5 Against the House (1955)

Wonderful Movie

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

This is a casino heist movie set in Reno. Apparently they didn't realize back then that any decent casino heist film must be set in Vegas. The fact that it was perhaps the first casino heist film ever is no excuse. Reno was apparently so uninteresting that they had to open the film with a five minute scene of the automated pigeonhole parking garage. Pigeonhole parking lots saw a small boom in the 50s but quickly faded as people didn't like waiting around for their cars on a good day, let alone when the elevators often broke down. Seriously, seeing what the casinos looked like back then is interesting, but unfortunately the heist itself was a bit of a disappointment, it doesn't account for much screen-time and is logistically ridiculous.

5 Against the House (1955)Let's try to give this the best angle: the last half hour is terrific. Before that is a lot of off and on development. The four hapless, likable college chaps are a kind of wobbly precursor to the "Ocean's Eleven," the 1960 casino classic (also a bit wobbly, actually, if you watch it again, but still a classic). The casino where this one begins is a vintage gem, an old style, small town joint (Reno, in 1955, was a small city), with guns on the wall and general lack of swank. It's great. And there's Kim Novak, not for her appearance or her singing (both were soon to be talked about), but simply for her screen presence, her higher level of professionalism. And she sings to some smooth easy band music. Novak was almost unknown--she had appeared in a sleeper noir called "Pushover" the previous year, but it was later in 1955 she starred in her breakout films, "Pal Joey" and "The Man with the Golden Arm". Finally, among the four lead males, Brian Keith, mostly known for decades of television work, is a surprisingly powerful figure, making the most of what he has to work with.That's the extent of it, and Novak can't hold up the whole movie (especially all the parts she's not in--her role is relatively small). The chummy joking between the boys is weak stuff, including the college scenes, but these are meant to tap into the growing collegiate population (a full decade after WWII, college was becoming a far more normal step after high school). The initial crime incident with its interaction with the cops is patently unconvincing. And then there is the way the movie is patched together in separate segments. The first, fun road trip suddenly turns into a series of unexplained romances, which leads to the main plot again.Why is this considered a film noir? Well, it actually has one key element, the soldier returned from war trying to cope with American mainstream life, only now the war is the Korean War, which changes both the romance and depth of the situation, at least historically. And there is, eventually, a full blown criminal aspect. In fact, the last half hour is tightly made, and if the gimmick is a bit of a stretch, it's all well done, and even if you don't like the movie overall, you'll really find the ending has a great feel to it, with lots of great night stuff. Reno back then was a neon wonderland, very cool!

This so called "film noir" isn't up to the best of them. Interesting premise that takes forever to get going. Once it does, it's an OK sit through, but forgettable as well. The heist is the basis of the movie and it's quite implausible in the way it's carried out. What were security guys in the two-way mirror looking at anyway? It was obvious what was going on. Oh well, it was just a movie with a point...I guess.Brian Keith saved the film as he was excellent as the disturbed buddy of the other three guys. Kim Novak shines in one of her early roles. Luckily she was able to snag better roles as her career bloomed. Kerwin Mathews and Guy Madison did as best they could the way their roles were written. The one annoying thing was Aly Moore as the wise-cracker buddy. Wish he would have been left out entirely or maybe bumped off before the movie got too far along. A truly atrocious performance and I can see why his career was regulated to bits as his stint in THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS in a bit trying to try a fast one on Mitzi Gaynor.

Kim Novak is of course terrific (she rarely phoned one in), and it's an interesting pre-star turn, meaning before PICNIC and VERTIGO, but the rest of the cast is pretty interesting, and particularly Brian Keith---Keith did a lot of 50's B-picture work that's worth watching, if you can find it. The real reason to see this picture is because it's a Phil Karlson. Karlson is one of those guys like Don Siegel, who came up in the studio system just before television. Early live TV produced people like Frankenheimer and Arthur Penn and Paddy Chayevsky, but there were already guys in the trenches like Siegel and Karlson, who got the chance to direct because they could do it quick and cheap, but make a picture look like it didn't come from Poverty Row. (See, for example, Clint Eastwood's PLAY MISTY FOR ME. Eastwood got his shot by rock-bottom budgeting, a lesson he might have learned from Siegel.) Karlson is due for a re-evaluation, along with, say, Budd Boetticher and Burt Kennedy. Siegel seems to be getting his due, not that he couldn't use an occasional boost. But watch this, and maybe THE PHENIX CITY STORY (not a misspelling), and tell me Karlson can't do it tense.