt to the accompaniment then and later of cutesy music. The furry friendly creature, loyal to the last, refuses to budge from the screen to the very end - unfortunately.

This seemed symptomatic of the movie's uncertain tone - veering from tough as nails crime caper to family fare. Who was to blame? Was it Palance who possessed a face and physique that uniquely qualified him to be the ultimate brute always wanting to demonstrate a reassuring sensitive thoughtful side?