Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Trial, The (1962)

Trial, The (1962)

“I am sane. I am innocent. I have committed no crime!”

Synopsis:
A bureaucrat (Anthony Perkins) accused of a non-specific crime navigates a nightmarish labyrinth while attempting to engage his lawyer (Orson Welles).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anthony Perkins Films
  • Courtroom Drama
  • Falsely Accused
  • Jeanne Moreau Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Orson Welles Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Orson Welles’s baroque, ambitious telling of Franz Kafka’s comic nightmare” presents “a dark, decayed, distorted labyrinth-like world, not unlike a combination of the setting found in David Lynch’s Eraserhead and Michael Radford’s 1984” — and he adds that “Welles has created a visual tour-de-force that resembles no commercial films of the early sixties but rather the works of surrealists and experimental filmmakers.”



Peary argues that “appropriately, the bizarre events that transpire, all with Josef K. on screen, have the logic of a nightmare,” which is “all fascinating stuff, but you may need four or five cups of strong coffee to make it to the end” — and even by “then you may be hopelessly confused.” I’ll agree that the film feels a bit over-long, and could probably be reduced by half an hour or so (though that would mess with the integrity of the storyline even more than Welles already did) — but I disagree that one feels confused. Rather, the story plays out exactly like the nightmarish series of random encounters it is.

Peary further asserts that if Josef “were more like us and seemed to be disoriented by the strange people he comes across and the strange situation in which he finds himself… then we could empathize more with him;” however, as it stands, “we don’t really know how to react because he doesn’t seem too upset himself.” I once again disagree: Perkins is appropriately haunted and confused for most of the film, just as any of us would be if caught in such a surreal hellscape.

Peary’s analysis of Welles’ adaptation as turning “Kafka’s downer” into “a triumph for Man” — in which “Perkins’s prideful man becomes prideful of being Man” — doesn’t resonate with me either; but then, this is a film that has divided audiences and critics since its inception (and in recent years has been lauded by some as one of his best). Watch for Jeanne Moreau as Josef’s neighbor:

… Elsa Martinelli (star of that same year’s Hatari!) as the wife of a courtroom guard:

… Akim Tamiroff as a doomed client of the lawyer (Welles):

… and Remy Schneider as the lawyer’s lover.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Anthony Perkins as Josef K.
  • Highly atmospheric sets and art design
  • Edmond Richard’s cinematography
  • Alexander Alexeieff and Claire Parker’s “pin-screen” animation

Must See?
Yes, as a unique and provocative film by a master director.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

Weekend (1967)

Weekend (1967)

“Are you in a film or reality?”

Synopsis:
A homicidal bourgeois couple (Mireille Darc and Jean Yanne) taking a road trip to the country encounter increasingly violent and surreal scenarios.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bourgeois Society
  • Cannibalism
  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Revolutionaries
  • Road Trip
  • Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
In what he describes as “one of Jean-Luc Godard’s most astonishing films,” Peary notes that Godard “mixes Bunuel and Mao, slapstick and polemics” in a tale of a “bickering bourgeois couple… who both have secret lovers and plan to kill their spouses [and] drive into the country for a weekend visit with Darc’s mother,” and find that “on every road are crashed cars, Godard’s symbols for bourgeois materialism.”

In what is “meant to represent bourgeois hell, fires devour the wrecked autos, dead bodies line the roads, and irritating leftwingers of all types come up to our insensitive traveler to spout their radical philosophies;” eventually the annoying couple’s “madcap adventure” includes kidnapping and cannibalism.

Peary notes that while “Godard includes moments of political discourse, as well as references to favorite films (Johnny Guitar, The Searchers, Gosta Berling, etc.) and quips about the relation of art to reality,” his “main goal was to make his arrogant, cruel bourgeois couple literally go through hell.” He points out that “in the film’s most famous scene [DP] Raoul Coutard pans his camera left to right for 10 minutes as our couple drives around a traffic jam that’s as ridiculous as the ones Laurel and Hardy used to get stuck in, but just when we’re most amused we see the horrendous accident and dead bodies (the first we’ve come across) that caused the jam and are shocked out of our smiles.”

