One of my all time favorites.

Best movie of this year hands down!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

At the time it was made, this film was criticised as being an unnecessary remake of "High Sierra", which starred Humphrey Bogart and Ida Lupino. Maybe they had a point, but this version has such an interesting cast, I'm glad they did.Jack Palance plays Roy Earle, a career criminal who is released from prison through the machinations of mob boss Big Mac (Lon Chaney Jnr.) to perform one last robbery at a resort hotel.He teams up with two inexperienced and impulsive criminals, Babe and Red played by Lee Marvin and Earl Holliman. He also meets two women, one who loves him, Marie, (Shelley Winters) and one who doesn't, Velma (Lori Nelson). Eventually he ends up on that mountainside alone and pinned down by the police. What an amazing actor Jack Palance was. A big guy, he exuded a sense of danger like few others – he had been a heavyweight boxer before the war and everything about him said he was not a man to mess with. Apart from his look, he was also as intense an actor as Marlon Brando. His Roy Earl is like a coiled spring except when in the company of Velma, the girl with the clubfoot who ultimately rejects him. Shelley Winters' as Marie gives a variation on her Alice from "A Place in the Sun", but she gains sympathy as a woman who is grasping for love and security in all the wrong places.The other fascinating thing about the film is spotting stars in early roles. Lee Marvin, Earl Holliman and even Nick Adams, the future Johnny Yuma, in a tiny role as a frightened bellhop. Dennis Hopper is also there as an annoying teen. WR Burnett wrote the story. However Roy Earle's interest in the very young Velma, encouraged by her father was an off touch that remained awkward in both movie versions. "I Died a Thousand Times" is a good-looking production. In colour this time, with the widescreen process doing justice to the grandeur of the landscape. Although the film was considered outdated in romanticising a violent criminal like Roy Earle, it's really more of a study of a man whose approach to life and personal code of honour is out of step with the world he lives in.It's interesting to compare the two versions.

This is entertainment and it holds well. A decent story line and insight into the weak criminal mind of yesteryear. Stealing, lying and cheating anyone can do but becoming a criminal that is good at it is not found here. Still, as you watch, the movie makes you wonder what you would have done as it presents a series of choices that can give different endings. The one presented here brought closure to the movie but back then, it could turn out any which way. He could have gotten the loot, the girl and lived happily ever after and then some. Perhaps he did? Hollywood had the final say. Bogart did this flick too and he is a joy to behold in the part. Recommend a snack of your choosing, a tasty drink and enjoy the scenery where this was filmed and the time-out from your own little world and get into this one

Roy Earle is a professional criminal--one of the toughest and best at his job. When he is unexpectedly released from prison, it is because someone big wanted a big heist and they pulled strings to get him. On his way to the location of his new partners up in the Sierras, he meets a very poor family and befriends them. He also later befriends a cute little dog. Both these acts of kindness are very atypical for such a hardened man and, sadly, BOTH end up causing him nothing but grief in the end. I am a film purist when it comes to remakes. My opinion has always been that if the original film is great, it shouldn't be remade--remakes are only for films with SERIOUS flaws that can corrected in the remake. So, I am a VERY difficult sell for a film like "I Died a Thousand Times", as it's a remake both of the classic Bogart picture "High Sierra" as well as Joel McCrea's "Colorado Territory"==and both films have a higher IMDb rating as well."I Died a Thousand Times" turns out to be an extremely well made film--mostly because it is practically an exact copy of "High Sierra" and because Jack Palance was quite nice in the lead. The only major differences is the wonderful color film stock--it looks great because of the wonderful mountain locations. As for the acting, it's about on par with the original. So, if it offers no real major advantage, why not just see the original--especially since it stars Humphrey Bogart and Ida Lupino and is a classic. This 1955 version could have become a classic--if the story had been original. Good but see the original!

People love to trash movies that are re-makes of classics. They seem to think that there is some disrespect intended if the remake is anything less than a masterpiece. I'm sure that the makers of this film only intended to revive an excellent story, and had no idea that a lot of armchair cinephiles, 50 years later, would consider them audacious for doing so. After watching I Died A Thousand Times, I read all the negative reviews and decided to watch High Sierra again so I could compare them. I decided that each film has it's strengths.B&W vs Color: I love black and white. 8 out of 10 films I watch are in B&W. So, if I have a prejudice, it is against color. But when a color film is beautiful, it's very beautiful. This film definitely has its moments. Its palette ranges from subtle, (lighting in a hotel hallway) to glaring, (pumps at a gas station). All gorgeous. The shots of mountains are stunning.One thing about color film which applies to this comparison, is that it is harder to make a good drama in color than in black and white. There is less in B&W to detract from the actors' performances. Orson Welles said that there were no truly great performances in color, and that's why he shot in black and white well into the 1960's. Comparing a B&W drama to a color is a little like apples and oranges. Color films just have a lot more to deal with, and this film does a good job of it.Performances: In the 14 years that separate these films, there was a shift in popular acting styles. In crime dramas of the 30's and 40's characters were drawn in broader strokes. The characters were almost more "types" than individuals. When Bogie played Philip Marlowe he was playing an archetype of the hard boiled detective, and personality took a back seat. The fact that characters tended to be more 2 dimensional, made any glimpse into their personalities more effective when it came. It also gave the films an almost mythic or operatic feel. But color films of the 50's and 60's had to have more depth to the characters. Winters and Palance succeed in this. A good example is the scene in the car when Roy Earle is telling Marie about Velma. When Palance tells Winters that Velma is a pretty girl and that she is "decent", you plainly see the underlying shame and heartbreak in Winter's face. The same statement seems to just roll off of Lupino. I'm not trashing Ida Lupino, or Bogart. I love them both, and Lupino does a great job and looks fantastic, in that screen goddess way. But I was more engrossed by the performances of both Palance and Winters than by their earlier counterparts. Where Bogie was aloof and cool, Palance was a snarling madman with a tender underside.I think that goes to the core of why I liked the later version. It just had more impact for me. I was pulled in from the first scene by the beautiful photography, and was more engrossed throughout than I was with High Sierra. That's not to say I preferred it to High Sierra. I feel that, even though they were exactly the same story, they were very different kinds of films and each had their differing strong points.