Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

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

I'm a subway buff. Love underground/elevated trains, stations, etc., and am especially fond of the NYC subway. This is the best subway movie ever made.(I know - some folks will reference "The Taking Of Pelham 123", in one or another of its versions, as being better, and it certainly is fine, but this is better. Just my opinion.) What truly blows me away about the making of this film is that NYC Transit would not allow the filmmakers to shoot, but they did, anyway. The hid cameras in bags and just went ahead and shot without permission. Then they had a NYC subway car interior built for them by the original manufacturer, for the interior scenes. So, perfect realism in all aspects of the scenery.OK, the plot. Marvelous. Two punks terrorize a train full of passengers during the late night/early morning hours. This continues until one of the passengers (I won't tell you which one) finally stands up to them. While the punks are basically abhorrent, they occasionally do something to one or another of the passengers that perhaps makes you believe that they might begin to behave reasonably. Then they don't go in the direction you might wish. They do something even more reprehensible, and that's how the tension is kept razor sharp.Acting? Superb all around. Tony Musante is especially good as one of the punks, as menacing as any character in the history of motion pictures. Hell, just his look is enough to make most of the passengers back off. Martin Sheen, as his buddy, looks more reasonable, but is actually pretty much as vicious. Among the passengers, Beau Bridges is great as a soldier on leave. Another great performance comes from Mike Kellin as the henpecked husband of Jan Sterling. Very surprisingly good dramatic performance from Ed McMahon (!) as parent of a young girl.The ending is both satisfying and sad. We see the punks get some payback, but the hero is never thanked, never given anything even close to what he deserves. Lives have been changed - some irrevocably - but one is also left with the feeling that some of these characters are so into self-denial that they will be just fine with everything in a few days.Fine time capsule of the time period - the 1960's - and of the subway at that time.Highly recommended, even if you're NOT a subway buff.

I agree that grim subjects warrant grim treatment. There are exceptions, of course, such as the effective black humor of Dr. Strangelove (1964), but not many. The trouble with this film is that it rubs our nose in its grim subject matter to a fault. In short, it's too long, too shrill and too unrelieved in the grinding nature of its message.The movie takes the now familiar topic of urban non-involvement and plays it out along a harrowing el ride through New York City. Along the way, two young thugs terrorize listless fellow passengers. Okay, lots of potential there for intense drama of the riveting kind; at the same time, the film does have its intense moments. The trouble is, it looks like everyone among the passengers dislikes everyone else. Thus, the anti-social behavior of the two thugs has nothing much for us to compare it with. For example, consider how the couples relate before boarding the el. The Wilks's bicker about a taxi; the Beckerman's whine about their son; the Purvis's complain generally; while Robinson rages before his wife. Then there's young stud Tony mauling poor helpless Alice; grouchy old Douglas; and dour gay man Ken. The only exceptions are the two amiable young soldiers. All in all, these folks offer little sociable contrast to the anti-social young thugs. Thus, the movie makes a strong statement about urban alienation, but at a price. And that price turns New Yorkers into one-dimensional automatons. Everybody crabs at everybody else, all the time-- that is, when they're not mugging or terrorizing strangers. Now maybe that is the case in NYC, but given its expanding birth-rate, I doubt it. I do know that 100-minutes of this kind of relentless in-your-face seriously overstates its case. Worse, it's to the detriment of the more effective case that could be made had the producers more regard for shading. I also know some such would have made a much better movie.

Haven't seen it in many years but it's never been forgotten by me. I'm pretty sure it'd be dated now, probably unappreciated by today's generation. But I've noted in reading these comments just how many NYC residents have declared it's realism. And there's the rub. Those that say they can't understand the paralysis of the individuals in the film are in denial. When a family from Utah was waiting in a NYC subway not many years ago the mother was suddenly affronted by a couple of lowlifes demanding money from her in a profane, threatening manner. Attempting to divert the attackers from her, her son verbally objected to her treatment and was killed for it. I remember the chill I felt when I read a witness comment that he was killed for interfering and that 'people here know you never interfere - you just don't'. I too have lived in the city all my life and have traveled the subways of the sixties and seventies and I can assure any disbelievers that whenever a bad element came on and behaved menacingly, passengers looked at their feetThat's the oft-chronicled syndrome of 'no safety in a crowd' . Going to the defense of a stranger and thereby inviting the violence unto oneself requires more than a little courage. This was possibly even more true in the sixties (the setting of this film) when our society was actually more civilized than it is now (regarding the violence to which people were unaccustomed) and the phenomenon of 'apathy' was noted by sociologists with alarming regularityNow, I can't really see the scenario of this movie occurring in real-life anymore. But in the mid-sixties it was all too authentic. Even punks were more creative in their activities back then. Today's video-drenched, learning-disabled, fast-shooting creepoids are too lazy, dumb and unmotivated to embark on such imaginative torments as the antagonists here. I actually knew a few guys like these two back in the sixties. The type that entertained and empowered themselves through the humiliation of others. Without the multi-channel cable universe in place back then they were too often found in inner-city streetsAs to the movie itself I just have to say that when one stays with you for the rest of your life it's pretty easy to categorize it as great. Much has been written already about the characters in this film so I'll not bother to add much except to say that the part played by Beau Bridges is the part to which I most identify. Not because of his heroism, because of the way he becomes sick to his stomach at his own cowardice. Had Tony Musante not turned his attention to the frightened Ed McMahon and his sleeping daughter the drama may well have had a non-ending. I felt the self-loathing that Bridges felt also and I think it's at that point that I too would have finally reacted. I hope soThey should bury a copy of this movie in a time capsule. It captures a moment in time of American inner-city culture that may be gone now, but you never know. History has a tendency to re-cycle

Never saw or heard of film before-caught it on AMC this morning and could not stop watching it until it ended. I did not even know it was on the channel. Great cast-Martin Sheen and Tony Musante were great.Beau Bridges,Ruby Dee,Brock Peters,-an All Star cast, among others. I loved it-how come I did not hear about it 40 years ago when it was released.I enjoyed it greatly!!! The fact that it was in black and white made it even better. I grew up in N.Y. and it really hit home-how people could be passive and do nothing to help one another in a time of stress.(Kitty Genovese incident in 1964). Martin Sheen of course was so young then and went on to a great TV and movie career. Brock Peters and Ruby Dee had been terrific in many films. Beau Bridges played a part that was unusual for him. Ed McMahon we all know was Johnny Carson's side kick for his entire career on the Tonight Show-this part was not the Ed McMahon we saw on TV and he played it well.Gary Merrill also played a nice part in the film,as did Thelma Ritter, a great character actress,Jan Sterling, Jack Gilford and Donna Mills.An unbelievable cast of characters.