Critics’ reviews

Pickup on South Street (1953)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 75: 8 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Pickup on South Street

75
Positive
8
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Pickup on South Street, praising its economical crime storytelling and Fuller’s forceful direction. The praise clusters around vivid underworld detail, expressive close-ups and editing that sustains tension. Thelma Ritter’s performance draws particular admiration, while the combative chemistry between Richard Widmark and Jean Peters gives the criminal intrigue an unexpectedly cheerful edge. Several reviews also find moral complexity in the film’s sympathy for people whose motives are far from respectable.

The spread is wide, though reservations are concentrated rather than shared across the reviews. The political material divides opinion: some critics find a probing treatment of hysteria beneath the spy plot, while Variety finds the theme thin and the effect unintentionally comic. Even that negative assessment makes exceptions for Ritter and the photography. The favourable reviews differ chiefly in emphasis, finding either propulsive entertainment or a tougher, more poignant account of criminal loyalties.

The AV Club
24 February 2004 · Scott Tobias
90*

Tobias praises the film as an incisive, economical crime drama with a resonant moral vision. He singles out Fuller's sympathy for a stool pigeon and the film's vivid details of criminal life.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
23 August 2015 · Philip French
90*

French calls the film a masterly noir whose moral complexity and realism have endured. He particularly praises Thelma Ritter’s moving performance as a working-class informant who refuses to betray a fellow criminal.

Read the full review →
Time Out
85*

The review calls the film a superb thriller despite its initial dismissal as a McCarthyist tract. It singles out the film’s probing of political hysteria beyond its nominal hunt for spies.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
17 July 2021 · ★★★★ · Chuck Bowen
80

Bowen calls the film an amazing, poignant crime classic and praises Fuller’s distinctive visual style. He singles out the musicality of the violence, especially the dynamic close-ups and staging.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
75*

The capsule presents the film as a forceful, engaging blend of noir storytelling and political concerns. It singles out the vivid characters and their less-than-noble motives.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
70*

The capsule presents the film as a forceful, compelling blend of crime, politics, and romance. It particularly praises Fuller’s pugnacious direction and reportorial view of underworld life.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
18 June 1953 · Bosley Crowther
64*

The page is identified as a contemporary review, but its verdict cannot be confirmed from the accessible text. The article text is unavailable, so no specific praise or complaint can be reliably reported.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1952 · Variety Staff
25*

The review finds the film largely unsuccessful, with a thin theme that leads to unintended comedy. It singles out Thelma Ritter’s performance and the photography as its main strengths.

Read the full review →
The Skinny
1 September 2015 · ★★★★★ · Josh Slater-Williams
100

The review praises the film as a magnificently entertaining, propulsive noir with an unusual jovial streak. It singles out the bickering chemistry between Richard Widmark and Jean Peters as the film’s beating heart.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
6 December 2006 · Scott Macdonald
75*

The critic finds the film a successful, stylish noir with hard-boiled writing and effortless performances. They especially praise the tension created by the editing and the expressive close-ups.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate