Os Lordes de Flatbush

If you grew up in this time and place, or a reasonable facsimile, you will understand and appreciate this little gem of a movie. If you didn't, you won't.

Those of us that did will instantly recognize the time, place and character types portrayed here.

Its strong points are its accurate capture of the milieu and the characters. In that case, the lack of character development is a positive part of the characters themselves, not a shortcoming. We know at the outset that most of them are not going to be able to break out from who or what they are, and the ones that survive Viet Nam will end up back in the neighborhood or a transplanted version of it. Even when one character recognizes his limited prospects, we're not really sure that he is going to be able to do anything about it. That's what gives the story line, such as it is, its bite.

On the other hand, the meandering plot and the technical shortcomings keep this film from achieving all that it could have. If the plot had come up to the standards of the characters and the period accuracy, and if just a little more attention had been paid to technique, this would have been a classic.

As it is, it's not quite there. But despite its shortcomings, it deserves a place among others of its type.

The Fifties nostalgia craze started about 1971, and lasted all through the 70s, right into the early eighties, a whole decade of nostalgia devoted to half of a decade one decade previous! I thought it was insane at the time and still do, even though the nostalgic image reduced one of the most interesting decades in American history to irritating clichéd images of leather jackets. It hasn't really ended either, which is just as well, because no sane person could stand nostalgia for the 70s.

"Lords of Flatbush" might seem like just a cheap cash in on a fad, but it's actually very well written. It features minimalist dialogue and slice of life vignettes with very honest performances by King and Stallone. It looks cheaply produced but to me that added to the attraction, it seems to be done in an almost documentary style. AS such, its not really a film about the "Fifties"---besides the leather jackets and hairstyles, it has little to say about a specific era, but a lot to say about the human condition.

This tale of four friends could have been set at any period in history, and the dialogue for once is a true indicator of the mental states of 17 and 18 year olds, there's no breathless philosophizing here. The characters seem to struggle with what they want to say, unable to express their feelings with limited vocabulary and intellect. Watching it is sometimes painful. The best scenes involve Chico's relationship with Jane Bradshaw. (This guy deserves a medal for his taste in females) Chico tries to express his emotions, but hes too young and impatient. He thinks he knows what to say and do, but his words and actions just don't match up.In the end, his efforts at a relationship are too clumsy. I still feel bad for him.

I was never a fan of Stallone, but I like his performance here. The main problem with this film is that it's too short. The honest performances make me want to know more about these guys, and it ends abruptly while everything is still going on. Still, taking a look at this movie is worth the time, especially nowadays when finding an honest film made with integrity is very rare. Its kind of---nostalgia for nostalgia! Besides, even if you hate it, you still get to look at Susan Blakely.

This is not a slick movie. It looks like it was made with cheap handheld cameras, and probably was. The movie is primarily interesting due to the future stars seen here. This was Henry Winkler's first big movie as a greaser type ( this character was NO Fonzie ). Sylvester Stallone is his typical mumbly early self ( I vote for subtitles on his speaking parts on his first 6 Nothing really much happens, just an hour and a half of greaser posing and vague wonderings about "futures". Only interesting from a historical perspective. Not reaslly strongly recommended.

Here we have early film appearances from a number of guys who went on to varying degrees of stardom. I think this is mostly what this movie's good reputation is based on. But I didn't find it quite so compelling as a film.

This flick is about four high school boys in 1950's Brooklyn who belong to a "social-athletic club" (others would say gang) called the Lords. As is often the case in movies, they all look like they saw the end of high school some years before. The four (Perry King, Sylvester Stallone, Henry Winkler, Paul Mace) are poised on the brink of adulthood and the responsibility that it will bring. The film is shot in a manner that is almost cinema verite, with lots of hand-held cameras getting grainy-looking closeups. The dialog also is obviously meant to be realistic, but I found it often less than scintillating. I waited around for the bigger issues to be tackled and the larger truths to be revealed, but they are not exactly enlightening, either. A faux-'50's music soundtrack doesn't help much.

Despite these negative comments, I would give 'The Lords of Flatbush' a marginal "thumbs up," mostly for effort. It does do a good job of depicting the culture and local color of the place and time it represents. But this is no definitive film about either coming of age or life in Brooklyn in the 1950's.

In 1958 Brooklyn, we follow the Lords (or grammatically incorrect "Lord's", according to their jackets and the main title), a group of leather-wearing, greased-haired, immature, high school tough guys. At the head of the gang is Stanley (Sylvester Stallone), an intimidating thug with a guarded heart of gold, who's in a dilemma when his rough-talking girl Frannie (Maria Smith) announces she's pregnant. Her best friend Annie (Renee Paris) is dating the handsome Chico (Perry King), but Chico only uses her for sex while really setting his eyes on the new girl in school (Susan Blakely). Butchey (Henry Winkler) is the most bright of the Lords, and could make something better of himself if he wanted. Wimpy (Paul Mace) is a short member of the group who hangs out with his friends for the security it gives him.

Most of what occurs on screen has no plot, and consists of vignettes with its cast members. Stallone fares best of all, and some good moments include him bullying a rival gang member in a pool hall, and especially the film's best scene near the end that takes place inside a jewelry store, when Frannie and Annie push Sly into buying a $1600 engagement ring against his will. Henry Winker's promising part was, unfortunately, under-written... but he's got one good scene occurring after hours alone in the local candy store hangout, where the shop owner tries to drill some sense into his head about how much more wisely he could be spending his time. Perry King's Chico is the main character, but he's such a jerk in the movie that he's hard for us to invest in.

Ultimately, the movie has a good deal of problems and is only average. At best, this is watchable to me every few years as being one of those nostalgic guilty pleasures that I first saw in the theater when I was around 11 (it even featured the now-defunct Sunrise Drive-In, which was not far from where I lived back then). It's a very cheap film that was shot on 16mm and blown up, which accounts for its rough looking quality, and also for some poor sound issues that make it difficult to discern occasional dialogue. It's got a 1970s rock n roll soundtrack of made up '50s tunes of varying quality, some of which drown out moments of talking at times. But it's still worth at least one viewing to see a young Sylvester Stallone (who would later become ROCKY) and Henry Winkler (in a rough draft for his Fonzie character of HAPPY DAYS) getting to shine in a couple of brief moments. ** out of ****