A New York City narcotics detective reluctantly agrees to cooperate with a special commission investigating police corruption, and soon realises he's in over his head, and nobody can be trus... Read allA New York City narcotics detective reluctantly agrees to cooperate with a special commission investigating police corruption, and soon realises he's in over his head, and nobody can be trusted.A New York City narcotics detective reluctantly agrees to cooperate with a special commission investigating police corruption, and soon realises he's in over his head, and nobody can be trusted.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 4 wins & 15 nominations total
Ronald Maccone
- Nick Napoli
- (as Ron Maccone)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Really, a stunning, unforgettable movie. This movie outlined very well the pitfalls, traps and emotional traumas associated with this type of betrayal. Although Danny Ciello wanted to cleanse himself and do the right thing, the path to that was to bring down the cop family, the close, tightly knit unit that he was part of. The tales he told had life-and-death implications for all involved, and may have been more than he bargained for.
Treat Williams was tremendous in this, although I must indicate my one complaint with the movie. That was in Williams' occasional overacting. The pain and emotion mostly was silently played out by Williams. The wrenching, emotional toll was plain to see and sense, even on a tough cop's stoic face. However, Williams occasionally went emotionally berserk, ostensibly to indicate the depth of his turmoil. This is a minor complaint, though. Actually his performance in this was astonishing.
There is a scene in the movie where Danny goes out in the night to help a junkie informant. The junkie is sick and desperate. He has nowhere else to turn except his cop handler, Danny. Danny finds himself in the position of having to get his informant his fix to keep him from getting violently sick. Danny finds himself running around in the rain and mud, ripping off another sick junkie of his stash. This junkie is desperate, too, and his cries dig deep into Danny as he rips him off. Later, when he takes the junkie home, his wife/girlfriend gets the drugs, disappears into the bathroom and takes them. When the junkie breaks into the bathroom, she tells him that the drugs were junk, and she flushed them down the toilet. The junkie is back where he started, and he begins beating her. Danny stands there, soaking wet and muddy, stunned by what is happening, and what he is out there doing. This simple scene is played out very well, and Treat Williams stands there with the revulsion and heartbreak played out on his face. This is not what he is supposed to be doing; this is not what he became a cop for.
A well-directed, well-acted movie.
Treat Williams was tremendous in this, although I must indicate my one complaint with the movie. That was in Williams' occasional overacting. The pain and emotion mostly was silently played out by Williams. The wrenching, emotional toll was plain to see and sense, even on a tough cop's stoic face. However, Williams occasionally went emotionally berserk, ostensibly to indicate the depth of his turmoil. This is a minor complaint, though. Actually his performance in this was astonishing.
There is a scene in the movie where Danny goes out in the night to help a junkie informant. The junkie is sick and desperate. He has nowhere else to turn except his cop handler, Danny. Danny finds himself in the position of having to get his informant his fix to keep him from getting violently sick. Danny finds himself running around in the rain and mud, ripping off another sick junkie of his stash. This junkie is desperate, too, and his cries dig deep into Danny as he rips him off. Later, when he takes the junkie home, his wife/girlfriend gets the drugs, disappears into the bathroom and takes them. When the junkie breaks into the bathroom, she tells him that the drugs were junk, and she flushed them down the toilet. The junkie is back where he started, and he begins beating her. Danny stands there, soaking wet and muddy, stunned by what is happening, and what he is out there doing. This simple scene is played out very well, and Treat Williams stands there with the revulsion and heartbreak played out on his face. This is not what he is supposed to be doing; this is not what he became a cop for.
A well-directed, well-acted movie.
I've been a defense lawyer in NYC for the past 35 yars. I have more than a passing familiarity with some of the actual trials and appeals generated by Ciello's (Treat Williams' character) testimony. More broadly, I can attest to the accuracy of the film's depiction of the agonies, doubts, remorse and dreads of the turncoat/informant-witness in criminal cases. No film has developed this theme - a very common one in federal criminal trials, but one never visible to the public - as thoroughly as this film. "Goodfellas" devoted a few minutes to this, but only to the witness protection aspect after Henry Hill decided to testify, and never developed the broader, morally ambiguos dimensions of becoming an informer who turns on former close associates.
Nor has any other film more accurately revealed the way government prosecutors deal with their informants, which is not always pretty; often prosecutors treat their informers in ways that paralell the way Ciello treated his junkie informers on the street - he supplied them with drugs when he needed them, but he also abused, ignored or took advantage of their vulnerabilities when the need suited him.
The film also displayed, though it did not emphasize, another aspect of the prosecutor/informant relationship: willful blindness to likely perjury. Here, when Ciello offers to cooperate, prosecutors sternly insist that he tell the whole truth, not just about the crimes committed by others but by Ciello himself. They want to be assured of this not only because legal ethics demand it, but because their cases can fall apart if the defense later uncovers and reveals nasty secrets about the informant to the trial jury to undermine the informant's credibility. Here, as in the actual case, Ciello insisted that he had committed "only three" crimes while a NYPD detective. While prosecutors sensed, but did not actually know, right from the start that this was highly unlikely, and that Ciello was in fact concealing both the number and severity of his past misdeeds, they preferred not to inquire too deeply, and did little independent investigation of Ciello's prior misconduct on the force ("willful blindness"). That came back to haunt them, because after the trials, the defense lawyers dug up many of Ciello's hitherto unrevealed criminal deeds, and severely damaged his credibility, almost fatally imperiling the convictions his testimony had been so helpful in procuring. This film portrays not only the moral dilemma of the informant, but the moral dilemma of prosecutors, who desperately need informants to build their cases, but who have mixed feelings about learning too much about their unsavory pasts.
By the way, the detective played by Jerry Orbach has been a private investigator for the past 20 years or so (though never convicted, he was discharged from the police force); I've hired him, and he is terrific!!
Nor has any other film more accurately revealed the way government prosecutors deal with their informants, which is not always pretty; often prosecutors treat their informers in ways that paralell the way Ciello treated his junkie informers on the street - he supplied them with drugs when he needed them, but he also abused, ignored or took advantage of their vulnerabilities when the need suited him.
The film also displayed, though it did not emphasize, another aspect of the prosecutor/informant relationship: willful blindness to likely perjury. Here, when Ciello offers to cooperate, prosecutors sternly insist that he tell the whole truth, not just about the crimes committed by others but by Ciello himself. They want to be assured of this not only because legal ethics demand it, but because their cases can fall apart if the defense later uncovers and reveals nasty secrets about the informant to the trial jury to undermine the informant's credibility. Here, as in the actual case, Ciello insisted that he had committed "only three" crimes while a NYPD detective. While prosecutors sensed, but did not actually know, right from the start that this was highly unlikely, and that Ciello was in fact concealing both the number and severity of his past misdeeds, they preferred not to inquire too deeply, and did little independent investigation of Ciello's prior misconduct on the force ("willful blindness"). That came back to haunt them, because after the trials, the defense lawyers dug up many of Ciello's hitherto unrevealed criminal deeds, and severely damaged his credibility, almost fatally imperiling the convictions his testimony had been so helpful in procuring. This film portrays not only the moral dilemma of the informant, but the moral dilemma of prosecutors, who desperately need informants to build their cases, but who have mixed feelings about learning too much about their unsavory pasts.
By the way, the detective played by Jerry Orbach has been a private investigator for the past 20 years or so (though never convicted, he was discharged from the police force); I've hired him, and he is terrific!!
10emvan
A few years after this was in the theaters, it was shown on TV over two nights. I remember reading that a significant amount of footage that had been cut for the theatrical version would be restored for the TV showing. That piqued my curiosity, so I watched -- and was completely blown away.
But what amazed me the most was that I couldn't spot one scene that could be taken out of the movie without seriously compromising it. Since I knew it had been cut and restored, I was pointedly looking for stand-alone scenes that only fleshed out the characters but weren't integral to the extremely complex storyline. There weren't any. Every single scene contained some important bit of information that cast light on and helped make sense of something elsewhere in the movie.