Peary argues that while the “film was most impressive when it was released,” “today the humor still has punch and the visuals are startling” — however, he finds “that the picture peters out once the guerrillas turn up.”

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that this culmination of Godard’s initial narrative output — before his formal turn to radical revolutionary politics — remains as challenging to sit through as many of his other ’60s titles. It’s not easy to watch, nor was it meant to be — so it’s difficult to judge the film on anything other than Godard’s integrity to his own vision (which one could argue — may have to argue — is spot on). It’s likely that all film fanatics will want to have seen Weekend at least once (Peary refers to it as “essential Godard”), but be forewarned that it’s pretty relentless.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The legendary “long pan” traffic jam
  • Raoul Coutard’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, but only for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Masculin-Feminin (1966)

Masculin-Feminin (1966)

“Don’t you think you’re the center of the world?”

Synopsis:
A young Parisian (Jean-Pierre Léaud) newly out of military service pursues an aspiring singer (Chantal Goya) while also bedding her roommates, Catherine (Catherine-Isabelle Duport) and Elisabeth (Marlène Jobert).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • French Films
  • Jean-Luc Godard Films
  • Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to Jean-Luc Godard’s eleventh feature-length film as “one of most memorable films of the sixties, about the ‘Children of Marx and Coca-Cola’.” He argues that it “captures the sense of an exciting, confusing, often frustrating era when young people in France and America were simultaneously learning leftist politics and having their first sexual affairs” — and he notes that “being involved in politics was so much fun because it brought together many people with similar viewpoints whose blood was already pumping and adrenaline already flowing.”

While this film continues to be almost universally lauded — with a Metacritic score of 93, and inclusion in the book 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die — its appeal eludes me. These boring, self-absorbed young individuals are as aimless on screen as they appear to be in their own lives, and I don’t understand the desire to watch them interact for an hour and 43 minutes.

They sit around in coffeeshops, pursue and/or sleep with one another, interview each other about sex and politics, spray-paint political slogans, go to the movies, do laundry, smoke, and I suppose act very much like young people at a certain time in their lives — exploring who they are, who they like, and what they want to do. But there’s not a whole lot in the narrative to hold onto or wait to see unfolding; while Peary refers to the “depressing ending” as a “surprise”, I simply find it pointless.

Note: I was amused to read the following on IMDb’s Trivia page:

The film within a film sequence which parodies the work of Ingmar Bergman was shot at the Scandic Hotel Continental, Stockholm. Ingmar Bergman, not being a fan of Jean-Luc Godard found out about the film, went to go and see it and called it “a classic case of Godard: mind-numbingly boring.”

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Willy Kurant’s cinematography

Must See?
Nope; while many disagree, I think this one is only for Godard completists.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Seven Days in May (1964)

Seven Days in May (1964)

“Senator, we’re talking about the survival of the United States.”

Synopsis:
When a military aide (Kirk Douglas) learns that his superior (Burt Lancaster) has plans to overthrow the government given concerns over nuclear disarmament, he tells the president (Fredric March) and is soon embroiled in efforts to gather evidence of the impending coup.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ava Gardner Films
  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Cold War
  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Fredric March Films
  • Hugh Marlowe Films
  • John Frankenheimer Films
  • Kirk Douglas Films
  • Martin Balsam Films
  • Military
  • Political Conspiracy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of “John Frankenheimer’s taut political thriller” — scripted by Rod Sterling, and based on Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II’s novel of the same name — is primarily focused on the fact that it was “surely… not a favorite at Reagan’s White House.” He notes that “if it were made today [in 1986] it would be a lot flashier and more gimmicky — and probably March and Douglas would be made into the villains.”

Freakiest of all is Burt Lancaster’s “sinister portrayal as a rightwing extremist, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who plans a military coup.” The relevance to current politics, albeit through a different lens of concern, couldn’t be starker: when a group of individuals is convinced they’re right and the well-being of their nation is at risk, we know they will stop at nothing.

