सिटी हीट

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.

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.

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.