Opiniones de usuarios

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.

In 1978, Eastwood and Reynolds appeared together on the cover of Time as the reigning male superstars. If "City Heat" had been made that year, it would have been a superblockbuster.

But by 1984, Reynolds' career was already declining (too many insipid "Cannonball Run" movies.) Eastwood -- who after "Dirty Harry" never worked with major co-stars -- may have finally said "yes" to co-starring with Reynolds because he was clearly the bigger star in 1984. But even Eastwood was starting to age.

All the problems others have related here are true, plus one more: Reynolds was hit in the face by a stunt man with a real chair while filming the opening diner fight scene. Reynolds' jaw was broken and he had a severe medical condition causing pain, headaches, and dizzyness. Reynolds was a trouper and finished the movie (he is quite funny in it), but one of the reasons the movie is so short and incoherent is that the injured Reynolds couldn't work very long in the film (notice: in the final fight, "Reynolds" is wearing a wolf mask -- because that's not Reynolds.)

"City Heat" opened at Xmas against "Beverly Hills Cop" and new star Eddie Murphy cleaned the clocks of old stars Eastwood and Reynolds . Reynolds would never be a top star again. Adding insult to injury, the ad tag line "The Heat is On!" first used by "City Heat" was shifted to "Beverly Hills Cop" when "City Heat" disappeared from theaters.

It's too bad, really. Once upon a time, Eastwood and Reynolds were both co-equal major superstars, and it would have been exciting to see them paired together. The opening diner scene and a few later exchanges give us a tantalizing glimpse of how good "City Heat" could have been had it not be jinxed from the start.

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.

I can't talk about this movie without discussing it's troubled production.

Blake Edwards originally wrote the script in the 1970's. When his wife Julie Andrews read it, she thought it was the best thing he'd done and urged him to make it. He gave it to Taxi actress Marilu Henner (who he had just worked with on the Burt Reynolds movie The Man Who Loved Women) She read it and told him she loved the script, but didn't want the part he wanted for her, but that of the secretary. Edwards rewrote the script (making the secretary's role bigger) she was in. Edwards the gave it to Burt Reynolds who loved it, and immediately saw Clint in the 'minor cop role' and asked Edwards to rewrite it again. Clint liked it, but asked for another rewrite, he liked the new script, and all was good.

Blake wanted Julie Andrews (Burts co star in The Man Who Loved Women) cast in the role of Burts girlfriend, Clint wanted Sondra Locke. Edwards also wanted Kim Basinger (another from The Man Who Loved Women) The studio said nobody who had starred with Clint or Burt in a previous movie, could be hired.

The next day, Burt was told Eastwood wanted Edwards off the picture. During this time Edwards last movie tanked and Clint's went through the roof. The studio were siding with the red hot Clint. With Edwards gone, Clint was in control. He ordered yet another rewrite, this time from Jospeh Stinson (whose only other writing credit was Sudden Impact) he brought in Malpaso regulars Lennie Niehaus and producer Fritz Manes too.

When this was first discussed in 1983, it seemed like a good idea for Clint to star with Reynolds. Reynolds had just spent 5 straight years as the number 1 movie star in the world (78-82) and Since the turn of the decade he had a movie in the Top 10 Highest grossers of the year, whilst Clint only had 1, but by the time it was released Reynolds had 3 flops in a row, whilst Clint had a huge hit with Sudden Impact. Suddenly it seemed like it was wise of Burt to star with Clint.

Sadly Reynolds suffered a serious accident on the first nights shooting and had his jaw broken when he was hit in the face with a metal chair (instead of a breakaway chair made of balsa wood) while filming the fight scene in the cafe. Not wanting to shut production down, Reynolds decided to try and power through! He survived on a liquid diet and popping A LOT of pills, he says it was about 50 a day (this led to Reynolds becoming addicted to painkillers) and lost over thirty pounds by the time the film wrapped (leading to rumours he had AIDS) This accident had dire consequences for Reynolds career, which he would never recover from.

Plot In A Paragraph: A slick private eye (Reynolds) and tough police lieutenant (Eastwood) once best friends and partners, now bitter rivals reluctantly team up to investigate a murder.

I love the opening of this movie, in the first of several neat period touches, City Heat opens with a black and white version of Warner Bros famous WB logo, this immediately sets the right feel for the era.

City Heat's opening credits appear in an old time Broadway style font. The credits appear in white, The movies name in red neon lights. We are immediately presented with a classic crime 30's movie scene, rain falls hard on a dark cobbled street, whilst a hotel advertises vacant rooms with a neon sign. Lieutenant Speer like so many Eastwood characters, is first scene in silhouette, emerging from under a street light heading for the warmth and of a nearby cafe.

It's in the cafe that we meet Eastwood and Reynolds characters. Eastwood doesn't move unless he has to, and speaks volumes whilst hardly uttering a word. Reynolds on on the other hand is a motormouth who hardly stands still. This scene is a joy, it has banter between its leads, laughs and a fight. Reynolds is fighting two goons, and Clint refuses to help, despite Reynolds pleas. That is until one of the goons bumps into Clint and spills his coffee. At which point he gets a psychotic twitch in his eye, and he helps Reynolds out.

Then from the eight minutes onwards it's all downhill for the remaining hour and 29 minutes. OK that is a little harsh as it does have its moments now and again. It moved along at a comfortable pace, it's action is well done, and it's not without its amusing moments (like when they are trying to out do each other with the bigger guns) and witty one liners. If you are a fan of either actor, there is something to enjoy over it's short run time. (One of the shortest of Eastwood's career)

I believe if the movie had been as good as the first 8 minutes it would have been a classic, however it's script is uneven, it tries to incorporate too many subplots, and some of the dialogue is painful and unfunny.

Reynolds blames himself for the movies poor performance, which I think is a bit harsh, as he was sick, so it's a miracle the movie got finished at all!! "It should have been Dirty Harry V's my cop from Sharky's Machine, instead it was Dirty Harry V's A Wimp! I just didn't have it in me, and it will always be one of my biggest regrets of my career" City Heat grossed $38 million at the domestic box office, to end 1984 the 28th highest grossing movie of the year.

After 1984, Reynolds would not work again for two years.

It's 1930s Kansas City. Private investigator Mike Murphy (Burt Reynolds) loses his partner who is brutally murdered after trying to blackmail a mobster with his secret accounting records. When a rival gang boss goes after the missing records, he is forced to team up with his ex-partner cop Lieutenant Speer (Clint Eastwood) to fight both gangs before KC erupts in a mob war.

From a Blake Edwards story, this takes place when both Burt Reynold and Clint Eastwood was hitting a slow patch after being red hot. Clint would recover, but Burt never did. With the people involved, you would think this could be something incredible. But there is nothing but disappointment. Burt is playing his usual self, smirking thru his fight. Clint has no chemistry with Burt. The style is too stiff and weak. It has none of the grittiness required. It looks completely fake. Worst of all, it moves at a snails pace, dragging its feet. The dialog is stilted. There is no jokes, at least none that worked. In fact, none of it really worked.

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.

The opening is fun, bit its a little closer to The Naked Gun than The Big Sleep. In other words, closer to spoof than fun noir. But then they're not prepared to stick with it. There is nothing spoof about the rest of the script, its just a straightforward hardboiled noir imitation.

So this movie does two incompetent things: directly appropriates plot elements and scenes from previous and better noirs, and performs them in a way that isn't spoof enough to laugh, and isn't serious enough to be taken seriously.

You can tell this is right by watching the two leads. There's supposed to be a contrast between them, but not one so strong that they both think they're in different genres. If you just watch a one-shot of Reynolds, you can tell he thinks this is The Naked Gun, but if you just watch a one-shot of Eastwood, seems he thinks this is Dirty Harry.

But, in simple terms, the main problem with City Heat is its just plain uninteresting.

The weight of expectation for City Heat was massive, two iconic Hollywood actors together in a buddy buddy cop movie, one with nods and homages to film noir and old school gangster movies, it wasn't unreasonable to expect a movie to sit with the best on Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynold's then CV's circa 1984. Unfortunately it's no masterpiece or close to being in the upper echelon's of each actor's respective works. But that doesn't make it a bad film.

A change of director saw Blake Edwards replaced by Richard Benjamin after Eastwood and Edwards, ahem, couldn't see eye to eye, so that immediately put the film on the back foot in many critic's eyes. Ironically Benjamin does OK - working from Edwards' script (there's a whole bunch of back stories and tittle-tattle assigned to this film if you care to search for it). Lots of fun here, though, as Clint and Burt, one a cop, the other an ex-cop turned PI, reluctantly team up to cut a swathe through the gangsters ruling the roost in prohibition era Kansas City.

Eastwood does his straight backed machismo act, throwing awesome punches along the way, while Reynolds is wonderfully cheerful as a tough guy who all things considered, would rather not get hurt! The script is full of zingers, delivered with customary sardonic self parody by the stars, while the roll call of supporting actors is not to be sniffed at. Period detail is high end, with Nick McLean's photography carrying the requisite neo-noir impact, while the music tracking is pleasingly nostalgic.

It's over the top of course and needlessly convoluted as per its yearning to be noirish, yet if you can cut back your expectation levels? And you can simply enjoy the sight of Eastwood and Reynolds having fun romping in this period? Then you just might enjoy this more than you dared to believe. 7/10

I didn't find this movie all that bad. It is merely mediocre. Unfortunately there is nothing in this movie that we haven't seen dozens of times before. Burt is sophomoric and Clint is stereotypical Clint. Good TV movie but not really worth renting unless you have seen everything else.

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.

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.

There's no excuse for this movie being as bad as it is. Given the talent involved, absolute minimal effort would have made it a memorable film, significant effort would probably have pushed it to the level of classic. However, Clint Eastwood is as wooden as ever, he's unlikeable, unbelievable and forgettable in this. Burt Reynolds seems desperately grasping in every scene for a funny moment and finds none. They have zero chemistry with each other, nor do they have any real chemistry with the the rest of the characters, which despite being well cast are also all one-dimensional and uninteresting. The story is poorly slapped together, boring and simply doesn't work. The production value is actually good but the story and execution are crap. It's seems as if all the effort went into preproduction and the filming was an after thought. They had to have really gone out of their way to sabotage this thing, but apparently they did. It's crap.

This doesn't deserve all the hate it gets.If the finished film doesn't quite come together as it should,it comes down to the fact that the shooting was a troubled production.Two actresses quitting their roles,a director been replaced and Burt Reynolds suffering an injury that caused him to become addicted to painkillers and becoming increasingly difficult to work with,and forcing Clint Eastwood to handle a lot of the tension amongst the cast and director.Bearing all that in mind,this is still far from been the worst of it's kind.

Set in the 30's,former police partners Eastwood and Reynolds are caught in the crossfire between two rival gangs when Reynolds' sidekick Richard Roundtree (Shaft)tries to con the local Mr.Big.The plot is a little confusing at first but by the halfway point everything makes sense and sets up the film's action-packed second half.

There's plenty to enjoy here.Eastwood and Reynolds' banter (despite his difficulties during,Reynolds still does quite well)the settings,and the shootouts.One of the best things about the shootouts is the lack of intrusive music on the soundtrack which for me ruins a lot of movies.

This is a surprisingly pleasing combination of comedy and film noir thriller,with Eastwood in particular sending up his own macho image at every opportunity.

"City Heat" is a movie that should have been something special. When made back in 1984, it seemed like a great idea of having two of Hollywood's biggest moneymaking actors back then (Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds) starring together in an action/comedy that takes place during the 1930s. But something went wrong early on during the production. Blake Edwards wrote the script and was slated to direct. But Edwards walked off this movie to direct Dudley Moore in "Micki + Maude", and former actor Richard Benjamin came on to take over the directing duties. BIG MISTAKE!!! Even though Edwards still got screenplay credit (under the pseudonym Sam O. Brown), changes were made in the script, and "City Heat" ended up a mess. What a shame! I can still remember Chicago film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert blasting this movie when it came out. Ebert gave it 1/2*, and Siskel gave it no stars. The movie opened back in early December 1984, and two other big movies opened that same week (Eddie Murphy's "Beverly Hills Cop" and the "2001" sequel "2010"). Back then when Siskel and Ebert were doing their movie review show "At the Movies" (this was before their show went nationwide as "Siskel & Ebert"), they would have a skunk on the show to talk about the stinker of the week honoring the worst movie that they reviewed that week. "City Heat" won the honor over "Beverly Hills Cop" and "2010" as the stinker of the week. That's major criticism considering the presence of two big superstars. Now I didn't think "City Heat" was that bad, but it's bad. To me this was a big disappointment. Eastwood plays a cop; Reynolds a private eye. Former partners who now don't get along, they're forced to team up to erase crime from the streets of 1930s Kansas City. Eastwood and Reynolds come off O.K. as this odd couple of crimebusters, but they should have been better. At least they come off better than they're supporting cast. The supporting actors (from Jane Alexander to Madeline Kahn to Irene Cara to Rip Torn) are all wasted, not making much of an impression. Another thing that bothered me about "City Heat" is that it has a phony feeling throughout. It feels like this movie was shot on a movie set instead of real outdoor scenery. That makes the movie unrealistic. Plus, the fight scenes and all the glass breakage is totally laughable. I laughed every time I heard glass breaking during the fight scenes. "City Heat" is an asinine crime comedy that I think would have worked if Edwards had directed it. Roger Ebert made a memorable take on "City Heat" saying quote: "Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds are stuck in one of the biggest bombs of the year, an incomprehensible mess disguised as a period gangster picture". It's a mess alright. Though my rating is a little higher than Ebert's because I felt that some of the action scenes have punch. But that's not saying much. "City Heat" was so bad to most people that this was the first and last time Eastwood and Reynolds starred in a movie together. Blake Edwards had a good movie on his hands, but Richard Benjamin came on to mess it up.

*1/2 (out of four)

"City Heat" pairs two macho screen icons, Clint "Dirty Harry" Eastwood and Burt "The Bandit" Reynolds, in an average cops & gangsters saga set in 1933 Kansas City. Clint is ultra-straight police lieutenant Speer, Burt is wisecracking gumshoe Mike Murphy. They were friends when they were both on the force, but now they're often at odds with each other (exactly why there was a falling out, we never really learn). They must work together when Mikes' partner Dehl Swift (Richard "Shaft" Roundtree) buys a whole lot of trouble by getting mixed up with competing gangsters Primo Pitt (Rip Torn) and Leon Coll (Tony Lo Bianco), and a stolen set of ledgers.

There are some interesting behind-the-scenes stories that are, in truth, more amusing than the tale being spun in the movie. Apparently, this was originally going to be directed by Blake Edwards, but Clint gave him the boot, ultimately settling on actor-turned-filmmaker Richard Benjamin as a replacement, and brought on a number of his cohorts, including producer Fritz Manes and composer Lennie Niehaus. And Burt got hurt badly during the opening fight set piece; like a trouper, he finished the picture, but could never work for long, and unfortunately suffered some lasting effects from his injuries.

The stars are in fine form, as they banter back and forth. Burt definitely has the funnier role and makes the most of it; he's charming as usual. And they're wonderfully supported by Roundtree, songstress Irene Cara, Torn, Lo Bianco, and a typically amusing Madeline Kahn. Lots of familiar faces in small roles, too: William Sanderson, Nicholas Worth, Robert Davi, John Hancock, Jack Thibeau, Gerald S. O'Loughlin, Art La Fleur, Jack Nance, Harry Caesar, Hamilton Camp, Arthur Malet, Beau Starr, Richard Foronjy, and Joan Shawlee. But it's a lot of acting talent wasted on what is really just a so-so script. It has some pretty funny humour, but is often played fairly straight, with a lot of gunfire and a few explosions along the way.

During the Christmas season of 1984, "Beverly Hills Cop" ended up kicking this movies' ass at the box office, and almost 34 years later, this movie still doesn't have a LOT to recommend it. But it's zippy enough, and reasonably well paced, with some decent period recreation and a nice jazzy score by Niehaus. Thanks to this cast, it certainly remains watchable.

Six out of 10.

"City Heat" was released a week before "The Cotton Club" in December, 1984. It's basically a farce version of that film, set in Kansas City. You would think that with Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood this would be a solid gangster comedy, if not great, but you'd be wrong.

The opening scene where Reynolds gets in a brawl in a diner while Eastwood coolly sits nearby keys off that "City Heat" is not meant to be taken seriously; in fact, it's downright goofy. It's not a good start and the film never recovers.

The movie's only 93 minutes long, but it seems a lot longer. Something about it doesn't click. The characters are cartoons so it's next to impossible to care about them. The problem isn't Reynolds or Eastwood, as they have their usual charisma. The problem is the farcical nature of the material and the convoluted plot.

Still, it's amusing at times so it's mildly worthwhile if you're a fan of the stars, just don't expect anything all that good.

GRADE: D+ or C-

After Burt Reynolds died recently, I looked for many of his films online, including this one which was released 34 years ago and turned out to be the only teaming of Burt and Clint Eastwood during the time they were the two biggest box office stars in the country. I remember reviews of the time not liking this movie as well as the tallies of it being a disappointment financially. Now that I've seen the whole thing, well, it's quite entertaining and I like both Reynolds and Eastwood and many of the supporting cast. Knowing Blake Edwards was the co-writer and the original director but had to leave because of friction with one of the stars was also intriguing to me. He usually did slapstick comedy and some of that shows in a few of the fight scenes but when shooting's involved, those scenes tend to be more dramatic. Character actor Richard Benjamin eventually replaced Edwards and did admirably with the job while Blake changed his name on the screenplay to "Sam O. Brown". I also liked Richard Roundtree, Jane Alexander, Madeline Kahn, and Irene Cara who was fine singing the two standards she performed here. I think I can understand why critics weren't too enthused about this picture and why the public weren't either but to tell the truth, I really enjoyed City Heat.

The title is a little bit strange considering that most of the scenes were filmed at night and there's not enough scenes involving fire or explosions. But it is a very underrated action-comedy film where two opposites policeman have to join forces to combat killers and gangsters. Sounds like "Rush Hour" and "Lethal Weapon" and it is quite similar in its humor but "City Heat" story happens in the 1930's.

Detectives Speer (Clint Eastwood) and Mike Murphy (Burt Reynolds) were very good friends but the lack of discipline and a certain involvement with bad companies from the part of Murphy made these two guys not get along very well. Relax, this is not a so serious movie, their fights are quite funny. If Mike is getting beat up by tough guys and he asks for help Speer won't help except if one of these guys spill his drink. But they need each other again when one of Mike's business partner (Richard Roundtree) is killed after doing a risky business betraying his former associate. In the middle of all this there's plenty of mob godfathers (played by Tony LoBianco and Rip Torn) looking for something that Mike's partner hide.

The whole plot is confusing and there's not enough space for incredible action scenes but at least writer Blake Edwards made a very funny movie. Not only the fights between Eastwood and Reynolds are good but it was included funny female characters too. Jane Alexander plays Addy the smart and lovable Mike's secretary and Speer's love interest; and Madeline Kahn plays Mike's love interest, a very rich woman. The problem with the villains is that they're not scary or funny, they just know how to disturb the peace of the main characters. Some of the shooting scenes and fight scenes are very absurd. A long shooting on the street with no one hitting no one, these guys needed a good training before being contracted by the mafia. Clint appears and shoot everybody. There's a fight scene in the beginning with Burt and two other guys, many punches in the face and no one is hurt, no blood appears, nothing. That was kind of lousy to see.

Nothing original to see but it worths to see anyway. Reynolds and Eastwood were good partners in this film and a sequel could be good but unfortunately this wasn't a hit back in the 1980's. It's not as bad as critics and some people say, it has many funny moments (Eastwood is so serious that it's actually funny, he has great punchlines here), and the art direction is very careful and well made. 9/10

In 1984, Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood were two of the biggest box office draws in Hollywood. So, teaming them in "City Heat" seems like a no brainer...a sure fire hit. However, inexplicably, the film isn't particularly good and I would go so far as to say it is a pretty full picture overall...which is odd for a gangster movie.

Mike Murphy (Reynolds) is a private eye who used to be a cop. His partner is foolish...and tries to blackmail some gangsters. Not surprisingly, he's soon killed and these same folks think Murphy knows about the blackmail...and decide to kill him. However, he is totally in the dark on all this and just wants to be left alone. At the same time, a tough but laconic cop, Lt. Speer (Eastwood) just happens to be hanging out and eventually gets involved as well.

The biggest problem with the film is the lack of chemistry between Eastwood and Reynolds. Instead of teaming them up at the start, they don't start actually working together until late in the movie. Additionally, Reynolds' dialog is clichéd and Eastwood's is practically non-existent (zombie-like I might venture to say). It's crazy but halfway decent writing AND some sense of enthusiasm and fun by the two stars would have helped this one a lot! As it is, it's a film I'd only recommend to folks who love the two actors and simply watch anything and everything they made. Otherwise, it wouldn't be hard to do better.

By the way, the idea of a black and white man working together as partners is nice...but it's also a 1980s idea...something you simply wouldn't have found in the 1930s when this story is set. Also, the shootout scene is incredibly dumb. They were only standing about 50 feet apart and fired hundreds of shots...yet NO ONE is shot?! Huh?! A whole lotta effort but no connection...it sounds like the plot and characters as well.