Un flic et demi

Burt Reynolds has shown a subtle comic flair in films like "Sharky's Machine" and "Shamus" (or even in "Stick"), but his work here, in a broader kind of comedy, is joyless. The kid does show some spirit, but as a "buddy" team these two rarely click. The film was probably supposed, among other things, to satirize the most familiar cop-movie cliches, but it's one big cliche itself, and has a rather erratic tone. (*1/2)

Cute little black kid wants to be a policeman. The diminuitive star, Norman Golden III is out to steal your heart while it feels like like the film-makers have stolen your wallet in the process.

This comes about a decade too late after the trend of cuddly black "child" stars Gary Coleman and Webster, who were both in their late 30's during their heyday. (I've always thought that a great idea for a TV show would be something called "Shrunken Miniature Black Man" cause apparently that's the way America wants to see them.) Anyway, back to this film...

It's basically Burt Reynolds co-starring with his toupee and trying to look put-upon by Golden. In actuality, over the course of the 90 minutes, actor Reynolds spends a lot of his on-screen time sweating profusely. It's actually kind of creepy.

You people are crackpots, just insane with arrogance. This movie did what it intended. Golden's performance was incredible given his age. Not very funny, but witty and cute. Here's a clue people: Most 8 year olds over-act! And Burt--well, Burt is Burt, not even one dimensional...The only fault I can find is the Hollywood by the numbers script, which is plenty dreadful. That's what Hollywood does. You knew you were getting a kids movie, right?

When I saw this as a kid, I really liked it. So, for me, it did what it was supposed to--capture a child's imagination. Not an adults petulance.

Recommended for kids.

There's a whole host of movies that are so bad that they are worth watching purely for a laugh. There's even more that are not worth watching because they're boring as well as being bad.

And then there is this movie.

You know that feeling you get when a good friend of yours is embarrassing themselves in public? That's what watching this film is like -- and Burt Reynolds isn't a friend. It's just that this movie is so bad that he feels like one - the only thing recognizable and close to normal that you can clutch at desperately as you're riding this movie as it swirls around the bowl...

What's wrong with this film? In short: everything. A horrible conglomerate of ill-conceived and irresponsible ideas. I can just see the plot being sketched out:

"Let's have this kid witness a crime!" "Won't that be a bit scary?" "Ok then, we'll have the killer sing a song before he does it." "Yeah, and his dumb goons have got to like it even though it's bad." "Ok, but only if we can show someone getting kicked in the nuts a few times..."

I want these 97 minutes of my life back. No, I want them back, plus interest. The advent of DVD commentary tracks allow directors to walk viewers through their films. Perhaps the reverse should apply: directors of films like this should be forced to sit through a screening of their film while it's ridiculed by even the most amateur of film critics.

Until he died, Gene Siskel kept making fun of Roger Ebert for giving this movie a positive review. That's certainly more funny than anything in this movie! A short but to the point review: UNFUNNY! Not one laugh! Yes, Reynolds needed the money, but surely he could have found something of better quality - couldn't he? Cliched, blandly directed, sweet to the point of giving diabetes! UGH!