City Heat

This is one of the only times that Clint Eastwood & Burt Reynolds got together. The casting is with great imagination. It was actually made at a good time for both actors and the support cast is good. So what went wrong? Blake Edwards script for this one is just not as funny as other films he wrote. The situation seems contrived and this was a time when Eastwood was doing actions films. The action is just missing here. While Reynolds could do comedy, it seems that both actors didn't get to do in this movie what sold tickets for their fans.

When the movie ends, it just kind of ends in a stand off and you get the feeling like you needed an ending that just isn't here. It is fun seeing these two actors together in this film, but the script is the missing element. Richard Benjamin, a funny man directed, and I am surprised he didn't do better with it as he knows what good comedy is.

While the movie is fun, it is not funny enough. Blake Edwards saved better material for his Pink Panther movies I guess.

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.

It's 1933 and in Kansas City, we follow that of Detective Murphy, as his partner has just been killed by some big-heads and he finds himself caught up in the web he has left behind. While, this is going on Lieutenant Speer also investigates, but when the two collide, there are some fireworks, as they have a work history together. But they have to put their differences aside, if they are going to get the job done.

Should I call this a disappointment, because the effortlessly shallow material just doesn't go hand-to-hand with the talent that was involved. This parody / drama on noir and tough-guy images is no more than a vehicle for the two stars, who just seem to be slumming it out here. It's not a bad film, because it's well made, but the story doesn't entirely hit any strides, it changes direction between spoof and drama with mixed results and it can be quite tedious in spots. All the accolades though, would have to go to the delightfully smooth Burt Reynolds in the role as the charismatic, smart-guy detective Murphy. His presence definitely overshadows Eastwood. But the colourful banter and always at odds attitude between the two, makes it a fun pairing up to watch, as they work off each rather nicely. Clint Eastwood, plays the straight-faced, no-bull Lieutenant Speer with his usual approach and sly humour. They both get some highly witty, top-notch lines. The supporting cast are satisfactory with the likes of Rip Torn, Jane Alexander, Irene Cara, Richard Roundtree and Robert Davi dusting in with a skew of personalities. While, they're worth better material, they all do the best with what they're given to work with. The feel of the 1930's has an artificial air about it here, as clearly you can't escape the back-lot sets. But still it's professionally catered for with a pleasant blues score and a dour colour scheme crafted in to get that glum, wet atmospheric night build-up of Kansas City. The direction of Richard Benjamin is quite standard, but it has some neat photography techniques of the period and a few flashy impulses, like one fine and exciting late-night shoot-out in a deserted street.

Nothing much out of the ordinary and very forgettable, but only the fans of two stars should really bother with this one.

By most accounts, Clint Eastwood hijacked his long-awaited teaming with fellow superstar Burt Reynolds and the credits bear this out. After showing writer-director Blake Edwards the door, Eastwood recruited the more malleable Richard Benjamin to direct (in his autobiography, Reynolds said Benjamin was "terrified" of Eastwood), ordered Edwards' script be given a rewrite by Joseph Stinson whose only other credit was the previous year's Dirty Harry film, "Sudden Impact," brought in key players from his Malpaso crew (notably Fritz Manes as producer and Lennie Niehaus as composer), and even dumped Edwards' title, "Kansas City Jazz," in favor of the equally imaginative (I'm kidding) "City Heat."

Despite Dirty Harry's takeover, "City Heat" emerges as a showcase for Reynolds. He has the most screen time and the zippiest dialogue, but playing against a typically wooden Eastwood also heightens the opportunity for Reynolds to reap laughs with his more extroverted approach. The contrast between the two is very entertaining.

Critics were quick to dismiss this Christmas 1984 release as a bomb which it certainly appeared to be beside the Eddie Murphy blockbuster, "Beverly Hills Cop," in release at the same time. It is disappointing (Edwards would likely have given it more class), but by no means a dud. It breezes along at a comfortable pace, mixes its laughs evenly with action, and should make for a satisfying indulgence for fans of the two stars.

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.