Ever since then, I've been patiently waiting for this director's cut to show up on VHS, LD, or DVD -- and refusing to watch the theatrical cut! It's been 15 years and I'm still waiting. But I would certainly think that eventually this will come out on DVD, and we can al hope and pray that it will do so in the full version.
But what amazed me the most was that I couldn't spot one scene that could be taken out of the movie without seriously compromising it. Since I knew it had been cut and restored, I was pointedly looking for stand-alone scenes that only fleshed out the characters but weren't integral to the extremely complex storyline. There weren't any. Every single scene contained some important bit of information that cast light on and helped make sense of something elsewhere in the movie.
Ever since then, I've been patiently waiting for this director's cut to show up on VHS, LD, or DVD -- and refusing to watch the theatrical cut! It's been 15 years and I'm still waiting. But I would certainly think that eventually this will come out on DVD, and we can al hope and pray that it will do so in the full version.
I remember watching this many years ago, probably on TV, soon after it came out. It's always been on my mind and I watched it again over the last two evenings. I am just in awe of the powerful story, great acting and the gritty setting of this amazing film. To this day, I cannot believe Sidney Lumet never won an Oscar for best director for all the other great films of his: Twelve Angry Men, Serpico, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, and this masterpiece. With no special effects, no big name actors, no sex, Mr. Lumet has me glued to the screen for nearly three hours. I agree with the other reviewer that this is in the class of the great ones like the Godfather, On the Waterfront, Raging Bull, along with the French Connection, and Serpico. It's a shame that only a minuscule percentage of the IMDb population even has heard or seen films like these from this era, where films were truly an art form, rather than the commercial vehicle that they have become today.
Treat Williams plays a corrupt New York narcotics detective who tries to redeem himself by volunteering to go undercover on the force to weed out other corrupt policeman only to find himself facing an increasingly difficult series of moral dilemmas involving his former partners. This intelligent film is possibly the best cop film ever made. Treat Williams delivers the best performance of his career although the excellent supporting cast, Jerry Orbach, in particular, comes very close to stealing the movie right out from under him. Williams is so good here that you can't believe he is the same guy who later appeared in "Dead Heat." (What happened?) Director Sidney Lumet, who also co-wrote the insightful, penetrating script with Jay Presson Allen, was never better. He does such a great job that you can't believe he's the same guy who directed "Family Business." (What happened?) The film is long, but you never lose interest. A must see.
Did you know
- TriviaAkira Kurosawa complimented director Sidney Lumet on the beauty of the camerawork and the whole movie. By this he meant that there is an elemental connection between the story and the techniques used. For example, background lighting is gradually phased out to make the characters stand out more towards the end of the film.
- GoofsAssistant U.S. Attorneys Cappalino and Paige discuss emptying the entire SIU Narcotics unit at one time through "normal rotation". However, Det. Ciello had been there for 11 years and Det. Mayo had been there for 9 years, so clearly there's no such thing as "normal rotation". Moreover, an entire Narcotics unit would not be routinely emptied all at once, destroying institutional memory; members would come and go individually, through attritional reassignments and retirements.
- Quotes
Daniel Ciello: I know the law. The law doesn't know the streets.
- Alternate versionsThe film originally premiered on TV in a version broadcast over 4 hours (running no longer than 196 minutes), including previously unseen material which had been cut from the 167-minute theatrical release. Among the restored scenes is one that makes more sense of the DiBenadetto Case (the character Ciello's first rat-job).
- ConnectionsFeatured in Sneak Previews: The Best of 1981 (1981)
- SoundtracksLove Will Keep Us Together
(uncredited)
Written by Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield
Performed by Captain & Tennille
- How long is Prince of the City?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Prince of the City
- Filming locations
- Governors Island, New York Harbor, New York City, New York, USA(scenes at ferry landing)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $8,600,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $8,124,257
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $64,713
- Aug 23, 1981
- Gross worldwide
- $8,124,257
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content