Suddenly

...Sinatra is great as hired assassin John Baron who's half million dollar job is to off the POTUS when his train stops in Suddenly, California.

If you've ever read Black Mask or any of the old crime pulps, Suddenly has that kind of vibe. Tough, highly stylized talk and attitude takes center stage in spite of any lick of logical behavior or plot coherence. I'm serious here, kids, the story is a mess. So, the decent 7 rating is for one reason only: Blue Eyes is that good.

A must see for Sinatra fans and a definite gripper for those who can really, really, really suspend disbelief.

Like another user I found this movie at a "dollar store" and decided to take a chance on it. I believe the stories that this was pulled from circulation simply because I had never heard of it before. Where have they been hiding this movie?

I can believe those stories for another reason. It has an eerie feel to it ... and seemed oddly prophetic: Imagine, an attempt to kill a President from a sniper position in a window above and behind, using a military-style weapon, by a former soldier. If Oswald truly watched this movie ... one would have to wonder how HE felt about the movie. I mean, I wasn't aware of that bit of trivia until I watched the movie and THEN checked out IMDb. While watching it I could not help but draw comparisons. Brrrrrrrr. It seems plausible that Sinatra might have had similar feelings.

Sure, this is not the best movie ever made but it is a good solid 1950s movie, with a good performance by Sinatra. Yes, it is corny, but given the timeframe, that is to be expected. To be honest, I am tired of special effects and enjoy movies with an actual story and actual acting. Even corny stories and corny acting. Not a single car blew up in this movie. Wow. What a relief.

The movie kicked up something of a fuss at the time (1954). After all, Ike Eisenhower was not only a popular president but a war hero as well. It's probably no stretch to say that, yes indeed, everybody liked Ike. So this was a pretty nervy production for the conformist 1950's. Then too, it's likely no accident that the movie was produced independently of the Hollywood studios. I doubt any studio, big or little, would have okay'ed such touchy subject matter as killing a president. But the 70 minutes does amount to an effective little suspenser, as assassins and hostages crowd into a living room perch awaiting the president's sitting-duck arrival, while the tension mounts.

The movie came along during a low point of Sinatra's career before his 1954 Oscar reversed the slump. That's probably one reason he would take on such a risky role as the thoroughly dis-likable assassin. And visually, especially, Sinatra's's quite good. As a result, when Baron says he would be nothing without his gun, Sinatra's scrawny non-Hollywood appearance confirms the fact. Just as importantly, he gives the would-be assassin the right kind of nervous edge.

There's a fairly obvious theme working through the screenplay— namely that despite pacifist wishes, violence does have a moral place in life. As events in the movie turn out, the only way to stop Baron's immoral use of violence is with morally sanctioned counter-violence. The screenplay makes the point by showing us that had Pidge gone along with Mom's anti-gun wishes, the assassination plot would have succeeded. So fortunately-- the movie implies-- when push comes to shove, Pidge follows the men in his life and the plot fails.

For Cold War audiences of the day, the political lesson is pretty clear—only guns and muscle will stop Soviet plans to destroy "The American Way". Of course, the film never identifies the authors of the plot, but I'm sure audiences came to the obvious political conclusion. It's probably also telling that guns are identified with manly men and only a frightened woman, the mother, opposes them. Mom's doubts may be understandable given her husband's violent death. However, by ignoring Mom's wishes, no matter how understandable, Pidge comes to represent a future in which gun violence and armed national defense will continue to be morally necessary. Beneath the surface, it appears, lies some pretty heavy symbolism.

Subtexts aside, Suddenly remains a gripping film even this many years later. That's pretty darn good for a cheap production using basically one set for most of the action. But, I expect it's really the touchy subject matter that continues to excite viewers and separate the film from more routine suspensers of the day.

Frank Sinatra was certainly one of the greatest singers of our time. He was also a fine actor as well, he won an Academy Award for From Here To Eternity. This was the first film he was in after he won his Oscar and he proves it was not a fluke. He is absolutely chilling as a crazed cold blooded assassin who is out to kill the President. The only other actor who did a better job in this type of role is John Malkovich in In The Line Of Fire. This is a little known classic that really showcases Sinatra's acting talents. I think that this film and The Manchurian Candidate are the best films he ever made.

This tense, relatively well-crafted little thriller dispenses with frills or padding, and tells its story in a straightforward way that works pretty well. Once it sets up the story, it maintains the tension carefully enough to make up for some plot holes and one-dimensional characters.

The focus remains almost entirely on the story, and the characters are never developed very deeply. The three main roles are rather well-cast, though, and Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden, and James Gleason each deliver what their roles call for.

Although implausible at some points, the story is otherwise well-constructed, and it moves at a good pace. Many film-makers are tempted to inject superfluous material into this kind of story, and this is an example showing that it usually works better to keep it simple. While nothing extraordinary, it works more than well enough to be worth watching.