Cortechba Overrated

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

MayPiazza Compulsion is a film about a pair of intelligent guys who believe that because they have a higher mental capacity, that it puts them above morals and most of all, the law. Because of this, they murder a young boy on his way home from school and then aid in the investigation. The cinematographer did a great job, a lot of interesting shots, particularly on the key piece of evidence that kept you in the story. They did some nice tricks with the editing as well that made the passage of time trackable and easy rather than disorienting. Overall a great Welles film.

gavin6942 In 1924 Chicago, two rich college students, Judd Steiner (Dean Stockwell) and Arthur Strauss (Bradford Dillman), decide they can commit the perfect murder and get away with. They kill a young teenager, Paulie Kessler, but through the efforts of part-time reporter and fellow student Sid Brooks, a pair of glasses left at the scene is traced to the murderers.Being familiar with the Leopold and Loeb case, though not the novel this film is based on, I must say I am impressed with how closely they followed the events. Some modifications were made, of course, and the names were changed (though I'm not sure why when the source is so obvious). But everything from Nietzsche to the Jewish factor to the implied homosexual relationship is all here.For whatever reason, the "definitive" Leopold and Loeb movie is generally seen as Hitchcock's "Rope". And while I do think that movie is outstanding, it really focuses more on the philosophy aspect and really ignores the plot. Combined, these films would be a double feature that would be hard to beat.

classicsoncall I had no prior knowledge of the Leopold-Loeb murder case when I watched the picture, so as in many cases involving my movie viewing pastime, I managed to learn something new today. I thought this was quite the compelling story, involving a pair of young delinquents who plan to commit the perfect crime. Judd Steiner (Dean Stockwell) is particularly cerebral in his approach, desiring to perform a totally non-emotional, well executed crime, something brilliant that would confound the authorities in it's execution. His partner Artie Strauss (Bradford Dillman) isn't as clinical in his approach, and takes particular delight in 'commanding' Judd to do his bidding. Artie was more of a monster of the two, taking special delight in explaining to Judd what a 'Judas' goat was, as he watches one lead a herd of sheep to slaughter. Artie was a creepy guy.It becomes clear fairly early in the story that their murder/kidnapping plot falls apart as soon as Judd discovers he must have dropped his pair of glasses at the location where their victim was disposed of. In true best friend fashion, Artie signals he'd throw Judd over in a minute when he dismisses his culpability by stating "So what, they're not my glasses". District Attorney Horn (E.G. Marshall) nails down the evidence against them in preparation for trial, going for the death penalty all the way.What raises the level of the film in my estimation is the defense outlined by the young men's attorney, Jonathan Wilke. Orson Welles' impassioned summation speech disavowing the death penalty is one of the best orations I've ever heard in a movie, and is worth viewing all by itself. It results in no small comfort for the youthful criminals however, they both wind up with concurrent life sentences for kidnapping and murder.As the movie progressed, it became more and more apparent to me that the theme of 'the perfect crime' held some resonance to a Hitchcock film that came out a decade earlier titled "Rope". That picture too it turns out, had some basis in the Leopold-Loeb case, and whether it was an intentional homage or not, there was a line in this picture that caught my attention when uttered by newspaper man Sid Brooks (Martin Milner), commenting to his fiancée Ruth (Diane Varsi) after he learns that Judd had assaulted her - "I hope he hangs till the rope rots".

dougdoepke 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.