As Peary writes, this is a “smart, well-acted, suspenseful film”, bolstered by Frankenheimer’s innovative use of camera angles:

… Ellsworth Fredericks’ stark cinematography, and strong performances by the leads and many of the supporting players — including Martin Balsam as a loyal advisor:

… and Edmond O’Brien’s Oscar-nominated role as an alcoholic Southern senator (and one of March’s oldest friends).

Unfortunately, Ava Gardner’s role as a boozy mistress to Lancaster feels gratuitous, though she’s essential to the plot.

This political thriller would make an excellent double-bill with Fail Safe (1964) if viewers can handle the pressure (though perhaps Dr. Strangelove would be needed as a darkly comedic chaser).

Note: Watch for John Houseman in his uncredited screen debut as a key player in O’Brien’s hunt for evidence.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fredric March as the President
  • Burt Lancaster as General Scott
  • Kirk Douglas as Col. Casey
  • Edmond O’Brien as Senator Clark
  • Ellsworth Fredericks’ cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful — and relevant — good show.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Fail Safe (1964)

Fail Safe (1964)

“In a nuclear war, everyone loses.”

Synopsis:
When a group of U.S. bombers are accidentally sent to destroy Moscow, the president (Henry Fonda) enlists help from a translator (Larry Hagman) in reaching the Soviet Prime Minister and attempting to prevent a nuclear disaster.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cold War
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Sidney Lumet Films
  • Walter Matthau Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “very tense, grim drama, seriously directed by Sidney Lumet” — based on a 1962 novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler — as “Dr. Strangelove without the humor.” This story about “U.S. planes carrying nuclear bombs [who] are accidentally given the go-ahead to fly a bombing mission deep into Russia” “points out that there would be hawks in our government who’d insist that the U.S. should go through with a full-scale nuclear attack if such a mistake occurred rather than wait for the Russian retaliation.” What’s “most interesting is how we end up rooting for our own planes to be shot down, although the innocent men inside believe they’re just following orders.”

I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well this “serious counterpart” to Dr. Strangelove (both produced by Columbia Pictures) has stood up. Fonda effectively embodies the measured president we all wish we had; and Hagman is quietly nuanced in one of his earliest film roles. Meanwhile, Lumet’s direction (with support from George Hirschfeld as DP, Walter Bernstein’s script, and Ralph Rosenblum’s editing) is spot-on in terms of creating and maintaining tension across the various inter-connected spheres of the storyline (primarily the president’s office, the War Room, and the pilots’ cockpit).

This film is a literal nailbiter in terms of what will come next, with nothing less than the fate of our planet in the balance. You have every right to go into a viewing of it with trepidation — and come out feeling even more.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henry Fonda as the President
  • Larry Hagman as Buck
  • George Hirschfeld’s cinematography
  • Walter Bernstein’s screenplay
  • Ralph Rosenblum’s editing

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful Cold War thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Dolce Vita, La (1960)

Dolce Vita, La (1960)

“Only love gives me strength.”

Synopsis:
An entertainment journalist (Marcello Mastroianni) fields distressed phone calls from his clingy girlfriend (Yvonne Furneaux) while having a fling with an heiress (Anouk Aimee), accompanying a buxomy actress (Anita Ekberg) on a trip around Rome, covering a rainy media spectacle visitation from the Madonna, and hanging out with his married philosopher-friend (Alain Cuny) at his home.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anita Ekberg Films
  • Anouk Aimee Films
  • Federico Fellini Films
  • Italian Films
  • Journalists
  • Marcello Mastroianni Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Federico Fellini’s mammoth film about the meaninglessness of Rome’s ‘sweet life’ is one of his most ambitious, fascinating, and popular works” — and also “his most cynical film.” Peary gives away a significant spoiler (occurring in the seventh night sequence out of nine) pretty early in his review, so I’ll bypass that and simply quote him noting that Mastroianni ultimately “realizes he has no escape from his worthless life” and “like all the others who have given up trying to find happiness or make a positive contribution to society, he dives headlong into orgies, cruelty, [and] planned frivolity.”

