30 minutes de sursis

I enjoyed the film not only for its taught and gripping story line; but also for the director's imaginative filming technique. The Slender Thread is unique in it's actual "threading" of actors, particularly, who become much bigger in life as their careers flourish. I always enjoy the chance to see an actor/actress before they go on to fame. Stephen Hill is one of those.

Although not a true film noir; the black and white filming for me adds to the total involvement of the viewer and gives a heightened perspective to the whole cinema outing.

I suggest the film highly. The interactions between cast are worth the view.

...even if it couldn't be made today, at least the way it was made then.

It was a terrific suspense movie that had the added benefit of showing Poitier in a totally race-neutral role as young psychology student Alan Newell who is volunteering at the local suicide hotline crisis center on a night that he has every reason to believe will be quiet...and then Inga Dyson (Ann Bancroft) calls him. She has just taken a bottle of barbiturates, does not want to be rescued, but does want to talk. So Alan has to keep his cool and keep Inga on the line long enough to be found, and she only has about 90 minutes to live.

What makes this movie totally anachronistic today is that the entire plot centers around a coordinated effort by scores of public servants in Seattle to trace Inga's phone number and save her before the pills do their job. Of course it would take about 10 seconds for the line to be traced today, which would kind of do away with the suspense.

The suspense is that her call COULD be traced, but it requires the huge telephone company building with countless thousands of connecting plugs and wires that had to be narrowed down, plus the police and fire departments and the State Department of Motor Vehicles, in order to locate the caller's number and where she was calling from. It was like a giant public works department that gave employment to pretty much every proactive player we see in the movie.

In the character development department we have a conversation between Alan an Inga in which we see how she got to the point of despair. It is one part of unforgiveness on her husband's part for a deed done before they were ever married, too much time on Inga's hands one day as the husband continues to stay emotionally detached from her as though she is some unclean thing, the fact that she wanted to talk to somebody about how she felt but could find nobody who would, and the final straw involves the death of an injured bird that is regarded callously by those around her while she tries to help.

In addition to Poitier and Bancroft, Steven Hill gives a chilling and highly credible performance as the unforgiving husband who's driven Bancroft to her suicide attempt. He's such a creepy character that he makes us almost want to force him to swallow those pills instead, and that's a sign that he plays the part to perfection.

Highly recommended because the emotions still ring true even if the technology is long gone.

I believe that this was Sydney Pollack's directorial debut. If so, then he certainly gave an interesting insight into his future work. Seattle college student Alan Newell (Sidney Poitier) is working at a crisis hotline center when he gets a call from housewife Inge Dyson (Anne Bancroft), who is reaching the breaking point. Because they can't see each other, it gives the movie a real sense of tension, as implied by the title - even if it drags a little bit at times.

A previous reviewer said that Poitier plays his usual role: a morally superior black man in a white-dominated society. That's partly true, but here, he has a job that anyone could have, and his race doesn't really matter (although as the reviewer noted, they could have been subtly talking about race). As for Anne Bancroft, her death six months ago brings her filmography to mind. This may have not been her most famous role, but I would recommend it.

I saw this title coming up on TCM, read the synopsis, and KNEW instantly that this one I had to see. And like I said, I should have known. Poitier is probably one of the top ten dramatic actors of ALL TIME! I'm not sure I've ever seen a bad film that he was in. This little gem, was tremendous. I don't comment on many film's but when I see one I haven't seen before, and it's as good as this one, I can't restrain myself. Watch it when/if you can, and you won't be disappointed! There are many subplots and twists to this film, and it has many fine performances, including Telly Savalas, and Ann Bancroft. There are small parts, for a young Dabney Coleman, and one of Ed Asner's early ones as well. I am a classic movie buff, with over 800 titles in my library, and I simply love it when I come across a new one that I hadn't seen/heard of before. Like I said, Watch this one when/if you can.

I saw it years ago (because they don't show it anymore) and I loved it. This is one of the best films I have ever seen. I am not such a big fan of drama, but this mixture of drama and suspense, coupled with a touching homage to the selflessness and compassion of the suicide prevention workers, is simply breathtaking. I also liked the fact that race is never an issue, yet it does loom between the lines (she can't see his color, so, in what sense does it even exist?). Bancroft and Poitier are among my favorite stars because so many of their films are so good. I always want to know: what role does an actor have in selecting his movie roles? Actors are - I hope - not only actors, but selectors of roles. That is a critical role, because there is no good acting in a bad movie.