VividSimon
Simply Perfect
Moustroll
Good movie but grossly overrated
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Predrag
This movie has some rawness and grit, interesting story line, plot, and sub-plots, with Eastwood as a tough no-nonsense detective, Speer, and Reynolds as an ex-cop and Private Eye, Murphy, who butt heads with each other, in Prohibition-era 1933 (last year of Prohibition, in fact), but team up to investigate mob murder and corruption. It also has some funny lines and wittiness. And of course, Eastwood, with his intensity, as well as his piano playing, is in true form as usual.Is this a comedy trying to be a drama or a drama trying to be a comedy. It's not a dramedy; it's too confused to be a successful dramadey. The talent of both stars is squandered in this production that can't decide what it's meant to be. One suspects that it's meant to be satire, but it's a long way from the success of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". That's the risk of satire: the wrong move and the whole effort is thwarted. The costumes are great. The sets are delightful and the cars dazzling. The treat in the movie is Jane Alexander as Reynold's long suffering brilliant secretary. Worth watching just for the pleasure of her company.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.
s_kc
From the other comments, it seems like most people expect movies starring superstars to always be block busters. Sometimes a movie is just a movie i.e. simple entertainment.This one is in the great tradition of the screwball comedies/caper comedies that used to be popular with Cary Grant, Tony Curtiss, William Powell way back when. It's funny & occasionally witty and the pairing of the taciturn Eastwood & prattling Reynolds along with Jane Alexandar as the sharp secretary makes for a fun couple of hours (OK, 93 mins). Compared to other Eastwood comedies such as "Every Which Way but Loose", this works better. Too bad critics & audiences didn't like it as much or we might have a nice set of sequels in the tradition of the Thin Man.
wes-connors
"In Kansas City 1933, wisecracking detective Murphy (Burt Reynolds) tracks the killer of his partner," according to the synopsis writer at Warner Bros. Meanwhile, "Police Lt. Speer (Clint Eastwood) doesn't have much tolerance for the local mob war's body count. Neither guy likes each other, so that makes them a dream team. And it provides the ideal scenario as they clean up the town with slugfests and shoot-'em ups that parody Reynolds' and Eastwood's macho screen images." Original writer/director Blake Edwards was replaced by Richard Benjamin after reportedly clashing with Mr. Eastwood, while Mr. Reynolds suffered a serious injury early in the filming. This didn't mean "City heat" had to be a disaster, but it was. It looks like Eastwood and Reynolds are trying, with a couple of facial tics and gestures, to duplicate the successful Paul Newman and Robert Redford team. Whatever they're trying doesn't work. We're left with Eastwood calling Reynolds short.** City Heat (12/5/84) Richard Benjamin ~ Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Jane Alexander, Madeline Kahn
elshikh4
@_At first, there was a script of one thriller comedy in the frame of the American gangster movies of the 1930s. And when it comes from a writer / director who has the good name of (Blake Edwards) then you have to expect a sweet comedy, a delicious cartoon feel, and some wicked parody too. But this script never saw the light fully, because the man quitted the project quickly, and after a while he changed his name on the credits to (Sam O. Brown) ??!! It is (Edwards)'s only time to do such a thing during a great career of more than 40 movies and TV shows he wrote ! &_(Clint Eastwood) was a big star at the moment. And he was chosen to co-star the movie with the era's other star, and maybe his competitor, (Burt Reynols). Though (Eastwood), who achieved some success since 1971 as a director, wanted to make this movie a something of his own; as if a Dirty Harry in the 1930s, with artsy melancholic sense. You read matters like how he forced the director to put his eyes always in shadows like it's a remake of The Third Man or something! Let alone that he insisted on the typical serious (Eastwood)'s image in a movie that maybe was designed to mock at this very image as a cold blooded, super violent, good guy. To understand the original spoof-driven nature of the movie, just look at the massive street fight where (Eastwood)'s character attacked the entire gang single-handedly to destroy all of them; it's the usual (Eastwood)'s action, however designed as a hurly-burly live-cartoon sketch. I bet, that was (Edwards)' idea, as one of his gifted extravaganzas, or what remained of it here anyway !Therefore when you observe the name of (Joseph Stinson), who wrote (Sudden Impact – 1983) the previous hit of (Eastwood), next to the name of the departed (Edwards), along with your feeling sometimes that (Eastwood)'s scenes seem so (Eastwood)'s; you'll easily understand that it's not quite a coincidence ! By the way, back then, this (Eastwood)'s slight narcissism was hardly noticed, but within no time, it would be more than tangible, especially when he wouldn't act unless in movies directed by him or – at least – directed by his friends like Buddy Van Horn who directed (The Dead Pool – 1988) and (Pink Cadillac – 1989) for him. So that kind of Eastwood by Eastwood condition, which would have him completely later, left its early bad effects on this poor movie !#_(Burt Reynolds) broke his jaw while he was shooting his first scene, the first scene of the movie also, then he got too many medicines along with painkillers, hence the lively star lost 20 KG in no time, and maybe they changed some parts in the script to handle that carefully. So if you doubted that the one who was moving in a wolf disguise was no (Reynolds), then you were probably right !Now we have 3 scripts, or 3 ways to make one movie, or 3 unfinished movies that must be all in one by director (Richard Benjamin). But actually : @ + & + # = *?%!%$%^%#{@! WAW!!, this could be unexpectedly the right formula of success, the secret code of a box office hit or another classic. However, it turned out to be a petty concurrent mishmash !The final result was, at best, one of the violent buddy-cop movies of the 1980s, yet running in the 1930s, and being less enjoyable than its likes. Despite some action comedy and little funny lines, the script looked so disassembled, Eastwood's comedy looked fabricated and tasteless, the time that the 2 stars shared on screen was less than 15 minutes, and then there was that scene where (Reynolds) was talking about the greatness and the difficulty of being a cop; like we're in a serious movie or wannabe one! Basically we didn't even know the reason why (Reynolds)'s character left the force and turned into detective !!I think that the movie's last line is the fairest review it can get : (You'll always be "shorty" to me) as it failed in fulfilling its main promise concerning 2 great icons in one hot action comedy, or making anything perfect anyway. It's simply a case of a movie with too short of everything !
