Great Film overall

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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

Though released in 1960 and therefore in my opinion too late to be considered a true film noir, "Murder, Inc." plays like one, and I can easily see this having come out about a decade earlier, when noirs were in their heyday, with little alteration.It's based on the true events that led to a crackdown on an organized crime syndicate in Chicago in the 1930s, and specifically a group of hired killers who were employed to wipe out anyone who crime bosses viewed as an adversary. It makes absolutely no effort to recreate period detail, and aside from a few antique cars, looks like it's set in the present day of 1960. Stuart Whitman plays the protagonist, a man whose desperation leads him into a life of crime but whose moral code leaves him feeling conflicted and ultimately leads to him becoming an informer. The film is probably best known today as the one that brought Peter Falk his first of two Oscar nominations for playing one of the hired killers and both friend and foe to Whitman. The film looks cheap and gritty, which serves the material well, but it also feels ragged and undercooked, and not in that enjoyable way that traditional noirs could often be. Especially toward the end, the film feels like its makers lost interest in the movie they were making and decided to abruptly wrap things up just so they could be done with it.Grade: B

And it delivered! Peter Falk as a contract mob killer plays his role to perfection, and is reason alone to watch this movie.First is the very surprising brutality on display. The violence doesn't need blood and gore to be both horrific and convincing. The direction of these scenes is also very brave. There isn't any stylization or glorification - just rapid action that surprises the viewer as much as the victims. Obviously all part of the performance, but you get my point.Rarely does a villain so clearly evil remain interesting throughout a film, but there is something to Falk's performance that is constantly fascinating. His look, the way he carries himself, and the constant self-serving, unapologetic dialog all come together to define a deeply disturbed criminal. He's also completely egotistical and self centered, and often questions those around him who don't acquiesce to his singular world view. It is an absolute clinic on how to successfully play an iconic villain, and it wouldn't surprise me if actors like Joe Pesci studied this movie in preparation for similar roles. There's an ease and comfort level to every moment he's on camera, and one wonders where the actor begins and the character ends.It is quite possible Peter didn't want to play characters like this moving on, but it is a shame. I always been a fan of his presence in anything, but watching this movie, I wonder what other dark roles he could have wowed audiences.What about the movie itself? It's not bad. There are very dated montage sequences with a voiceover that fill major gaps in the plot, and only one or two other performances come close to Falk's. There are some priceless exchanges of dialog between characters though - any time anyone stands up to Falk, and the inevitable explosive reactions are wildly entertaining. The movie is built on a historical facts, and this film represents an interesting era of killers for hire in the world of organized crime.I absolutely loved the look of this movie. The black and white film stock seems perfect for the content, and never was I upset with any camera placement or move - which speaks to great direction, and a camera man who understood the content and never gets in the way of performances or story.My appreciation exists between pretty narrow margins, but I can't stress enough: if your a fan of crime drama's, villainous performances or Peter Falk - this is an absolute must watch.completely satisfied 7 out of 10

I remember watching this movie on TV with my father in the mid-60s when I was about 10 years old.When Peter Falk was on the screen, my father said that when he was about my age (in the early 1930s), he used to set pins in a bowling alley in Brooklyn, and the real Abe Reles bowled there nearly every day.I recall what a mad dog that Falk portrayed and how it chilled me that my dad set pins for him.I will be on the lookout for this movie again, so I can piece it all back together again.

Peter Falk's almost scarily authentic performance as Reles steals this otherwise mediocre account of the real-life Murder Inc., which made latter-day gangsters like the characters in Goodfellas seem like choir boys in comparison. Though allegedly based on the Turkus-Feder book, most of this is complete fantasy. The central "love story," the Whitman and Britt characters, is utterly ridiculous as well as completely fictitious. The portrayals of Lepke and Mendy Weiss are interesting; the fatso playing Albert Anastasia is completely mischast.The scene at the end is a copout, evidently for fear of offending the NYPD. The real story of Murder Inc. would be a fascinating movie, instead of this drivel. Even so, this is worth watching because of Falk.