Mad Dog Coll

I see no reason for whining about being inaccurate. Has anyone seen a movie lately that was accurate? For that matter has anyone seen a news broadcast that is accurate? I found this inaccurate movie very entertaining. I only gave it a 7 because i saw the movie many years ago and maybe it wasn't quite as good as i thought it was then. probably not, but i did switch brands of cigarettes to chesterfield kings for about 6 months, i don't guess i have to mention non-filtered as i don't believe any chesterfield cigarettes were filtered at the time. and yes, i do find stupid movies entertaining, i saw another about a blue butterfly, many years later, cant remember the name of it and have looked for it in vain. i have not seen many movies where the actor actually looked like the person he was portraying unless perhaps it was abraham lincoln. i have seen various actors portray mad dog, and the one in this movie is the closest my mind could picture as looking like him. who really cares anyway. its not like you have to identify him in court.

The opening scene before the credits run, and the outrageous title song, set the tone for this over-the-top movie. In this movie, the Prohibition-Era Gangster is transformed into a 1950's juvenile delinquent punk. Imagine "The Roaring 20s" by way of "Rebel Without A Cause". It's great to see Vincent Gardenia, Telly Savalas and Jerry Orbach early in their careers. Nevertheless it's John Davis Chandler's over-the-top performance, in his only starring role, that really dominates this movie.

Chandler is one of those character actors who's names you probably wouldn't recognize, but who's face you can never forget. He used to specialize in portraying nasty, sneering, sadistic little punks; a role which he gets to play to the hilt in this movie. Chandler's version of Coll is a paranoid-psychotic juvenile delinquent who never got over being abused by his bullying father. Armed with a machine gun and supported by only a couple of henchmen, he attempts to move in on the powerful Dutch Shultz Mob in 1920s New York. Shultz is portrayed as a vicious mobster, but also a successful organized crime boss. Coll, on the other hand, is portrayed as a vicious loose-cannon who likes hurting people because he was bullied as a kid, and he thinks that hurting others is the only way to be a man.

Those who enjoyed Al Pacino's performance in "Scarface" would love this film as an equally over-the-top crime drama. The principal difference is that the one is a big-budget film with "A-List" cast and production values, while the other is a low-budget sleeper that came and went under-the radar.

This is Gene Hackman's first movie role! He is uncredited as a cop opposite Telly Savalas in one scene. Blink and you'll miss it! The beginning of a brilliant career that went unnoticed in this snootier!

Didn't know about Jerry Orbach was in this film, now I wish it would be played on Turner Classic or some place on local cable so we don't have to shell out God knows how much money for a crappy DVD!

Finally, how much more do I have to write about this movie that I haven't seen this is a stupid process here as far as a commentary. This is stupid. Fix this minimum of 10 lines of text nonsense!!! Jeepers!

Okay, this is the 10th line already, sorry folks?

My favorite scene is where the old man tells Coll (Chandler) to go threaten somebody else because the old man doesn't even look at "girls in summer dresses" any longer. Good line-- so, take that, tough guy! Too bad the rest of the movie looks like it was filmed in somebody's garage. It's a "Thalia" production and not surprisingly plays like a quickie meant to cash in on TV's top-rated Untouchables. This was the early 1960's, and the public was fascinated with 20's style careening cars and Tommy gun splatters. So why not a "Mad Dog" Coll, to go along with Capone, Nitti, and the rest of the gangland icons. Thalia may have been a cheap outfit, but they knew where the bucks were.

Chandler sure tries—he's seen all the old Warner Bros. classics. Then too, with his over- sized teeth and heavy-lidded eyes, no one would confuse him with Cary Grant. More importantly, he hits all the right poses and sprays the chopper with appropriate bloodlust delight. The trouble is he's also got zero charisma. So, unlike a Cagney or Bogart, his Mad Dog comes across as little more than a dislikable tough guy that nobody cries for in the end. No wonder Chandler's future lay in character acting. But what's up with Broadway actor Jerry Orbach (Joe) who performs like he wandered onto the wrong set. He looks confused throughout. Maybe he's waiting for clues from director Balaban. If so, he never gets them, resulting in several near-painful scenes. Anyway, the movie amounts to a C-grade version of the gangland craze, but with one key distinction. It may be the only film on record where just about all the supporting cast is now better known than the lead.

As any movie buff knows, the early sixties was the period for gangster biographies, mafia films such as MURDER INC, PORTRAIT OF A MOBSTER, RISE AND FALL OF LEGS DIAMOND, PAY OR DIE, THE BLACK HAND, KING OF THE ROARING TWENTIES, GEORGE RAFT STORY, THE PURPLE GANG.... And of course this one. Useless to say that John Davis Chandler gives here his best performance as the evil lead. Later in his career, he will never have another lead role, at least as far as I know, only supporting villains - MAJOR DUNDEE, BARQUERO, ONCE A THIEF.... This movie seems to be not widely known, such a shame. He is terrific here. Just terrific. His face, so disturbing face is unforgettable. Is is also his first film, and what a shame that he never played in THE UNTOUCHABLES series, I am sure Desilu productions would have found a supporting villain character for him.