Fresh and Exciting

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Like the old saying goes, bigger is not always better. Apparently sticking two actors with the highest star power was not the best idea for City Heat. It's not a bad idea, but it's not a great one. There are SOME good moments in this movie but there is a lot missing. Because of this the bad outweighs the good by far, which can make this a frustrating film to watch. We know this much; Mike Murphy (Burt Reynolds) and Lieutenant Speer (Clint Eastwood) are acquaintances on some level. In what way - we're never really told. That's already one step in the wrong direction. If you're making a buddy cop movie, you have to give some kind of background of the main characters. Otherwise, the viewer will have no clue why the two characters are at odds half the time. Much of the time I was trying to figure out what Reynold's character was up to. Every time the screen shifted to Eastwood I finally caught up with what was happening. I'm not really sure how but that was one of the frustrating parts about this movie. It was like Reynold's was there only for fluff and laughs. I'll admit Reynold's did make me laugh at times but it was just for that specific moment. Clint Eastwood also has funny parts. Just like any Eastwood movie, he has his own way of doing things and he does that in this movie too. But these occurrences didn't really change my opinion of this movie; although I wish it had.To make things even more awkward was that this film barely had a soundtrack. I mean even the silliest of soundtracks sound better than nothing. There were times where I was watching action sequences in this movie where I only heard a "biff" or "baff" and an occasional gunshot. Music can change the whole feeling of a certain scene and without it I felt like I was watching anything very exciting. I was bored with it. Even when it comes to the most stupid action scenes in a movie, there was at least music to back it up. There was almost nothing here. I felt that there was nothing to be excited about. I was just watching a film with no emotion. That is really nerve racking for me. I need to feel something while watching a movie. City Heat just never took off for me and it is truly unfortunate. I was expecting a lot more.City Heat is just another buddy cop movie with no real life in its characters. The action scenes can be boring with no music in the background and its characters are short of laughs due to the sloppy screenplay.

City Heat (1984) 1/2 (out of 4) Horrendous film about a cop (Clint Eastwood) and private eye (Burt Reynolds) who are investigating the same case. Turns out a man (Richard Roundtree) was trying to blackmail some mob boys but soon he's dead and it's up to our two superstars to crack the case. If you ever need proof that superstars aren't as important as a good screenplay then here it is. Apparently Blake Edwards was set to direct this movie but got fired sometime during the filming as he couldn't agree with the two stars on what this film should be. Perhaps this is the reason the movie is such a mess but whatever the reason it's doubtful you'll see a worst movie with Eastwood. Sometimes when you go into a movie with low expectations you find yourself enjoying it on a few levels but that wasn't the case here. Everything in this movie is horrid but the biggest problem I had is that I could never figure out what the hell I was watching. At times the tone is so serious that you think you're watching an actual thriller. At other times the material is so over the top that you feel as if you're watching some type of spoof. With Eastwood and Reynolds you appear to be getting a buddy picture yet they're hardly on screen together and when they are it isn't for too long. This is a really confusing movie in terms of its tone but perhaps Edwards was going for the spoof, got fired and the replacement director went for something more serious. Whatever happened the final result is a complete disaster and without question a major embarrassment. There's no denying that Reynolds was making some poor selections here and this is yet another. He seems really out of place here and gives a rather awkward performance that never gets the laughs he's going for. You somewhat would expect him to pick out a bad screenplay but for the life of me I can't understand how Eastwood would get involved in something like this. This material is without question the worst I've seen from him and it's hard to believe he'd sign on for something like this. He sleepwalks through the entire film and can't give it a bit of energy. Jane Alexander, Madeline Kahn and Rip Torn are all bland as well and Roundtree doesn't get to do much before getting knocked off. The film takes place in the 30s so we get all the old fashioned cars and outfits and while this is pretty on the eyes there wasn't a single frame where I actually felt like we were in the 30s. It's hard to find any direction here as each scene is just off the wall and comes off looking extremely tired and there's no energy to be found anywhere. As horrid as this movie is at the same time it's almost easy to recommend just so people can see how badly a movie can be even with strong talent. This is the type of film that makes you scratch your head and wonder what they were thinking but I'd love to hear Eastwood try to put a spin on this.