Peary describes “Fellini’s depiction of the sweet life [la dolce vita]” as one in which “nights are given over to decadence, dawn is a quiet time for reflection and, this being Italy, guilt — but not enough guilt to abandon the ugly yet intoxicating life-style.” He points out that the “film is filled with memorable characters (who move in and out of the story) and classic scenes: a statue of Christ hanging from a helicopter”:

… “Anita Ekberg’s walk through a fountain”:

… “Mastroianni’s argument with Furneaux in their car”:

… “the night at the palace”:

… “the striptease”:

… “Mastroianni slapping and putting feathers on a dazed female partygoer during an orgy”:

… “etc.”

As the film which sparked the phrase “Papparazzi” — after the name of Marcello’s photographer-friend “Papparazzo” (Walter Santesso), who is hovering around the periphery at all times — this film is appropriately filled with frenzy, movement, and multiple jam-packed frames.

Indeed, it’s so easy to get caught up in the relentless energy of the narrative that the film’s more sobering moments — especially those near the end — come as a quietly disturbing shock. Despite its technical brilliance and historical relevance as a turning point in Fellini’s career, this is not a film I can imagine watching very often; it’s far too heartbreaking for that. However, it remains must-see viewing at least once for all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Marcello Mastroianni as Marcello
  • Otello Martelli’s cinematography


  • Numerous memorable scenes

  • Nino Rota’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of Italian cinema.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Body Heat (1981)

Body Heat (1981)

“You’re not too smart, are you? I like that in a man.”

Synopsis:
An unhappily married woman (Kathleen Turner) begins a torrid affair with a lawyer (William Hurt) who quickly comes to believe that Turner’s husband (Richard Crenna) is in the way of their happiness.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Femmes Fatales
  • Infidelity
  • Kathleen Turner Films
  • Lawyers
  • Mickey Rourke Films
  • Plot to Murder
  • William Hurt Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In Peary’s GFTFF review of this neo-noir thriller, he writes that “it’s almost as if director-writer Lawrence Kasdan lucked upon footage from a noir classic that, for some reason, was missing actors — so all he had to do was photograph actors of his own using a script that utilized the sets and look of that old film and then mix the new footage with the old.” He argues that the “film so closely resembles — visually and thematically — classic noir films such as Double Indemnity that many critics complained… Kasdan was playing the copycat,” but he’s “impressed by what [he] thinks is a film lover’s attempt to re-create the noir style so he could thoroughly explore the elements that made it so fascinating.”

He adds that the “picture has a sharply written, almost campily humorous script; exciting, sexually explicit scenes; [and] strong performances by Hurt, Turner…, Crenna, Ted Danson (as Hurt’s DA friend), and Mickey Rourke (who teaches Hurt how to use explosives).”

In Cult Movies 3, Peary expands upon his analysis, noting that the film developed an obsessive fan club, and sharing his thoughts on why the film does more than simply slavishly imitate older noir. He points out that while “Kasdan incorporates a fatalism that is prevalent in noir classics,” he “gives it a twist” since “both adulterers are not doomed the moment they seal their conspiracy with a kiss”; instead, Turner’s Matty “determines her own destiny.”

On the other hand, Hurt’s Ned “pretty much fits the profile for noir ‘heroes'” given “he drinks and smokes constantly, is cynical and bored, thinks any woman would fall for him and that he is better than the man she is with now, tries to impress the femme fatale by devising and carrying out an intricate crime… and assumes Fate is too strong for him” — however, he “differs from most in that he’s not particularly sympathetic” and “doesn’t have any good qualities.”

Meanwhile, “Kasdan also breaks convention with the third major character, Edmund Walker [Cranna]… In film noir, the husband whom the lovers try to kill typically is an absolute victim, unaware that there is a plot against him and too weak to put up a defense if he did know” — but “not so with Richard Crenna’s creepily played Walker,” who is “anything but an unaggressive patsy” and “has reached his position of wealth and power by stepping on weaklings and exhibiting a callous disrespect for the law.”

However, “the biggest difference between Body Heat and the forties’ classics is in the presentation of sex.” Peary writes that “like Bob Rafelson’s Jack Nicholson-Jessica Lange remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), it brings the forefront the sex in James M. Cain’s novels that was only hinted at in the forties’ film adaptations.” He adds that “whereas forties’ femmes fatales used their sex appeal to lure unsuspecting men into their webs and to keep them willing prisoners, Matty uses the sex act to keep Ned in line.”

