mark.waltz Both parts were played by Edward G. Robinson, the first at the start of his film career and rise to fame, the later nearing his September Song, and filled with heart and an undying spirit. Unfortunately, this TV movie is extremely depressing, even if its star performance is one you'll never forget. In the opening scene, Robinson, who is retired and living with son Martin Balsam in the suburbs, visits his old neighborhood and longtime close friend Sam Jaffe, witnessing a horrifying crime, and desperately trying to find somebody who believes him. Unwilling to give up or be told that he is slowly becoming forgetful (dementia or Alzheimer's are never mentioned), Robinson decides to investigate on his own, running several times in the man (Percy Rodriguez) he swears he saw beat Jaffe to death with a rubber hose. People in the old neighborhood swear he is confused, and when an obvious aging hooker (Ruth Roman) tries to pick him up, this leads him to further danger that might further endanger his life!My first issue with this is trying to figure out the location. Certain aspects would indicate Los Angeles (palm trees in the background, footage that looks like part of downtown L.A.) and other aspects would indicate the lower east side of Manhattan (mentions of Avenue C, the apparent entrance to the Manhattan Bridge). The other is the very abrupt ending that leaves the viewer hanging, and even if the writer was trying to indicate that some issues are never resolved satisfactorily in life, the viewer did deserve some answers for some of those unanswered questions. Still, some of the details reveal much about the corruption going on within city politics, with councilman Martin E. Brooks somehow tied in with Rodriguez, citizens either corrupted or too much in fear of Rodriguez to reveal what they know, and a mental health nurse (Virginia Christine) who has a Nurse Ratched feel to her treatment plan for Robinson. I love the way, though, that Balsam cuts her off as he storms out to try to find his father, and when he expresses his heartache at seeing his father losing his wits, the look on both his and wife Diane Baker's face are extremely touching.It is those moments and a few other elements (especially the two young black men who go out of their way to try to help Robinson when they realize what kind of danger he is in) make this worth watching in spite of the serious failings of the script and movie as a whole. Robinson, just a few years before his moving performance in "Soylent Green", is truly touching, yet in spite of his frail appearance, it is obvious that he is not going out of his life without a fight. Ed Asner, as a psychiatrist assigned to try to find out the truth about what Robinson did or did not see, gives a gentle performance, although his methods aren't necessarily in his patient's best interest, and evidence of how fortunate the public is that mental health treatment and dealings with the elderly have changed over the past 50 years. The imposing Rodriguez doesn't get to say much, but he's a frightening villain. Roman makes the most of her cameo as the aging floozy, and her scene with Robinson in both the dive bar (where some very corrupt cops kick bathroom doors in for no apparent reason) and her apartment where her true nature is revealed. This is a flawed TV movie with good intentions that works on some levels but unfortunately needed more development and a real conclusion to be truly satisfying.

radbond This film was made in 1970 when the average life expectancy of a white male in the U.S. was 68 so Emile Pulska has a right to be proud that he is celebrating his 70th birthday. When he claims that his friend was murdered and he was attacked during a visit to the decaying center of the city (unnamed in this film), his family suspects he getting senile. After all, didn't the police report state that a woman customer was in the friend's store when he had a heart attack and Emile fell down hitting his head? No matter how hard Emile tries to show his family the truth of his allegations, they don't want to believe him. They fled the city for the suburbs as so many other white Americans were doing at that time and anyway those things don't happen in our world. But there are people who know Emile is telling the truth, that he's causing trouble and has to be gotten rid of. People like the police and the city government. In the end, Emile proves to his son he was right with his dying word "See?" after being shot. This is a bleak film, typical of those in the early 70's, which shows the American city to be totally corrupt and rotten to the core. Excellent and worth a look if you are sick of the pablum that we are fed today.

utgard14 Man, TV movies in the '70s were so much better than they are today. Hell, many of them are even better than theatrical films today. This is an engrossing movie starring the great Edward G. Robinson as an elderly man who sees his friend murdered but can't get anyone to believe him. It's a well-written and fairly gritty picture with a fine cast of familiar faces backing up Robinson, who's just dynamite. The ending is a bit of a downer but that was the '70s for you. Other reviewers seem to be picking on "why didn't anyone believe him" as a major flaw with the film. I just can't disagree more. I mean, were we watching the same movie? First, there's the underlying theme of how the elderly are treated at the heart of all this. The well-meaning but full-of-it shrink even compares them to adolescents. Second, there's the fact that there wasn't one shred of evidence to back him up. They spent the majority of the film showing him trying to convince people only to have it repeated over and over that there simply was no proof. So it was his word versus the evidence, which is all that would matter in reality to anyone but those who loved him. The son was the most sympathetic to his plight and even that wasn't much. The daughter-in-law, the real villain of the piece in my view, seemed like she couldn't muster an ounce of sympathy for the sweet old man. I half-expected her to be in on the cover-up! There simply was nothing to back up what he was saying. And the shrink going out investigating, which at least one reviewer took issue with, was more about the shrink trying to prove to the old man that he was wrong than it was about trying to seriously investigate the case.

Alex da Silva Edward G. (Emile) is an old codger going about friendly business as he drops by to say "Hi" to fellow old codger Sam Jaffe (Abe). Well, someone doesn't like Jaffe too much, turns up and puts an end to Jaffe and his life journey. Eddie G. is a witness so takes a blow as well but he survives. When he awakes, his pal is dead and there is a network of witnesses who remember things differently. We, as the audience, know that he is telling the truth surrounding the demise of his friend. Can he get his message across? This is the 70's so, thankfully, the restrictive film legislative codes have been lifted and evil can now triumph. The soundtrack is cool in a nostalgic way and the film ends memorably. I have to admit to being disappointed but it is definitely not the note expected. That's what makes it memorable and that's the dilemma..The film leads us through the movements of an old guy being chased which gets annoying because guess what…… he falls over….Eeeurgh!.... Corny…..!! But this might just save the old guy. There isn't much more to understand or follow up in terms of character study. There are good guys and there are bad guys. We just go with the Eddie G flow.