Watch Compulsion For Free

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

It's best to look at Compulsion in two halves: the first half starts off with Dean Stockwell and Bradford Dillman just coming off of their crime and the former holding his stolen typewriter (this isn't shown at all, so maybe, for just half a second, one might wonder if they're the killers... until they move their mouths and look at one another). In short, they kidnapped and killed a little kid, and they spend the first half - as preppy college kids in 1924 Chicago - trying to trace their tracks and not look guilty as hell (the latter part they fail at, miserably). The other half is the court case when they're brought up on their charges and facing the hangman's noose. But enter in Jonathan Wilk (Orson Welles), inspired by Clarence Darrow - as the case is the Leopold-Loeb inspired one - who is here as the Best Trial Lawyer In The Country (in caps) there to not say they don't deserve to be punished, but that they don't deserve to die so quickly.Many will remember this for the final courtroom monologue that Welles delivers. And no wonder, as it's reported often as one of the (if not THE) longest in cinematic history. What marks this as being so extraordinary and gripping is the basic humanity of his delivery. We get some of the dry wit that we may see in other Welles performances (i.e. Third Man), but here it's different as his character Wilk gives his impassioned plea.It's as if he can barely argue anymore, and he's just trying to talk to the people of the court - the judge especially, as due to reasons there's no jury for this case - and why Capital punishment shouldn't occur here, despite the heinous act. Watch how Welles goes about the courtroom, exerting his authority, but his delivery is carefully measured, almost saddened by the horrors of all humanity. It's the most humble we may have ever seen Welles on screen, and it's all the greater for it; you want to rewind it to see every nuance, every moment where that usual blustering, almost over-the-top (albeit towering and great) Welles is replaced by something... compassionate.It is such a great set piece, and the trial before it is sensational too, that you almost forget that the first half is just alright. Both Stockwell and Dillman are fine, with Stockwell kind of anticipating Norman Bates in a strange way (I have to wonder if Hitchcock watched this, not just as it is a retelling of the case of Rope, but for the aspect of a skinny, pathological guy into birds). These scenes are directed with competence, skill, even some sort of artistry with black and white scope, but it feels like we're waiting for the main show to happen. Perhaps Dillman is just so pushy, or maybe spot on, with his sociopathic killer that it gets almost tiring after a while.So, in other words: 1st half, 3 stars. Second half, 4 stars. Thus, this rating (or put into 10/10)

Yes, riveting...but not perfect. The reason I say "riveting" is because typically, when I'm watching movies at home, I watch for a while, then take a break, then watch again...in chunks. Not this time. I watched it all in one setting with no desire to push the pause button.That being said, it's not a perfect movie. Of course, we can't know what Clarence Darrow was actually like...how his delivery went...and so it's fair to criticize Orson Welles' performance. I didn't think he looked like himself, but the voice is unmistakable. Although we don't know how true to life his performance was, I somehow feel it may have been muted.The performance of Bradford Dillman was superb, and I saw that as a viewer who never liked Dillman. It seemed to me he portrayed a reasonable impression of how a young man like Leopold-Loeb may have thought to do what they did with such arrogance. Even better was the performance of Dean Stockwell, who certainly was not that little boy we so often loved on screen as a child. Although, I found Stockwell's voice a little annoying at times.The two supporting performances here that are noteworthy are those of E. G. Marshall (one of America's finest actors, but hardly a leading man) and -- surprisingly -- Martin Milner (of "Route 66" fame).But rather than the actors, what makes this film special is the pace of the action. As they say, never a dull moment. And that's what's riveting about it. Highly recommended, and it's inspired me to want to read more about the Leopold Loeb case.

