I can think of no movie prior to with such intense stakeouts and police chases. They probably exist, but I do not know them. Welcome to the modern police film. Hackman was great, fighting his own problems while becoming obsessed with the drug case he was working: going off of wild hunches and even dismantling a car down to the bolts to find drugs everyone else thinks are nowhere to be found.
Roy Scheider, who I know primarily from "Jaws", plays the straight man partner. No boozing or women for him, but a friendship that helps carry out the will of Hackman. The best part of this film is without a doubt the car chase scene, where a police car chases a train. Breezing through intersections and smashing through walls, this scene is incredibly intense.
I think Dirty Harry took a few lessons from this chase. Allegedly one of the crashes is completely real the car hit was not driven by an actor which only gives this scene even more credit. This is a film for those who like the classics, car chases, drug busts and Gene Hackman. No doubt you've heard of the famous chase scene. Well you have to see it to believe it.
Needless to say, this pretty much paved the way for William Friedkin directing "The Exorcist", although since then, his career has faltered. As Det. A real classic in every sense of the word.
The first time I saw this I almost ignored it because I fell asleep somewhere, but I'm glad I gave it a second chance. There was no way I was going ignore a film from The Exorcist director William Friedkin, especially as this was the film that won him the Best Director Oscar. Anyway, it is all about Det. Doyle knows quite a lot about the criminal world, and his work buddy Det.
I cannot remember all that much besides some chase sequences with the main villain, and the highlight of Doyle chasing the hit-man on the train. Very good! This is one of those "gritty" s films that may have been well-filmed, acted, directed and received by critic and the public alike I saw it at the theater, on TV and even bought the VHS tape, but no matter format I couldn't get involved with the story.
I like crime movies, too. Sorry, but I like to have someone to root for. In this movies, the two main cops Hackman and Scheider are crude, profane low-life people and the rest of the characters are French or American drug dealers. I did find the surveillance work of "Popeye Doyle" Hackman and "Buddy Russo" Scheider interesting to watch and famous car chase scene is nothing spectacular nowadays. Yes, it was great in - but there haven been a number of better ones since. Heck, "Ronin" features two alone that are much better than anything in here.
And, I am not thrilled at hearing the Lord's name used vain as often at it is in this movie. This is another icon of the decade I call "The Sleazy Seventies. Exciting, well acted, derivative rmax 18 January As several others have pointed out, this plot has a lot of big and small holes in it. I defy anyone to take apart a Behemoth Town Car, ripping it to shreds in the process, and then put it together again in such a way that no one notices it's been tampered with -- and all in four hours.
I don't mind not finding out what happened to Frog One, but can't help being curious about how he managed to escape from a small island in the East River that is accessible only by one or two bridges and is entirely surrounded by police. And why did they carry off a million dollars in high-grade heroin in an attache case while hiding the loot in the rocker panels of a wrecked car? What happened to it all, by the way? Wasn't the skag later stolen from the police evidence room?
Why, aboard the rocketing el, do we encounter another one of those schmucks, this time as a conductor, who is faced with a gun-wielding major maniac and says things like, "Come on.
You'll never get away with this. Give me the gun," and the conductor must then advance on the armed man after repeated warnings until he gets what any moron could have avoided just by keeping his mouth shut and doing what he was told?
I have a problem too with the obvious ripoffs in the movie. The chase was done better, and earlier, in "Bullitt," choreographed by D'Antoni, just as it was here. And then there's the set of tags at the end, lifted from the ironic conclusion of Costa-Gavras' "Z".
I despised "Z" as obvious and low-brow propaganda, even though it reflected my own prejudgements. Marcel Bozzuffi lends his presence to both films as a murderous thug. Costa-Gavras, not satisfied with that, made him a homosexual too. All that was missing was the kyphosis that would have turned him into Richard III. That said, there are some first-rate things going on here. One is the acting.
Both Hackman and Scheider are extremely good. What craftsmen they are. Fernando Rey is good in whatever he appears in, and in whatever language. As a Frenchman here, he speaks English with a Spanish accent! They are after all smaller parts. The story itself generates scads of tension and is well told, despite the holes. Simply taken as a loosely strung-together series of episodes it is gripping.
That hellish night-time street down by Pier One. Finally, all the contrived action aside, there's a marvelous theme running through this movie: the juxtaposition of the wealthy and the poor in New York.
The scene in which Popeye and Cloudy stomp their feet on an iron grating and eat slices of pizza in the doorway of a shoe repair shop, while across the street the two heavies dine on tournedos and clap their hands with delight over the dessert tray.
