IMDb RATING
6.8/10
7.7K
YOUR RATING
In the city of Suddenly, three gangsters trap the Benson family in their own house, on the top of a hill nearby the railroad station, with the intention of killing the president of the USA.In the city of Suddenly, three gangsters trap the Benson family in their own house, on the top of a hill nearby the railroad station, with the intention of killing the president of the USA.In the city of Suddenly, three gangsters trap the Benson family in their own house, on the top of a hill nearby the railroad station, with the intention of killing the president of the USA.
James O'Hara
- Jud Hobson
- (as James Lilburn)
John Beradino
- Trooper
- (uncredited)
Richard Collier
- Ed Hawkins
- (uncredited)
Roy Engel
- Driver Asking Slim for Directions
- (uncredited)
Hans Moebus
- Schultz
- (uncredited)
Ted Stanhope
- Driver Asking Tod for Directions
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
The movie focuses US President protected by Secret Service (Willis Bouchey as Chief agent) who passes through a small and peaceable town called Suddenly where only the sheriff (Sterling Hayden) executes the law . One house inhabited by a grandfather (James Gleason) , a widow (Nancy Gates) and son is ideal place for a criminal scheme by means of an ambush , designed and pulled off by ominous murderers commanded by a ruthless psycho assassin (Frank Sinatra).
The film has got emotion , strain , suspense , thriller and although is mostly developed on interior scenarios , it doesn't make boring neither tiring . Release was withdrawn from circulation for the Dallas assassination (1963) because of the events are pretty similar . Frank Sinatra (JFK's friend) as producer ordered the retaining copies and the movie was forgotten , however long time later was issued in video market and obtained a lot of success . Frank Sinatra's interpretation is top-notch as the cruel and brutal killer , his acting is magnificent , he's the best . Attractive Nancy Gates is the pacifist widow who hates the guns and embittered for her husband's death during WWII . Sterling Hayden interprets properly a kind and valiant police believer of the ¨American way of life¨ . James Gleason as stiff and rigid veteran is very fine . Atmospheric cinematography and agreeable musical score by David Raksin (author of Laura's score) . The motion picture was well directed by Lewis Allen (he directed some noir classic films). Rating : Interesting , worthwhile seeing and it will appeal to Frank Sinatra fans.
The film has got emotion , strain , suspense , thriller and although is mostly developed on interior scenarios , it doesn't make boring neither tiring . Release was withdrawn from circulation for the Dallas assassination (1963) because of the events are pretty similar . Frank Sinatra (JFK's friend) as producer ordered the retaining copies and the movie was forgotten , however long time later was issued in video market and obtained a lot of success . Frank Sinatra's interpretation is top-notch as the cruel and brutal killer , his acting is magnificent , he's the best . Attractive Nancy Gates is the pacifist widow who hates the guns and embittered for her husband's death during WWII . Sterling Hayden interprets properly a kind and valiant police believer of the ¨American way of life¨ . James Gleason as stiff and rigid veteran is very fine . Atmospheric cinematography and agreeable musical score by David Raksin (author of Laura's score) . The motion picture was well directed by Lewis Allen (he directed some noir classic films). Rating : Interesting , worthwhile seeing and it will appeal to Frank Sinatra fans.
in fact some rather too well with unnecessary plot descriptions. My reactions were mixed, but SUDDENLY is worth seeing for three reasons:
1) Early Sinatra, of course. This is the kind of role he would not, to the best of my knowledge,repeat. My mother has long had a crush on him, an infatuation undimmed when she saw the film with me on P.B.S.
2) This movie is a study of the ideals and point of view of mid-1950s America. SUDDENLY was made after the Hollywood investigations of the later 1940s and whilst the McCarthy Paranoia was still going on. None of the other commentators have noted that item, but one should take note that the studio big-wigs had had the bejaysus scared out of them. American film was not only to refrain from social criticism, but was going to be a cheerleader for the essential rightness of the American Way of Life and character. SUDDENLY oozes this point of view, and I note with amused contempt the very last scene and what the two protagonists say to one another.
3) The film is a foreshadowing of what is to come in a country so sure of its social and political stability, quite accidental to be sure. Yes, the head bad guy is a nutter, but he is not the comfortable one-lone-nutter. This plot is highly organised and obviously well-financed. The unspoken They have turned to a pool of violence that is highly American -- organised crime -- to do the deed. Baron and his plotters are not ill-shaven Marxists or slanty-eyed types. They are as American as the Colt 45, and they are willing to do the unthinkable for enough money, and in the leader's case, the simple thrill of bagging someone.
I do not know whether SUDDENLY "rises" to the level of Film Noir, but it had some disturbing things for postWar Americans. Perhaps that is why it is not well known in the Sinatra gallery, and indeed I had never heard of it until about six years ago.
1) Early Sinatra, of course. This is the kind of role he would not, to the best of my knowledge,repeat. My mother has long had a crush on him, an infatuation undimmed when she saw the film with me on P.B.S.
2) This movie is a study of the ideals and point of view of mid-1950s America. SUDDENLY was made after the Hollywood investigations of the later 1940s and whilst the McCarthy Paranoia was still going on. None of the other commentators have noted that item, but one should take note that the studio big-wigs had had the bejaysus scared out of them. American film was not only to refrain from social criticism, but was going to be a cheerleader for the essential rightness of the American Way of Life and character. SUDDENLY oozes this point of view, and I note with amused contempt the very last scene and what the two protagonists say to one another.
3) The film is a foreshadowing of what is to come in a country so sure of its social and political stability, quite accidental to be sure. Yes, the head bad guy is a nutter, but he is not the comfortable one-lone-nutter. This plot is highly organised and obviously well-financed. The unspoken They have turned to a pool of violence that is highly American -- organised crime -- to do the deed. Baron and his plotters are not ill-shaven Marxists or slanty-eyed types. They are as American as the Colt 45, and they are willing to do the unthinkable for enough money, and in the leader's case, the simple thrill of bagging someone.
I do not know whether SUDDENLY "rises" to the level of Film Noir, but it had some disturbing things for postWar Americans. Perhaps that is why it is not well known in the Sinatra gallery, and indeed I had never heard of it until about six years ago.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn the first colorized version Frank Sinatra (Ol' Blue Eyes) was given brown eyes.
- GoofsWith the rifle locked in place, the chance of the President being exactly in line of fire is slim to none.
- Quotes
John Baron: I'm not actor, bustin' my leg on a stage so I can yell 'down with the tyrants'. If Booth wasn't such a ham he might've made it.
- Alternate versionsAlso available in a computer colorized version.
- ConnectionsEdited into Your Afternoon Movie: Suddenly (2022)
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,400,000
- Runtime1 hour 17 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.75 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