This movie, Compulsion, is for the over 30 crowd. Dean Stockwell and Bradford Dillman play very unlovable characters and do it very well. Of course, Orson Welles, who is always great, he too, plays his character well. This movie is not for a relaxed evening of movie watching. This movie leaves one and gives one a very disturbed feeling. Compulsion evoked a great deal of negative emotion from me. However, I think that was the point of the movie to evoke strong emotion from the viewer. So in that point, it succeeds. Orson wells does a masterful job in the courtroom. There is no need to bother with popcorn in this movie since you can't eat much of it anyways watching this move. I give Compulsion four thumbs up. I am just glad that the movie is over.

No need to recap the plot.From what I've read, it looks like the screenplay sticks pretty closely to the real facts of the investigation. There's the eyeglasses tip-off, the phony alibi with the two girls, the car they couldn't have used, et al. At first, I thought these were just Perry Mason- type script gimmicks, but they're not. For a couple of super intellects, Steiner and Straus (Loeb & Leopold) committed one heckuva clumsy murder.Perhaps the movie's most interesting feature is how the 1959 production flirts with some of the more forbidden aspects of the real life Loeb and Leopold. In '59 the notorious Hollywood Production Code was losing its grip on the studios. Perhaps the most vivid example is that year's Anatomy of a Murder. There such otherwise taboo words as 'panties' and 'sperm' made their first screen appearance, shocking some audiences, but adding a new adult level to the screen. Then too, shouldn't forget Hitchcock's Psycho, also produced in '59, and the first appearance of, oh my gosh, a real live toilet.Whatever the envelope-pushing in some parts of Hollywood, there's little of it here, and that hesitation works to the movie's detriment. Just what is the nature of the unusual bond between these two privileged, self-appointed supermen. At times, the script hints at something more than just shared Nietschean hubris, but dares not get more explicit about Leopold and Loeb's real life homosexual attachment. Note how the script plays around with a black book full of girls' names in Straus's (Dillman) case and whether Steiner (Stockwell) knows any girls at all. Now, as others have pointed out, this appears a crime that neither would have committed without the other. In short, their attachment and at times co-dependency is rooted in more than just shared intellect. It's also a kind of 'insane love' or what the French call 'amour fou'. This time rooted in a homosexual context. Had the screenplay dealt honestly with this key aspect of the case, their motivations would have been much clearer than what we're presented with.That aspect also sheds light on one of the film's most dramatic scenes. It's the one where a confused Straus begins an assault on the sympathetic Ruth (Varsi), but can't go through with the act. Now, one would suppose that it's not moral compunction that holds him back. After all, he and Steiner believe themselves above common morality. However, if we interpret Straus's confusion as sexual in nature, then his inability to complete the act becomes clearer. As things stand, his withdrawal back into himself comes across as muddled innuendo that we're left to figure out. To me, turning this key element into scattered hints instead of dealing candidly with their homosexuality, not only reflects taboos of the time but muddies the film as a whole.The movie itself is certainly well acted. For a production that depends more on talk than action, this is a key factor. The one concession in the casting department, it appears, is Milner and Varsi as the attractive youngsters, a move I suspect that was made for commercial reasons since there's no counterpart in the real case itself, that is, from what I've read. I'm glad Welles low-keys it as the defense attorney, who in real life was the notable Clarence Darrow. Had Welles blustered, his lengthy courtroom appeal would have been hard to endure. According to one account I read, Loeb and Leopold were very unimpressed with Darrow on first meeting, what with his disheveled appearance, he looked anything but the ace attorney he was. Later, of course, they came to appreciate his skills. As Darrow, Welles, of course, repeats this sloppy appearance.My one complaint is with a typical Hollywood pander. Now, for better or worse, Darrow was an outspoken atheist. But commercial Hollywood couldn't leave him at that, turning him in the movie's final moments into a fence-sitting agnostic instead. I guess they figured that would go down better with the audience. Also, it was not actually Darrow who said that dropping the incriminating eyeglasses could have been the work of God. It was the prosecuting attorney. But then, old Hollywood was never big on historical fact.My sense is that despite the powerhouse cast, the movie has drifted into semi-obscurity mainly as a reflection of its time. Were it made again today, now that the lid is off, who knows what the results might be.