Peary writes that while he doesn’t think Body Heat is “on the same level as the classics of the genre,” he finds it “a worthy, legitimate, most enjoyable entry to the genre,” and adds that he especially likes “the cinematography — the prowling camera, the interesting light patterns — of [DP] Richard Kline”:

… “and how adeptly John Barry’s bluesy score complements the visuals and helps establish the proper sense of nightmare.” He notes that “best of all is Kathleen Turner,” who “proudly displays her long legs and daringly does nudity”; she “is extremely sexy, not just because of the way she looks… and her uninhibited nature in bed, but equally because of her energy and eagerness…, her confidence, her strength, her ambition, her perseverance, and her intelligence” — to the point that “Ned comes to realize, it was kind of an honor to be duped by such a woman.”

Note: The use of wind chimes in this film is particularly effective.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Kathleen Turner as Matty Walker
  • William Hurt as Ned Racine
  • Richard H. Kline’s atmospheric cinematography
  • John Barry’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable neo-noir.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Good Show
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Man of Flowers (1983)

Man of Flowers (1983)

“Would God approve of someone who found flowers as sensually arousing, tender, loving beings?”

Synopsis:
An eccentric elderly man (Norman Kaye) with a fixation on flowers and his dead mother pays a young model (Alyson Best) to come to his house and undress for him, and soon finds himself caught up in Best’s troubled relationship with her drug-addicted artist-boyfriend (Chris Haywood).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Australian Films
  • Models
  • Nonconformists
  • Werner Herzog Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is a big fan of this “marvelous, richly-textured, award-winning film about a lovable, rich, middle-aged eccentric (Norman Kaye)” who is “haunted by his sad upbringing” and “spends his time battling the mediocrity that characterizes the modern world,” “seeking out and nurturing its rare forms of beauty.”

He describes Kaye as someone who “writes daily letters to his mother although she is long dead, has regular sessions with an incompetent therapist:

… and mails himself letters so he can engage in meaningful conversations with his mailman.” In addition, “He paints, plays the church organ, listens to classical music, collects art and sculpture, and once a week pays a beautiful artist’s model (Alyson Best) to strip to the love duet from Donizetti’s Lucia de Lammermoor” — though he never touches her “as his intentions are honorable.”

Peary argues that “director Paul Cox smoothly blends wicked, offbeat humor with sad, penetrating looks at nice people who have really been clobbered (in more ways than one) in life.” He asserts that Kaye — “who was terrific in Cox’s Lonely Hearts, is even better here, playing a triumphant character instead of an insecure loser” — a “wonderful, original film character whose unique perspective on life has helped him overcome every roadblock to happiness” and who “is the ideal protector of the much younger Best” given that they “each can provide the other what they need most at this particular time in their lives.”

However, I don’t really agree. While Kaye certainly shows unique agency in the final portion of the film, he is far from a “triumphant character,” but rather a sad, haunted man whose flashbacks to his past (including Werner Herzog playing his disciplinarian father):

… show how deeply wounded he was and remains. Sure, he gets by (he’s inherited plenty of money), but he’s deluded, lonely, misunderstood, and in some cases blatantly taken advantage of. His noble desire to help Best is laudable — though Peary weirdly ignores the fact that Best actually takes up a new lesbian lover (Sarah Walker) who seems equally interested in rescuing (and seducing) her.

Peary does point out that “since this film is about a lover of beauty, it’s only fitting that Cox’s film is beautiful to look at and has a sumptuous classical score to listen to,” and I agree with this; the sets, cinematography, and score are noteworthy.

On a personal note, I recall watching this film years ago in an evening class on Australian Cinema. Our instructor insisted on replaying the final, slow-moving, enigmatic shot — of Kaye on the beach, surrounded by other figures and birds — for a second time:

… and I remember feeling like this was cruel and unusual punishment at the end of a long day.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Atmospheric sets and cinematography

Must See?
No, though anyone interested in Australian cinema will certainly want to give it a watch.

