Protraph Lack of good storyline.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

sijoe22 I'm usually a big fan of realistic, shot-on-the-streets of New York cop movies, but not this one.Plot, if you want to call it that, has cops looking for a bad guy, who's wanted for murder. Whoopie. Not a single character has any depth, storyline is pathetic, and Henry Fonda is about as authentic as a NYPD Commissioner as Pee Wee Herman would be.Can't think of a single memorable line, nor a single surprise during entire movie. Matter of fact, I just saw it yesterday, and forgot the ending already.I swear, I've seen much, much better cop flicks on those old televised "Movie of the Week" shows that used to be all the rage.Close, no, make that NOT EVEN CLOSE, to being a decent movie.

Woodyanders Maverick veteran detective Daniel Madigan (a superb and credible performance by Richard Widmark) and his equally seasoned partner Rocco Bonaro (well played by Harry Guardino) have to catch maniacal psycho Barney Benesch (a memorably edgy turn by Steve Ihnat) with 72 hours. Meanwhile, stern by-the-book police commissioner Anthony Russell (Henry Fonda in typically top-drawer form) has personal and professional problems of his own. Director Don Siegel, working from a gripping and thoughtful screenplay by Howard Rodman and Abraham Polonsky, relates the compelling story at a steady pace, makes inspired use of authentically gritty New York City locations, grounds the plot in a thoroughly believable harsh urban reality, maintains a serious no-nonsense tone throughout, and stages the rousing climax with tremendous skill and aplomb. Moreover, this picture acquires additional depth, substance, and even poignancy by showing the troubled private lives of the main characters in a convincing and straightforward manner. The uniformly stellar acting by the first-rate cast qualifies as another major asset, with especially commendable work by Inger Stevens as Madigan's fed-up neglected wife Julia, James Whitmore as the amiable, on the take Chief Inspector Charles Kane, Susan Clark as Russell's classy mistress Tricia Bentley, Michael Dunn as antsy bookie Midget Castoglione, Don Stroud as excitable low-life informant Hughie, and Sheree North as sultry nightclub singer Jonesy. Russell Metty's no-frills cinematography further enhances the overall stark realism. Don Costa's spirited score hits the stirring spot. A worthwhile action thriller.

monticellomeadow I saw Madigan when it came out, some 40 years ago. Revisited it again recently on DVD. Wow, what a disappointment! As others have pointed out, above, they just didn't know what they wanted to do with the film. The story is absolutely atrocious, full of loopholes and lack of exposition. The notes on the DVD said that Henry Fonda's Commissioner character was supposed to be the lead - and why he took the part. Then they changed it to Widmark's Madigan character. They had to force the two to have some relationship to make any sense of the story, but it was thin, very thin. A quick note about the music. It was, indeed, awful and inappropriate. But at least it was jarring enough that it woke you up during the numerous dull parts! What you can see here is the struggle to make the transition from the heroic cop/detectives of the previous decades (though clearly not the film noir types)to what became Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. This "struggle" in Madigan was painful to watch. It was never clear why Madigan was considered such a rogue. (Can you say that about Harry Callahan? NO!) Just an offhand remark that he had an incident or two in the past, quickly countered by James Whitmore's character saying "He's a good cop." And the opening scene where Inhat's (SP?) character gets the best of Widmark and Guardino made absolutely no sense. Why was the villain so bad? Why all the scorn for Widmark and Guardino when they were just "doing Brooklyn a favor" by picking up this guy? And never explained why the villain was so heinous other than that he shot some guy. They had to have him shoot two cops later to make you think, "Ooooooooooooh, he is very bad." Come on! And inserting all of the women into each of the character's lives, then giving them the most shallow of development and no explanation of, say, Sheree North's character, inserted into one scene so you know Madigan once had a mistress but now "loves his wife." On and on. Absolutely terrible writing. A high school level. Fonda (59) and Widmark (54) were too old for their roles. But again, it was a transition time in Hollywood. Still trying to use the older stars until the next generation - and a very different style of detective films - came along. Ugh!

inspectors71 My first experience with the character of Dan Madigan was in the television series that the movie spawned. I enjoyed Richard Widmark--he had a petty, wounded look that made his character(s) appealing . . . and infuriating. In Madigan (the movie), Widmark wasn't a typical 60's anti-hero, just a burnt out cop with a miserable life. The movie was tough, and infuriating. It seemed to have a formula, an agenda for making big moral judgments. Henry Fonda was doing his thing, gliding around the set with a great toupee and a look on his face of lethal dyspepsia, Inger Stevens was scrumptious, Harry Guardino was very honest and blue-collar, Steve Inhat (sp?) was criminally underused, and Widmark was just wonderfully foolish as an empty man who's going to lose his wife and his life if he doesn't walk away from his precious job. My appreciation for director Don Siegel can be seen in my review of The Killers. His pacing is so journeyman, so reassuring, that you never have to be bothered with thinking, "Wow, who directed this?" I can't say that this is a great cop movie because the production values are so cheesy and the big moral-isms are overbearing.I can say that the movie should have been a training film for cops who sacrifice everything for their jobs. This was the strongest part of the movie, a message of, "Walk away while you can!"