I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Yep, I have been watching one movie a day every day for the past year! I am so glad to mention this even though the movie I actually saw was bad. Well, then again, I watched the MST3K version which is always nice. From the title, it seemed like this would have a lot of action in it. There was really anything but. It tells the story of this girl who get involved with these criminals and while she's being transported to a correctional facility, they bust her out. They hold this family hostage for reasons I don't even remember.I was thinking it would be lame if it would just show the girl at the correctional facility, but they did something different. Yes, they ended up spending the whole movie in a house threatening the people who live there. In hindsight, that isn't much better. This film is mostly boring as it just nothing but talk and bad acting the whole time. There's a little bit of action towards the end. At least it was something special for me. *1/2

The "teenagers" in this crime wave are all at least 25, with Sue England clearly over-age. But it doesn't much matter because the movie never really gels. Tommy Cook strikes the tough- guy poses, but despite the energetic effort can't work up a convincing menace or snarl to go with it. Too bad a Jan Merlin or a Nick Adams didn't have the part. Then too, I wonder what the story is behind Mollie McCart. Her acting is uneven at best, still she does present an interesting screen presence. Her meager credits look like she left acting after a brief fling. Nonetheless, with more seasoning, she might have developed into an actress of note. However, both look like Oscar candidates next to poor Frank Griffin who appears too petrified to register anything but a frozen stare. Rarely have I seen anyone so clearly uncomfortable performing on screen. No wonder he switched from acting to Hollywood make-up man.1955 was the year teen sub-culture emerged with rock music, James Dean, and Elvis. Drive- in movies were catching on with both youngsters and movie-makers, a niche Roger Corman would exploit to the hilt. Actually, this Columbia release plays like a drive-in special with its emphasis on sex, fast cars, and juvenile delinquency. It's also cheaply produced, the screen time mainly confined to the drab farmhouse. I expect producers recognized this and tried to compensate with the boffo climax at the Griffith Park Observatory. The staging is pretty contrived, but does make for an interesting backdrop to the chase scenes. It looks like the classic Rebel Without a Cause and this movie were made about the same time, and I wonder which had the Observatory idea first since both use it. My guess is that fast-buck artists at Columbia anticipated Rebel's success and sought to ride the coattails. Anyway, the film blends two popular movie topics of the time—home invasion and juvenile criminality. Beyond that, there's little to recommend, except maybe a few laughs. (In passing—slight correction in another review: the Fugate-Starkweather murder spree was 1958, three years after this movie.)

This is a very worthwhile diversion. Tommy Cook overacts all over the place, but it does provide many enjoyable chuckles. Molly McCart does a fine job as Terry and deserved a successful career based on the talent she displayed here. While Sue English as Jane portrayed her character satisfactorily, the role did not require much of a stretch. Given her obvious attractiveness, I am surprised I was not previously aware of this actress! This production must have had an "in" with the Griffiths Observatory, as they were certainly given full access to the site! Recommended fun! James Bell,the farmer, is immediately recognizable from the dozens of TV and film roles he's had over the years!

I love MST3K. It was my favorite TV show, ever. That in mind, this was the only movie I've seen them do that I would have preferred watching without the ironic comments, and that's because of how subversive this film is intended to be. It's obvious that the director intended the audience to find the "Teen-age Crime Wave" glamorous, and every other character completely corny and bullet-worthy. It's a forerunner of Natural Born Killers. In fact, I found myself wondering why the "villians" didn't murder more people! It really would have been in their best interests, after all, and, hey - once you've killed one straight who wants to put you away forever, you may as well keep on doing it, right? Despite the attempts at making the male criminal somewhat unappealing, for his stupidity and reliance on his gun for courage, Terry is one of the most successfully appealing criminals in the history of film. Notice the scene in the barn where she tries to seduce the Good Son, who then thinks he got the drop on her when he steals her pistol, but - oops! It's not loaded. And she has the loaded one! Anyone not entranced by this vixen yet is a neuter. I highly recommend this film to any admirer of the perverse and subversive. It's one of those films from the mid '50's that only masqueraded as a morality tale.