The movie starts out with 3 young thugs obviously bent on killing someone.And they do. Much of the movie revolves around whether or not this was 1st degree murder. What else could it be? The only thing missing was a letter to the victim announcing what was going to happen. Regardless of motives,it was preplanned and executed. That's first degree. The supposed trial, which we are told first is a grand jury hearing,is as far from reality as one could imagine. Grand jury hearings are not trials, with defense lawyers and newspapers present, ending with a judge pronouncing sentences.It only decides if there is enough evidence to have a trial later. And to believe that a D.A. would scream at and impugn his own witnesses is pure hokum. Let's fact it, the whole film is pure Hollywood foolishness with all the requisite character types included (even a nasty D.A. running for governor sitting at the prosecution table.) By the way, it was Lancaster's father that changed his name not him. And to believe that a D.A. would continue on a case after getting beaten up by the defendant's friends? Really!Lancaster is excellent, but that's all the film has going for it.

A liberal's fantasy film though it tries mightily to pretend it isn't. Burt Lancaster is a NYC D.A. investigating the stabbing of a blind Puerto Rican boy in Spanish Harlem. The gang members who may or may not have been responsible include the son of Lancaster's childhood girlfriend. Director John Frankenheimer tries mightily to show both sides of the coin with this film, but in the end, cops out with what is tantamount to a "happy ending." This may have had more to do with the famously liberal Lancaster's leftist leanings than with Frankenheimer's filmmaking choices. Nevertheless there is some very good acting, not only by Lancaster, but by Shelley Winters, Vivian Nathan, Pilar Seurat (as the dead boy's sister) and Telly Savalas as Lancaster's highly cynical, Greek chorus associate. David Amram provided the inflammatory music score and Lionel Lindon did the shot on location cinematography.

The first of the five collaborations featuring the energetic acting and directing styles of Burt Lancaster and John Frankenheimer The Young Savages is a sincere if not altogether successful look at juvenile gangs and assimilation in the era of West Side Story. It doesn't reach the dizzying heights of the musical but it does effectively convey the plight of growing up in the inner cities and the pressures facing them.Three of The Horsemen in mid day brazenly walk onto Thunderbird turf and stab a blind boy. Immediately powers that be attempt to exploit the moment for political gain while the city braces for a gang war of retribution between rivals. Hank Bell (Lancaster) is assigned the case by his boss who very much wants to be the next governor. With calls for law and order they push for the death penalty but Bell who grew up in the neighborhood refuses to broad brush the trio and investigates further and what looked clear cut becomes murkier with each new discovery.The opening of Savages is a powerful montage of tension building as Frankenheimer's assassins move in on their intended target. In the aftermath the cold cynicism of the likes of Telly Savalas' homicide detective and Edward Andrews office seeking DA keeps things gritty and grounded in reality while Frankenheimer and cinematographer Lionel Lindon create some strong expressionistic canvases to illustrate the grinding poverty and despair of the slum. Things become unglued however in the court room scenes as Bell dealing with some identity guilt himself ( his real name is Bellini ) goes from prosecutor to defense lawyer for his ex- girlfriend's kid in one cross examination and it turns Savages into soap opera.Lancaster delivers his usual energized performance as a man conflicted by his past and present in his pursuit of the American Dream. Andrews and Savalas nail their roles but Dina Merrill and Shelly Winters as paramour metaphors come across remote and bland.The Young Savages is commendable for its calling to attention the bitter friction of inner city living, poverty, violence and bias giving ample time for the denizens of these the slums to voice their story. The courtroom scenes however do not do it justice and Savages ultimately executes itself.

This is one of those social conscience movies that were popular in the 50s and early 60s. This is not an especially good example of the genre. It follows prosecutor Burt Lancaster's investigation into a gang killing. The movie seems to be designed around a series of points the screenplay wants to make about the nature of slums and gangs and whether the death penalty is a good thing and that sort of thing, but it approaches all this in an unconvincing, mechanical manner. While the movie isn't all bad throughout, and seems vaguely interesting most of the way through, the trial at the end is so utterly absurd that it ruined what little momentum the movie had going. This is standard Hollywood law, in which Lancaster exhibits fairly incompetent prosecutorial behavior in his quest for "the truth." The movie is sincere and has good credentials, so it looks like it should be a good movie, but it really isn't.