Links:

Last Detail, The (1973)

Last Detail, The (1973)

“This ain’t no farewell party and he ain’t retiring, understand? He’s a prisoner, and we’re takin’ him to the jailhouse.”

Synopsis:
When two lifelong Navy men — Buddusky (Jack Nicholson) and Mulhall (Otis Young) — are asked to accompany a young sailor (Randy Quaid) to a naval prison in Maine, they find themselves trying to give him a few memorable experiences along the way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carol Kane Films
  • Coming-of-Age
  • Hal Ashby Films
  • Jack Nicholson Films
  • Michael Moriarty Films
  • Military
  • Nancy Allen Films
  • Prisoners
  • Randy Quaid Films
  • Road Trip
  • Sailors

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this tale about “career sailors” who see that Quaid (a kleptomaniac) is “a nice guy” — and “decide to give him his first sample of life before he’s put away” — represents the “sad, naïve young sailor’s rite of passage” and “results in the return of humanity to the two cynical sailors.”

He notes that “during the entire film you can sense that as the three men learn about life, an explosion is building” — and you definitely find yourself wondering what (if anything) will happen during the final tense moments. Peary points out that this “film is known for its rhythmic, realistic, salty, wryly written dialogue by Robert Towne” and “a great, swaggering, angry, rebel-without-a-cause performance by Nicholson (as ‘Badass’ Buddusky).”

Indeed, Nicholson’s Oscar-nominated performance is among his best. Meanwhile, Peary notes that “Quaid is quite touching”:

… and points out there are “small parts” by Michael Moriarty:

… Carol Kane (“memorable as a prostitute”):

… Nancy Allen:

… and Gilda Radner.

Towne’s Oscar-nominated script — based on a 1970 novel of the same name by Darryl Ponicsan — is leisurely yet incisive, offering us seemingly realistic glimpses into what such an unconventional road trip might look and feel like. We watch young Quaid as “he drinks, visits a prostitute, is in a brawl, [and] has adventures”:

… and we are confident that his life has been changed for the better by spending time with Nicholson and Young, despite the bleak trajectory of his next few years.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jack Nicholson as Buddusky
  • Randy Quaid as Meadows
  • Michael Chapman’s cinematography
  • Robert Towne’s screenplay

Must See?
Yes, for Nicholson’s performance.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

48 Hrs. (1982)

48 Hrs. (1982)

“We ain’t brothers, we ain’t partners, and we ain’t friends.”

Synopsis:
A white cop (Nick Nolte) joins forces with a black prisoner (Eddie Murphy) on a 48-hour pass to help hunt down a sadistic criminal (James Remar) who has escaped from a chain gang.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Eddie Murphy Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Nick Nolte Films
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Search
  • Walter Hill Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this film about a “racist San Francisco detective [who] springs black thief-conman Eddie Murphy” (in “his debut”) “from prison for 48 hours to help track down Murphy’s former partner” is almost as if Rod Steiger and Sidney Poitier from In the Heat of the Night became partners without resolving their differences or hiding their hatred for one another.” He points out that “their ‘hip’ verbal battles are continuous (and eventually annoying) and they even come to blows” — but “of course, since they are both misfits with singular talents, they come to respect one another.”

He notes that while “brawny Nolte and skinny Murphy work well together,” “Roger Spottiswoode’s dialogue is too calculated for audience response [and] laughter.” He argues that the film’s “best sequences are those with violence and action.”

This “mismatched buddy cop” flick is notable as one of the first of its kind (or at least the title that seriously sparked the subgenre), and it’s held up reasonably well despite its flaws. Hill’s direction is confident as always, and good use is made of location shooting in San Francisco (and Los Angeles).

While it’s not must-see viewing, this remains worth a look for its historical significance as Murphy’s breakthrough cinematic role.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Eddie Murphy as Reggie Hammond
  • Nick Nolte as Jack Cates
  • James Remar as Albert Ganz
  • Ric Waite’s cinematography
  • James Horner’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for its status as an ’80s buddy-cop classic.

Links: