Blue Jeans 1920

adopted from the novel, this movie is one of the best movies EVER! christopher knight plays the misguided teen through a tough life in chicago. i saw this movie to see frank gorshin in his early career and i've never regretted it! the story really makes you think and if you're looking for good actors this is the movie to see! the cast was really in tune with their characters which made the movie really real. a superb film with an excellent cast and a great story!

Before seeing STUDS LONIGAN I looked the reviews for it and they are nearly all negative with the highest rated one that gives it a 6 (same thing it happened a month before with SHELTER ISLAND). But when I saw it last October I couldn't believe that I liked this movie more than any of the other seven reviewers. If you wanna know why, read the following text.

Studs Lonigan (Christopher Knight) is a young Irish-born youngster that tries to escape from the condition caused by the Great Depression along with his best friends Kenny Killarney (Frank Gorshin), Weary Reilly (Jack Nicholson) and Paulie Haggerty while also dating pretty Lucy Scanlon (the late Venetia Stevenson).

I guess that the reason why I liked it much more than the others it's probably because there are so many young men in the same condition of Studs, and I personally know some in real life. While personally I know that someday my life will change for good (I was still 24 when I saw this and now as I am writing this review well into my 25), at the moment I live in the same situation of Studs. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

The other reasons for which I'd recommend it are that it's one of Nicholson's early movies (and he made four in 1960 including his first leading role in THE WILD RIDE which was a dud) and the acting by all the others (Gorshin, Stevenson, Dick Foran, Jay C. Flippen and Jack Kruschen).

Overall, one of those movies maligned by many that found some dissenting voice that praises it. Who knows, maybe one day another one will have my same view on it.

I read the Studs Lonigan trilogy in the early Seventies and I was blown away by how James T. Farrell accurately described my own Irish-Catholic working-class background. I also saw the made-for-TV movie that was based on the novels when it came out in 1979. I didn't see the 1960 film until the late Eighties, and I had mixed feelings about it. I was surprised at how it had the feel of movies like REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE and the THE WILD ONE. I thought Christopher Knight was fine, if rather tormented as Studs, and Nicholson and Gorshin were fine as Weary Reilly and Kenny Kilarney. However, I wasn't wild about the happy ending of the movie. Studs Lonigan was suppose to die after living a pointless life. I also felt neither of the movie versions were able to effectively focus on the Dead End Kids or West Side Story aspect of Studs' south side of Chicago.

Uneasily straddling the ways of the old Hollywood and the coming openness of the late 60s and 1970s, Studs Lonigan is neither fish nor fowl and is simply hard to watch. The main attraction for contemporary audiences is the cast, but the most interesting aspect of the film is Haskell Wexler's cinematography. At times overly busy--his use of noirish angles gets annoying at times, and isn't aided by poor editing by Verna Fields--Wexler nonetheless leaves a great impression and hints at the great work to come in films like Bound For Glory. When he gets it right, the photography is simply stunning, channeling elements of the French New Wave and the outside-the-studio naturalism that was soon to be the norm. Unfortunately these moments only comprise about ten minutes of total screen time, the rest of the film consisting of a hackneyed tale of youth in revolt during the Roaring Twenties. Even Jack Nicholson and Frank Gorshin can't do much to render Philip Yordan' s screenplay particularly appetising.

The title role for this film went to Christopher Knight, which is surprising since this was his first role! In fact, after making this movie, he only played one more part in his very brief career. The story is a very low-budget combination of the three books by James T. Farrell...and combining all these stories into one film made for a very dull and disjointed...rather episodic picture. The problem also is that Studs was really not a criminal type...more a ne'er-do-well who never amounted to anything in this film set through the 1920s. Had he done more with is life, the film would clearly have worked better. But a film about a loser who never amounts to much...well, making it work is very difficult if not impossible.

The only reasons to watch the film is that it's free to watch on YouTube and you can see Jack Nicholson in a relatively bland part as one of Studs' friends. Not much fun watching this one...and I really wanted to like it much more than I actually did.