Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Micitype Pretty Good

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

disinterested_spectator In the 1930s, James T. Farrell wrote the trilogy "Studs Lonigan." A film adaptation was made in 1960, but because this movie is only 95 minutes long, it is a much abbreviated version of the story as told in the book. The 1979 TV mini-series, with a length of 360 minutes, stood a much better chance of faithfully representing the book, but it failed to do so.It would be tedious to enumerate all the differences between the book and the two adaptations, but there is one difference that stands out from all the rest, a change in the very essence of the central character. Both the movie and the mini-series make Studs out to be a much better person than he was in the book, more likable and sympathetic. And this is too bad, because it is the only novel in which the central character is a bully, and it would have been nice to have this defining trait preserved in either adaptation, which could easily have been done, even in the 95-minute movie. This is not to say that "Studs Lonigan" is the only novel featuring a bully, but typically, it is the character who is bullied that is central, not the bully himself. In Farrell's trilogy, we are always inside the head of Studs. We get to see what it is like to be a bully, how he thinks and feels.A lot of people might not even think of this as a novel about a bully. Certainly, the title character never thinks of himself in that way. But then, you will not hear many people say, "I am a bully." Oh, sure, one might admit to having been a bully on one or two occasions, for which one is ashamed. But we seldom encounter anyone who will characterize himself as a bully, as if it were his essence. And yet, we have scarcely reached the third page, when Studs refers to "goofy Danny O'Neill, the dippy punk who couldn't be hurt or made cry, no matter how hard he was socked…." A minor character, it was the bullied Danny O'Neill with whom Farrell identified.The day never passes that Studs does not think about beating someone up, although it is something he thinks about more than he actually does. Studs does have his moment of greatness when he beats up Weary Reilley, who is an even worse bully than Studs. But throughout the novel, Studs finds plenty of glory in pushing others around who are smaller, weaker, or more timid than he is, especially when he and his pals outnumber their hapless victims.One of my favorite parts of the novel occurs when a priest gives a passionate sermon attended by Studs and his gang. We hear Father Shannon warn against the evils of smoking, drinking, and necking. And for a brief moment, we allow ourselves to hope that he will admonish the young toughs about fighting. We don't expect him to say they should turn the other cheek. That would be asking too much. But perhaps the priest will at least urge them not to be so quick to throw the first punch, especially if the boy being punched is weaker and smaller. It is not to be. In fact, Father Shannon tells them that if they catch some college atheist making a play for their sister, they should beat him up. Later, Studs and his gang talk about the sermon, and it is clear that they are glad they have sisters, because beating someone up always feels better when you can be righteous about it.At the end of the novel, Studs regrets the fact that he never kissed Lucy when they sat in that tree, that he dropped out of school instead of continuing his education, that he didn't save his money, and that he ruined his health with all the smoking, drinking, and carousing around. But he never regrets being a bully.

bugsmoran29 I started making my way through James T. Farrell immense body of works with my reading of the Studs Lonigan trilogy in 1973. Over the years I gone back countless time to reread about the rise and fall of Studs Lonigan and his old gang on 58th Street in Chicago. I would say that Farrell had a very strong impact upon my life. I am a fellow Irish-American and lapsed Catholic like Farrell. We also share a common surname. I was exchanging letters with James when this mini-series first aired, and did prefer it over the original film version. Unfortunately, he died shortly after the mini-series aired. His world view was relentless bleak, and I think he believed it was justified because life is relentlessly bleak for most people.

mrhernia This is a fine adaptation of one of the great Depression Era novels, rivaling The Grapes of Wrath. Harry Hamlin gives a believable portrayal of Studs but he is a bit too old to be seen in knickers playing Studs as an 11 year old youth. The final 2 episodes are earth shattering and worthy of this review. In fact I was so moved by the finale that I became a confirmed alcoholic to experience the rough times Studs experienced. I am now a bum in the Bowery but they still call me Fungo. i suppose that Hamlin was quite adequate for the part but his mothers portrayal by Colleen Dewhurst was vivid and honest. Dewhurst was subsequently seen in the Sean Connery film Outland where she portrayed a lady scientist who eventually decides to aid Connery in taking down the boss of this outer space mining colony.

vautrin69 If you have never seen this mini-series, you have never watched "Studs Lonigan". The 1960 film was a hack job. If you've read the book, you'll find the story is still altered. But Harry Hamlin does well as Studs. It's engrossing to watch his life unfold and the end is classic. This mini-series caused me to pick up and read the trilogy. I only wish this were available on VHS. If you know how to find a copy, let me know. thanks.