@_At first, there was a script of one thriller comedy in the frame of the American gangster movies of the 1930s. And when it comes from a writer / director who has the good name of (Blake Edwards) then you have to expect a sweet comedy, a delicious cartoon feel, and some wicked parody too. But this script never saw the light fully, because the man quitted the project quickly, and after a while he changed his name on the credits to (Sam O. Brown) ??!! It is (Edwards)'s only time to do such a thing during a great career of more than 40 movies and TV shows he wrote ! &_(Clint Eastwood) was a big star at the moment. And he was chosen to co-star the movie with the era's other star, and maybe his competitor, (Burt Reynols). Though (Eastwood), who achieved some success since 1971 as a director, wanted to make this movie a something of his own; as if a Dirty Harry in the 1930s, with artsy melancholic sense. You read matters like how he forced the director to put his eyes always in shadows like it's a remake of The Third Man or something! Let alone that he insisted on the typical serious (Eastwood)'s image in a movie that maybe was designed to mock at this very image as a cold blooded, super violent, good guy. To understand the original spoof-driven nature of the movie, just look at the massive street fight where (Eastwood)'s character attacked the entire gang single-handedly to destroy all of them; it's the usual (Eastwood)'s action, however designed as a hurly-burly live-cartoon sketch. I bet, that was (Edwards)' idea, as one of his gifted extravaganzas, or what remained of it here anyway !Therefore when you observe the name of (Joseph Stinson), who wrote (Sudden Impact – 1983) the previous hit of (Eastwood), next to the name of the departed (Edwards), along with your feeling sometimes that (Eastwood)'s scenes seem so (Eastwood)'s; you'll easily understand that it's not quite a coincidence ! By the way, back then, this (Eastwood)'s slight narcissism was hardly noticed, but within no time, it would be more than tangible, especially when he wouldn't act unless in movies directed by him or – at least – directed by his friends like Buddy Van Horn who directed (The Dead Pool – 1988) and (Pink Cadillac – 1989) for him. So that kind of Eastwood by Eastwood condition, which would have him completely later, left its early bad effects on this poor movie !#_(Burt Reynolds) broke his jaw while he was shooting his first scene, the first scene of the movie also, then he got too many medicines along with painkillers, hence the lively star lost 20 KG in no time, and maybe they changed some parts in the script to handle that carefully. So if you doubted that the one who was moving in a wolf disguise was no (Reynolds), then you were probably right !Now we have 3 scripts, or 3 ways to make one movie, or 3 unfinished movies that must be all in one by director (Richard Benjamin). But actually : @ + & + # = *?%!%$%^%#{@! WAW!!, this could be unexpectedly the right formula of success, the secret code of a box office hit or another classic. However, it turned out to be a petty concurrent mishmash !The final result was, at best, one of the violent buddy-cop movies of the 1980s, yet running in the 1930s, and being less enjoyable than its likes. Despite some action comedy and little funny lines, the script looked so disassembled, Eastwood's comedy looked fabricated and tasteless, the time that the 2 stars shared on screen was less than 15 minutes, and then there was that scene where (Reynolds) was talking about the greatness and the difficulty of being a cop; like we're in a serious movie or wannabe one! Basically we didn't even know the reason why (Reynolds)'s character left the force and turned into detective !!I think that the movie's last line is the fairest review it can get : (You'll always be "shorty" to me) as it failed in fulfilling its main promise concerning 2 great icons in one hot action comedy, or making anything perfect anyway. It's simply a case of a movie with too short of everything !

I remember a lot of people, not just me, being disappointed in this film. With Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood in the starring roles, we all excepted a really entertaining, good movie. All the publicity made us even more anxious to see it. Well, it never lived up to the hype. I don't know anyone who left the theater satisfied when this was over.This points out an important fact: screen writing is more important than the cast. You can have two charismatic actors, as we have here who are big box-office draws, but if the script stinks the movie is going to be a flop. I don't blame Reynolds or Eastwood. They didn't write this story which is dismal, makes no sense in a few parts (disjointed) and simply is not entertaining. It's pretty hard to have two stars, a good premise, the 1930s as a backdrop, and still have a unlikeable movie! To be fair, part of the problem was the expectation. It obviously was too high for this film, which didn't deliver to meet everyone's high expectations. Maybe if you've never seen and keep your expectations low, you'll enjoy it. And - if for no other reason - it's still interesting to see those guys star in the same film.