User reviews

I caught this movie on AMC at 3 o'clock this morning (or so), and was blown away! What a tense, gritty drama - and what a cast! I was trying to figure out who was who, as they were all so young (Ed McMahon? Donna Mills? Ruby Dee without Ossie Davis? Wow!) Martin Sheen's baby face made his psycho character all the more frightening. To me, the movie is a great time capsule of the sixties, and of New York. I do have a complaint to register regarding the AMC channel - instead of squeezing the end credits to make room for commercials for the next movie, how about staying true to your movie fans who have a compulsive need to read the credits, and show them full-screen to the end? Who's with me on this one? Thank goodness for IMDb to get us through!

Two psychos (Martin Sheen and Tony Musante) terrorize the passengers of a NYC subway car. The first half introduces the characters...the second half is the attack. The "victims" are an unhappily married couple (Ed McMahon and Diana van de Vlis); a young couple (Edward Arnold and Donna Mills); an elderly couple (Jack Gilford and Thelma Ritter); two Army guys (Beau Bridges and Robert Bannard); ANOTHER unhappy couple (Mike Kellin and Jan Sterling); a gay man full of self-loathing (Robert Fields); a recovering alcoholic (Gary Merrill) and a black couple (Brock Peters and Ruby Dee).

This is a great movie and STILL unknown to this day. It is very unpleasant to watch and the realism may be too much for some people. Also the film is, sadly, still topical (although NY subways are nowhere near this bad nowadays). Each character is attacked (verbally and physically) during the course of the film--the attacks on the black couple and the gay man are so extreme and violent they're virtually unwatchable. All the acting is excellent which makes this film very hard to shake off. Also it's very interesting to see Ed McMahon doing drama and this is the film debut of Sheen and Mills. Shot in b&w which actually helps. A must see...just brace yourself.

I remember seeing this film in the movie theaters when it came out in 1967. I had gone with a couple of friends to see it. This movie so infuriated all three of us (there was my friend's wife too) at first of all the passivity of all the passengers and how nobody cared to help anyone else and then there were the two hooligans (Musante and Sheen) and their arrogance and their not respecting other people's space or privacy. With this film, you get to see how each and every person works in a terrifying situation.

I was so happy this film was finally released on video. I have been waiting for over 30 years to see it again to see if my opinions had changed--and they hadn't.

How did this little film slip between the cracks? This amazing film deserves mountains of more credit than it gets. It's a very real, brutal film that really tests our emotions.

It did to me, at least. The acting job (especially of the two leads) was phenomenal! Especially, by far, Martin Sheen.

The cinematography, the vicious personalities of the two street punks, the music, well... basically everything flat out works. Haven't we all felt like one of the passengers? Or maybe even like one of the hoodlums?

Great film. 10/10

The plot is simple: Late night subway riders are terrorized by 2 thugs out for kicks. The thugs jam the subway doors so no one can get on or off and the conductor never visits the car. It really makes the viewer feel trapped with the rest of the victims, who are, by the way, pretty standard stereotypes of everyday America. There's the teenagers in love who are always kissing, the black man with a chip on his shoulder about white America and his social worker wife who pleads for him to not be so angry, two servicemen on their way to or back from an assignment and one has his arm in a cast, the harried married couple with a sleeping child, the elderly Jewish couple, the alcoholic, the squabbling couple, a man who may or may not be homosexual, a sleeping bum, and that may or may not be all. Tony Musante as the creepier of the two tough guys is well played. He has venom dripping off of him like a coiled serpent about to strike. His villainy is so real you I sometimes wondered if he was acting or just really mean in person. Martin Sheen, of all people, plays the other tough guy, who seems like he is drawn along by the lead of his pal into the mental and physical games they play on the other subway riders. The two laugh a lot at the misfortunes of their sport and as you watch you wonder if there is a happy ending in sight or is this one of those movies where nobody goes home happy, not even the viewer. The movie is in stark black and white and made better by that fact. In the shadows behind each characters eyes you see a universe of fear and loathing but you keep looking for a positive sign. A very well made movie with my only quibble being that the set up is kinda long. We see each person making it to the fateful subway car and learn their back history. If this film were remade today I can see this entire section being dropped. We could start right in on the subway and use flashbacks to illuminate the histories. But that's just me.

The Incident was a film that got great critical notices when it came out then seemed to disappear. I was waiting more than 50 years to see it and it was worth the wait.

A bunch of familiar players pair off in twos mostly some married, some not and at least one gay guy looking to hook up in those pre-Stonewall days. They're all quite absorbed with their selves and significant others not to notice a pair of deadly hoodlums, Tony Musante and Martin Sheen board the train. These two are quite deadly and they are the first we meet. And when we do meet them we see how deadly they are.

As our dramatis personae gather on the subway after we see bits of their lives, Musante and Sheen start to terrorize the occupants of the subway car. All of them so self absorbed in their own situations they don't make any kind of move. The men humiliated, the women degraded.

I'd love to know where the transit cops were? This was in the Lindsay years and back then the big campaign was to advertise New York as Fun City.

Some of the more memorable couples were Jan Sterling and Michael Kellin, Thelma Ritter, and Jack Gilford, Ed McMahon and Diane VanderVlis, Brock Peters and Ruby Dee.

The Incident is a film testament to New Yorkers legendary code of non-involvement. When rescue comes, it comes at the hands of the only non-New Yorker on the train.

After 50 years The Incident with its many fine performances packs a wallop.

Raw movie of human nature unchecked and rampant starting out with two bully type people who draw courage from drinking, intimidating and harassing others take their conducts to the next level in this slowly but surely unfolding movie that has a grip and suspense to it. Great experiment in fear that can be seen and fear that cannot be seen until pushed to reveal itself. All actors played their part to the point where you forget this is a movie and that is as high as you can go in the acting field bar none. Direction is taught and to the point focusing on cause and effect circumstances that anyone could be subject to at any time or place. My favorite movie "game" is to ask what would you have done in the circumstances presented and this movie gives you plenty of roles to take on to answer with. Remember, for its time it was bold and even today makes a good statement. Take note of the different walks of life that make up this life journey and how we all are on common ground with understood boundaries. What is frightening is when someone crosses those boundaries! This movie explores this satisfactorily. I actually had a real life incident in a movie theater of 300 people with lights on waiting for a movie to start. There were no coming attractions at the time just the audience talking until lights dimmed and curtain was drawn back. SMACK is what we all heard coming from a black guy hitting his white girl friend and her crying from it. The whole theater went quiet. Then the guy starts challenging anyone to do something about it. A young theater host comes and tells him something and he hits this kid hard. He then states to the whole theater cursing us saying what you all gonna do? I stood up and said buddy...I am on my way!. Got up went to the front near the screen, cut across and started up the isle when two guys & then two more said: we are with you. I said each one of you grab a leg or an arm. We tackled this guy down and I sat on his chest. The guy says: I can't breath and I said: You should have thought of that before all this. Two policeman showed up and did their duty. The whole audience was in awe, the movie still didn't start and many were thanking me and scared for me at the same time. Imagine one man holding 300 people hostage? This movie takes you there too!

"The Incident" is a dark story, drama and crime picture set in New York City. Much of the story takes places on a late night subway ride when two hooligans run roughshod over the people in the last car of the train. This is hardly an entertaining film, and not very good as a mystery or crime film. It's a social film with a picture of inner city hooligans abusing people and threatening them with violence. It's also a good picture of how people can be cowered by fear.

The acting is very good by all of the cast, which includes some prominent names of the day. Among them are Jack Gilford, Thelma Ritter, Gary Merrill, Beau Bridges, and a young Ed McMahon. It's one of the first movies, outside of TV, for Martin Sheen. He co-stars as Artie Connors in the lead roles with Tony Musante as Joe Ferrone.

This isn't a film for families or anyone who wants some laughs or mystery. But, if one is training or interested in civil order or handling rowdy characters who threaten people or the peace, this might be a good film to watch. Those who live in the big city who watch this film will likely not be taking any late night subway rides.

1967 was a time when Hollywood played by the book. Certain characters were not allowed in mainstream movies. Here in what can be the first is a gay character (Robert Fields) who hides in the closet but outted by the thugs. A black couple who's husband has a chip on his shoulder. A teacher with a wife who wants more than the measly pay her husband gets. The young couple, elderly couple, a bickering couple with a child and two military guys (buddies). All who hide their own issues from the world have them all revealed in front of strangers. I found it hard at times to watch as the two thugs played by Tony Musante and Martin Sheen. This movie is actually divided into two parts. First part we meet all the characters and a glimpse at their back story, second part the thugs one by one harass each person/couple as if for kicks. It's the second part that builds to the climax. This one of a kind classic that went hidden for years is a must see. A highly recommended movie.

This is a terrific movie to watch today, 40 years after its release. As an essentially one-scene presentation, without any superstar members of the talented cast, and given the number of protest-type plays and films at this time of turmoil in the 1960's --- it is better now, not only for its story and performances, per se, but also as an excellent chronicle of these times.

The story of a group of individuals, threatened and intimidated by a couple of "toughs," has been told many times, in a variety of settings, depicting the victims' fright, indifference, and even occasional amusement. But this one does tells it about as well as possible. The seedy setting, a New York City subway car, at night, provides a time capsule example of the word "seedy." A group like this could be equally-menaced, say, held hostage in the Presidential Suite at the Waldorf, but the dramatic effect would never be the same.

Besides the drama - viewed now, four decades later - the film evokes a nostalgic view and feel of the 60's period. Martin Sheen and Tony Musante (a young 27 and 31, respectively), are outstanding, and Sheen's role, against-type, especially so. Beau Bridges is also 26 here, as is Donna Mills, and we also see Ed McMahon and Jan Sterling in their mid-40's. A very interesting view of these personalities then, along with the number of others in this outstanding ensemble.

A real gem, and one of those frequent reminders that the best films often are found elsewhere from the high-budget, superstar epics.

Fascinating study of fear, how people respond to it, and how the unrealized fear can be stronger than what is actually there. Two young, drunken hoods invade a subway car and turn the more 'conformed', 'civilized' passengers into helpless, frightened victims. This then allows the two to run rampant. Systematically taunting, even humiliating, each rider over their inability to confront. Ends by keenly exposing the two as nothing more than a couple of dumb, two bit punks. It was simply the other passengers fear to fight back that made them more menacing than they really were. This makes for a very interesting point. Is societies ills really all the hoodlums out there, or is it really the average citizen and their reluctance to 'stand out' or take a stand. Goes on about a half hour to long, but still manages to stay tense throughout. Filmed on a soundstage that so meticulosly resembles a actual subway car that you will hardly notice. Sheens first film and sadly Ritters last.

(Spoilers) I have to side with those who found this movie less than great. For one thing, is any subway ride in New York this long? Transatlantic flights seem shorter.

For another, this film was obviously scripted after the 1964 Kitty Genovese incident, and it shows. At the time there was a lot of pop sociology that Ms. Genovese would have never been publicly murdered the way she was outside of cold NYC. Probably believing this, the script writer had character in the movie who finally takes effective action come from Oklahoma. However, I know of plenty of similar demonstrations of indifference to human life in rural U.S. --the horrible lynching extravaganzas of 1890 - 1930 for instance.

I'm not sure you can transfer the sorry reactions of 38 New Yorkers, who were each in their own space, to a subway car with a common space. The way other males simply cringed while one by one, they were verbally and physically assaulted - I just didn't believe it. (Edit 2015: the public reaction to the Kitty Genovese has had some revisionist history done in the past twenty years, the upshot being that the story of '38 New Yorkers watching a clear cut scene of murder and not reacting' has been found to be much exaggerated.)

And the one soldier (Robert Bannard), remaining seated while his injured buddy (Beau Bridges) belatedly takes action? Gees, with soldiers like that - maybe that's why we lost in Vietnam.

Last, the utterly depressing ending, with the survivors silently stepping over the prostrate bum and leaving? I sympathize with those who paid admission back in 1967. Mind you, "The Incident" is not a *terrible* movie (Sheen and Mustante were chillingly good), and I'm not addicted to sugary endings; but considering the heavy-handedness of the message, the theater experience had to feel like having to buy a ticket in order to be yelled at by your boss.

Recommended for: those who want to see President Bartlett in is young and wild years.

In a previous post..Jules32 wrote: I have a complaint to register regarding the AMC channel - instead of squeezing the end credits to make room for commercials for the next movie, how about staying true to your movie fans who have a compulsive need to read the credits, and show them full-screen to the end? Who's with me on this one? Thank goodness for IMDb to get us through! _______________________________

I'm with you..I'm with you. AMC starting this obnoxious behavior some time ago and it is disgraceful. Not only is it loud and abusive to the ear, but it totally ruins whatever mood a film has meticulously created.

I'm like you. I not only want to read the credits, but to hear the music which is always integral to enjoying a movie. This is totally uncalled for since AMC does more self promotion than all the other cable networks combined.

This is one reason that..other than films I can view nowhere else, I have pretty much given up on them. Now that I have a new cable system, I stay with Turner Classic Movies (TMC) where they present classic films you can see nowhere else, rather than the same top 40 that AMC endlessly presents..and they are all commercial and promotion free with all the music and credits intact all the time.

As for "The Incident" a film I saw in a theater when it first was released, it is overwrought most of the time. It would have been far more effective if the hoodlums had been subtly menacing. Instead, they are presented as the 2,000 lb. elephants in the room. They're easy to keep track of since you can't miss them.

It's a dirty gritty and unpleasant little film but it does have its moments. Although badly dated, especially in its treatment of gays, women and blacks, its depiction of criminals preying on innocent people is as relevant today, sadly, as it was in the sixties.

Oh..how we might long for the days when all we had to worry about in the subway, was some random attack by hoodlums, instead of murderous attacks by suicide bombers.

Times do not necessarily change for the better.

I loved the way this film captured the essence of the 60s. Some people today think the 60s was the decade of long hair and flower power, but for the masses, that was really the 70s. The 60s, and most passengers on the ill-fated train car, were represented by tight clothes, businessmen who still wore hats and nondescript overcoats, and young women with straight, glossy hair. The two thugs who take over the train look like they might have come from a Beatles concert. I liked the realistic gritty look of the interior of the streetcar, with litter on the floor, and a design that seemed to come from about World War I. The outdoor scenes of the train passing by are very grainy, and in their black and white simplicity create an appropriate feel.

The movie is a bit heavy handed, though, in its morality lesson. It's as if the screenwriter had a framed copy of the German missive on the Nazi takeover above his desk: "First they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew, then they came for the communists, but I didn't speak out because....." I simply can't believe that so many people could be so cowardly. The mod guy who freezes up while a bully strokes his girlfriend's hair is too much. And the fact that the bullies essentially insult everyone on the car in turn while everyone looks away doesn't wash either. You know you're next, so why not try to put a stop to it now? The black guy who was so eager to punch a white could have pummeled them both as soon as they let his wife/hostage go. Where did all his anger go? And the gay guy who tried to get off meekly returned when the weaker of the two bullies merely said, "go to your room". He was inches from freedom, and was much larger than Martin Sheen's character.

This movie is worth seeing for its cast alone. It's fun to see such a young Beau Bridges, and to see TV's Ed McMahon in a serious role. Virtually every cast member was known to me, if only as a familiar face from countless other movies from the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Oh, and I burst out laughing at a scene which probably was originally intended to be very poignant and thought provoking. Blame my recent addiction to Dave Chapelle's comedy. When the police finally come and see the carnage, they immediately try to cuff the black guy, without asking any questions.

With its flaws noted, I recommend this movie as a great time capsule of the 60s, and a study of how cowardice can lead to worse and worse situations.

In New York City, Joe Ferrone (Tony Musante) and Artie Connors (Martin Sheen) leave the poolhall drunk and looking to cause trouble. They rob a guy and beat him up. They board a subway train and start terrorizing its passengers.

There is some real intensity in the film and the performances. The best intensity comes from Musante in the most disturbing way. It's Martin Sheen's theatrical debut as a lead. He has a great scene robbing a guy in the street. There are also a few other recognizable faces; Beau Bridges, Ruby Dee, Brock Peters, Jack Gilford, and Ed McMahon. Beau Bridges has the bigger character but everybody is delivering. For the drawbacks, there is about thirty minutes straight where all the other characters get some introduction. Most of that is unnecessarily. It would be better to go from the robbery straight to the subway car. These are understandable characters even without any expositions. There is one problematic character. Carmatti is a horrible soldier. He must be a fake. Felix would be better alone. It would make more sense that he's holding back because he's alone and down a wing. There is greatness here but also a little bit of unnecessary filler. It's a must watch for fans of these actors.

What's with all this praise for a cartoon of a movie? The acting was fair at most. Martin Sheen and Tony Musante resembled a couple of choir boys. They're going to terrify a subway car loaded with men, including two soldiers? Gimmee a break. There were so many unbelievable moments I don't know where to begin. For instance; why didn't the "terrified" passengers simply get off at the next stop? Why didn't one or two of the "men" on board simply deck the pair of laughable punks? Why does it takes ten times longer for the train to travel through the city than it would for real? Oh, wait a second, I know; then we wouldn't have a movie. Unfortunately we do, but what a yawner it is.