A social worker tries to tame a street gang. Cassavetes is pretty good in his second film credit, although he was a bit old at 26 to be playing a teen. Rydell is quite creepy in his film debut as a psychotic gang member who can't conceal his glee at the thought of committing murder. Rydell, like Cassavetes, went on to become a director. His second film role would not come until 1973 in Robert Altman's "The Long Goodbye," when he played another frightening character. Mineo plays a character not unlike the one had just played in "Rebel Without a Cause." In his follow-up to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," Siegel creates a gritty atmosphere but stresses the melodramatics.

This movie is one of a very popular genre in the 1950s--the angry and disaffected teen film. Some of them (such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Blackboard Jungle") were very good. Some were downright awful (they made a bazillion B-films using this theme such as "Beatniks" and "Teenage Crime Wave"). Many, like "Crime in the Streets", fall in between. And, like most of these films, the 'teens' in this film are mostly actors in their twenties and even thirties, though a few (Sal Mineo) were actually teens.John Cassavetes plays the nominal leader of a gang of incredibly clean-cut looking punks. They begin the film with a rumble with a rival gang and terrorize the neighborhood. One of the neighbors (the familiar-faced Malcolm Atterbury) calls the police when he sees them in action, as Cassavetes takes it very personally--and plans on getting revenge. In the meantime, an incredibly earnest social worker (James Whitmore) comes on VERY strong and tries to point the guys in the right direction before it's too late. Will niceness or evil prevail? The biggest problem I had with this film wasn't the fault of any of the people who made this film. It was released as part of a DVD collection of film noir movies--and this is clearly NOT film noir. While there are a few qualities similar to noir, a teenage delinquent film with a crusading social worker sounds nothing like noir! Another problem, though minor, is that the film has been done too many times before and the writing is a bit too pat. It comes off as a bit fake as a result. BUT, the film still has something to offer--John Cassavetes strong performance. While never as famous as James Dean, Dennis Hopper or other actors who specialized in these sort of roles, I think he was better here than these more well-known actors. He IS the film and helps to make up for the writing deficiencies (particularly Whitmore's character who just comes on a bit too strong at times--though he did have some good scenes--especially towards the end). There are a few other nice performances in the film as well (such as Will Kuluva, Mark Rydell, Virginia Gregg and Atterbury)--and this help the film to rise above the mediocrity of most delinquent teen films. Not great but worth seeing simply for the acting.

The film reminds me of one of those powerhouse Studio One TV plays of the early '50's. And that's a key problem. The movie comes across as a filmed stage play as though the format hasn't changed at all. I expect TV playwrite Reginald Rose had a lot to do with that approach, while ace action director Don Siegel simply followed out the script in uninvolved fashion. In short, the screenplay is way too talky, under-produced, and poorly staged. Never once, for example, did I forget that the street scene was mounted on a sound stage, with all kinds of traffic noises at the same time cars seldom pass on the roadway. Also, the few sets are so unrelentingly dreary and without a shred of adornment, you might think the deficiency is in the people rather than the conditions. After all, a shred or two would be more realistic, even in a slum. So, why rub our nose in it.Then too, the screenplay repeats about every delinquency cliché of the day—alienation, no father, poverty, to cite a few. Now, there is some truth in these clichés, as there is in most clichés. The trouble is the script simply parades them in unoriginal fashion leaving the impression of having seen it all before. Worse, that intense actor John Cassavetes is given little to do but brood and posture and look 27 instead of the supposed 18. And what's with dressing him in a yuppie v-neck sweater that looks like it belongs on a Harvard freshman.Nonetheless, it is an accomplished cast with some colorful characterizations. Mineo's excellent as the reluctant delinquent, Gregg fairly oozes bread-winner exhaustion, and little Votrian can look pathetic on cue. At the same time, Rydell's sadistic grin suggests needed malevolence, while Whitmore's social worker is happily no miracle man. Clearly, this is an earnest effort whose heart is in the right place. Still and all, the positives are too few to outweigh the stagy negatives. In short, there're good reasons this obscurity is not included among the delinquency classics of the day.

The script is by Reginald Rose who went on to write the original "Twelve Angry Men", a superb piece of formulaic writing, directed by Sidney Lumet, centering on the members of the jury in a murder case. Don Siegel directed "Crime in the Streets". He was to become a master of brutal crime thrillers. John Cassavetes is the lead and James Whitmore and Sal Mineo are in support. The score is by Hollywood pro Franz Waxman. Even Sam Pekinpah gets a screen credit, though under an altered name.Yet everything about this story of a gang of 1950s delinquents seems mediocre -- dated, talky, preachy, and overdone.The director of Rose's "Twelve Angry Men" set the story in a closed jury room and never tried opening it up. The sense of heat and claustrophobia increased with time -- possibly because the director, Lumet, actually had the walls moved closer together, making the room literally smaller. Here we are only too painfully aware that we're looking at a studio set that's maybe thirty yards long. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, as Lumet's film showed, not to mention "A Streetcar Named Desire." But in those instances the sense of uncomfortable closeness, of sweaty crowding, was thematically related to the story. Claustrophobia is about the last thing we think of when we imagine the streets of a city, even in the more decrepit neighborhoods.And in "Twelve Angry Men," Rose laid out a taut story line. A kid's life was put at risk in the opening scene. The conversations that followed were ABOUT something, and even when they were about nothing more important than the weather they managed to capture the interactional styles of ordinary working-class people as well as a feeling for place -- New York City on a hot summer day.There's no such feeling for location here. No reference to places or streets, no regional dialects. It could be taking place anywhere and it feels a little barren because of that. Actually a couple of important characters were from New York but you'd never know it. Pekinpah is credited as "dialog coach," but what Pekinpah, a native of California's central valley, would know about dialects is left to our imagination.There are a couple of good performances. James Whitmore is always reliable, and John Cassavetes gets to bring his method intensity to the part of a half-crazed delinquent. Virginia Gregg, as Cassavetes' mother, is fine, but then hers is a well-written role. Sal Mineo has a genuine following. I realize that. But his charm almost completely eludes me. I hate to say it but he always reminded me of a thin, pitiful, blubbering child. Nothing in any of his performances ever really shook that impression.The topic is terribly dated too. Almost all sociology departments used to offer classes in juvenile delinquency but the topic has disappeared from the curriculum. I don't know why. Of course, the fact that a subject is time-bound doesn't necessarily mean it has to be poorly done or that it's irrelevant. I mean, "Moby Dick" is about whaling.Anyway, the film isn't terrible. I just found it uninteresting.