A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

The film opens with a clever looking take off on the popular Dick Tracy comic strip, and by the time you're a few minutes into the story you're left wondering whether this is supposed to be a gangster flick or some parody thereof. Comic style captions appear throughout and there are a couple of up-tempo scenes that don't fit in with the general tone of the picture, which basically has two rival gangs facing off against each other in the early Thirties. Jack Palance and Warren Berlinger are the opposing mobsters, taking turns at brutalizing their opposition, but they had almost a cordial relationship with each other in person, which skewed the dynamic of the picture for me. In other words, this wasn't "The Godfather".Say, remember that scene when Vic Morono's (Palance) 'deuces' blow up and set fire to Chico's (Berlinger) Hi-Hat Club? The place was totally renovated and back in business the very next day! Even the Coca-Cola sign was shiny and brand new. You know, when you stop and think about it, Coke's presence in just about any film you could watch means we're paying for a lot of brand placement with every Coke we buy.The surprise of the picture for me was seeing H.B. Haggerty in his role as the Deuce of Spades, Mickey. I remember him from his pro wrestling days back in the Sixties; the H.B. stands for 'Hard Boiled'. Haggerty utilizes his wrestling skills near the end of the picture when he winds up shooting himself in that tussle with reporter Timmons (Adam Roarke). He falls face down to the floor, and just before he hits he uses his 'dead' arms to brace his fall.I recently caught Palance in his very first starring role, also portraying a gangster in 1950's "Panic in the Streets". He looked like a gangly young actor with very limited range, and even though 'Four Deuces' is no prize, you can see how he improved over time. It's too bad the same thing can't be said for some of his pictures; I guess a paycheck is a paycheck.

Yet another jokey gangster film which proliferated the screens in the wake of BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967); the ragtime score, then, is clearly inspired by the recent success of THE STING (1973). It's evidently cheaply made and pretty bad overall but, I guess, harmless enough; still, virtually the only thing of interest here is the film's comic-strip look, complete with captioned descriptions during transitions. Jack Palance (another film I watched as a tribute to him - renting this one would certainly not have been a priority otherwise!) mercilessly chews the scenery as one of two warring gang bosses.

When I was a kid in Ohio, I had a good friend whose parents had a well-decorated house each Christmas season. But their neighbor, a couple of doors away, had one of those displays with hundreds of lights - on the house, trees, shrubs, along the long driveway, etc. There were figures on the roof and in the yard yard, and the owner spent hundreds - if not thousands - of dollars each year, not including massive utility bills. These were really nice homes, and the man could well-afford it.Across the street, lived a top personality from one of the radio stations, with the most popular afternoon program, and his specialty was very funny and clever comedy. He did absolutely nothing to his home, except to post a well-painted, large sign in his yard, which said, "Please see our display across the street!"I thought of this as I watched this flick - the second of a double-feature which our PBS station has, featuring older movies, each Saturday evening. "The Defiant Ones," a truly great film was first, and then this one followed.In the same vein as the DJ I referenced above, I would only paraphrase by saying: "See my comment under the heading "rmt124" in this section!"

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Palance totally overacts; and that is the best thing I have to say. The tone of the movie is all over the map and the dramatic parts are not dramatic and the forced comedic scenes are actually the best dramatic parts of the movie. It is so bad, you can't even make fun of it (believe me- we tried). Overall, it was truly painful. The only reason to watch this movie is to see martin kove at his best, unless you like watching people chew- Palance et al. seem to have some cud in their mouths the entire movie- maybe it was aspirin to overcome the pain of making the movie!