They're only perhaps 60 feet apart but they might as well be on separate planets. Popeye's wreck of a standard typical apartment contrasted with Joel Weinstock's Hollywoodish set in the hotel.
Sal Boco leaving the fancy nightclub in his fashionably fitted blackglama overcoat and neat car, driving to the dumpy hero shop he runs with his wife in Brooklyn, carrying bundles of newspapers in from the trunk of the other car he owns, a jalopy. Is it worth watching? Without question. It's an exciting genre piece. Is it well done?
Yes, in the sense that Friedkin's "The Excorcist" is well done. Or "Halloween" for that matter. It doesn't make sense perhaps but it's a nice journeyman piece of work.
Tweekums 16 February While narcotics detectives Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle and his partner Buddy 'Cloudy' Russo are out in a New York bar they observe some suspicious characters and decide to follow one of them, Sal Boca. They are convinced that he is up to nothing good and start a proper investigation. When he gets to New York he is quickly spotted and tailed by Popeye although it isn't long before he realises he is being followed.
This film is rightly considered a classic; the central drama is exciting and the characters are interesting. The City of New York is effectively a character as well; this isn't a bright shining New York but a run-down city with streets strewn with litter and a general feeling of decay; all of which contributes to a great atmosphere. Fans of a good car chase should be pleased as this includes a classic as Popeye chases a train; it isn't a particularly high speed chase but the crowded streets give it a realism and intensity one doesn't often get.
There is some violence and strong language but this isn't particularly excessive; at least by today's standards. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to any fans of the genre. The time is just right for an out and out thriller like this.
When "Popeye" cuts loose, anything goes! Doyle is bad news - but a good cop. There are no rules and no holds barred when Popeye cuts loose! In this highly rated film there is noisy action , suspense , thrills , violence and being extremely entertaining. Gene Hackman as the rebel and non-conformist Popeye is magnificent , he won a deserved Academy Award. His nemesis , Fernando Rey as the drug smuggler , plays perfectly his role as the cunning and elegant villain. The movie contains one of the best car chases ever shot with another prize for the professional film editor Greenberg and one of the most gripping pursuits between Popeye Doyle and Alain Charnier.
Aproppiate and realistic cinematography by Owen Roizman , Friedkin's usual cameraman The Exorcist and adequate music score by Don Ellis. Interesting screenplay by Ernest Tidyman , an expert writer on thrillers and action movies Shaft.
Rating : Above average and well worth seeing , as it is an authentic classic movie. Hammering, combative, often confusing box-office giant from director William Friedkin, who won the Oscar for helming this adaptation of Robin Moore's nonfiction book set in New York City.
Detectives in the Narcotics Division, Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle Gene Hackman, also an Oscar winner and his partner, "Cloudy" Roy Scheider , shake down modern-day mobsters and a high-ranking lawyer involved in drug-smuggling operation. The grit is vivid and real--you can practically feel it on your fingertips. Friedkin is so in control of the camera, his kinetic energy becomes the movie's motor he's as much of a star in the picture as is Hackman. The prologue in Marseille--which is supposed to set up the story--is stagnant, however, and nobody in the picture is at all likable which of course was the idea: a new-fangled crime-drama wherein everybody and everything is scum.
Followed in by a sequel. Quinoa 29 August Although not the very best film of , The French Connection packs enough of a wallop to continue significance as a serious, but un-shamefully entertaining, thriller.
William Friedkin, the director, has said about the film that he wanted to "infuse the documentary style. This works for fascination on the technical side at the start, that all the edits in certain sequences chases and such, not the notorious one , and particularly how they're filmed by the two significant cameramen, Owen Roizman and Enrique Bravo the later the lighting cameramen.
There were other films, mostly in Europe, that were making movies like this, but there is also this implicit urgency that Friedkin is conveying here as well; it's gritty, sometimes in the action there's so many chances of spontaneity that it can practically do no harm.
But without going into detail about the specifics of the good in the style, one only has to look at the strengths in the story. Yet there is a purity in it all too, where the story is so focused upon there isn't too much time for deep character delving and such. This doesn't make a problem for the actors though, as the actors fit the type like pegs. Gene Hackman, in his first Oscar winning turn, is Popeye Doyle, a cop with recklessness and total professionalism as one of the two key cop roles the other, of course, Dirty Harry.
It may not be Hackman's best, or some might say it is whatever 'best' means , but it is one that compliments the film, essentially down the line and not un-willing to take prisoners.
Roy Scheider is also well cast as Hackman's partner, with enough to do during Hackman's 'big' scenes. The surprise success in casting is Fernando Rey of Bunuel's films, who is one of the convincing old-European elegant big-time drug dealing business man in all of the films that followed it. It's almost as if the same character from those Bunuel films wasn't in a surreal-mode. For some the parts may even be greater than the whole and they're practically on all highlights reels of clips from 70's films nowadays , and for others it may even prove more satisfying than it was for me.
This crime drama became a cult classic quickly. He is bold, brash, vulgar and seems to fear nothing. When he plays a hunch it is not always right, but eventful.
The tough-talking cop and his partner, and probably only real friend, Buddy Russo Roy Scheider are on to an international smuggling ring that actually begins in France. Doyle is like a bulldog on a bone, relentless in his pursuit of each and every suspect.
One of my favorite scenes is when Doyle is tossing out a lousy cup of coffee as he watches a suspect in a fine restaurant drinking high class coffee.
Gene Hackman and Roy Schneider star in this action drama thriller about the life of two New York City policemen that hunt down drug dealers based on the non-fiction novel written by Robin Moore entitled The French Connection. William Friedkin directed this 70's film that won five Academy Awards. He's got a hired killer and a right-hand man in Nicoli. New York City detectives, Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle and Buddy "Cloudy" Russo starts to do their investigation by putting a surveillance on Sal Boca and his wife,Angie,who are living extravagantly despite having a corner store that does not earn that much.
Both Popeye and Cloudy try to put a stop to these illegal acts to put a stop into the drug problem of New York. Despite the movie being more than 40 years since it was initially released, we get to see that the issue of narcotics remain a big problem in the country today.
The process of putting a stop to Charnier was definitely told with lots of gritty realism. Aside from that,we also get to see interesting characters who are the good guys of the film with a lot of character flaws. It was definitely unusual back in the 70's to see heroes like Popeye to be violent,racist and having a mean- spirit. Aside from that,it was definitely full of violent scenes that would still excite many viewers of today. And what about the ending? That was really something considering we see the drug kingpin escape from the detectives to the bitterness of Popeye.
No question that the performances of the film are worthy of an Academy Award especially Gene Hackman as Popeye and it deserves the Oscar for Best Picture in for the story was told in a fast-paced and the chase sequences were definitely explosive and full of suspense. A Brief Contrast dougdoepke 20 June I hope they paid Hackman triple. He's on the move the whole way, whether running, driving, or trailing. This is the iconic film that really put the move in the movies. In odd years of viewing, this may be the most kinetic slice of film I've seen.
Anyway, after so many reviews, there's no need to echo consensus points. Instead, just one brief note of historical comparison. All in all, I can't help noticing what a contrast this cop film is with those of the post- war 40's and 50's. Unlike the wholesome cops of that censorship era, Hackman's Popeye Doyle is often a menace to society. He cares only about nailing the drug deal, and if that means running over hapless civilians, so be it.
A nasty aspect of this driven behavior is whether it's that same trait that makes him an effective cop. He's certainly not one to punch a time clock. Then too, actor Hackman has that monomaniacal stare down pat that lends so much to his character.
I'm glad the screenplay doesn't shrink back from Doyle's final encounter with Mulderig Hickman. That warehouse episode shows the logical outcome of Doyle's obsession, and one that apparently goes unpunished, thereby reflecting on the Department as a whole.
Then too, there's the final disposition of Alain Rey , which never would have happened during the censorship regime. As we were taught then-- crime never, never pays. Also, cops during those Cold War years were portrayed almost universally as both ethical and professional. And if one strayed, there was some kind of comeuppance—not exactly the way the real world works. Classic spy movie. Gene wilders biggest role at the time.
Destined for bigger things. Theo Robertson 18 January But perhaps a little bit dated now This must have shocked audiences at the time. Anti hero cop Popeye Doyle doesn't bend rules because he doesn't understand the concept of rules , catching scumbags is all that matters and if that means beating information out of a small time scumbag so be it. Hackman is really intense in the role and you feel glad that Popeye decided to join the force instead of turning to crime himself.
A US size 8 in clothing, for example, is a French size For UK sizes, add 28 to your existing size to get the French size equivalent. French clothing is notoriously smaller, or tighter fitting, because the French woman is smaller than the American. For example, a Chanel French size 38 is equivalent to US size 8. If you wear a size 8, we would recommend that you also search US sizes 6 and 10 and also French sizes 36 and 40 …. Shipping Information. The higher the number the larger the diameter.
To determine the size of a urinary catheter, simply multiply the diameter length in millimeters by 3. For example, if the catheter has a diameter of 4.
0コメント