Hmmm. this movie was good, but I was expecting it to be a bit better. Originally it was as `hard as nails' as you were likely to get, featuring Gene Hackman as a tough cop, Jimmy `Popeye' Doyle. He'll do anything he needs to solve the case!!
The case here is about drugs. There's a French connection involved. but you may have guessed that. There's actually very little plot at all. Nowadays you would need to inject a few twists and turns - the plot here wouldn't extend much beyond a one hour showing of a TV program. It's not boring as such, or told lazily, it just gently drifts along without any real hurry (despite a couple of car chases). No particular points here - it may have been sharp and cutting edge in its day. but not now and its by those standards I am forced to judge.
Gene `I'm well 'ard' Hackman is good here. He ought to be - he won an Oscar for his role. He's very convincing as the tough-no-nonsense cop, and has a mean determined streak in him that's conveyed well. It's not the same as the surly laconic wit of Dirty Harry - this guy is genuinely hard. I can't fault his winning an Oscar for the role here. The others, such as Ray `Seaquest: DSV' Schneider all are good, but overshadowed by Hackman's energy.
Other qualities of the movie? There's a famous car chase - and it is good. It's well directed by William Friedkin (who won an Oscar here), and matches most of the car chases filmed since in terms of viewer involvement, tension, and speed (although one or two of the elements have since become clichés of the genre). Friedkin adapts a very murky, downbeat tone to the movie which works for the most, although it does make the dialog irritatingly difficult to hear at times. Certainly his work is in keeping with the script's tone, and I can see why he got his Oscar for it (though personally I thought Kubrick was far far more deserving that year). The film, being a reflection of its time, hasn't always aged that well but that can't be ruled against it too much (except in terms of its impact).
I expected more from `The French Connection' than I got. Yes the directing is pretty good, and Hackman is excellent. but there's not all that much substance to it. Being gritty doesn't qualify as actually having depth. The car chase, its most famous attribute, is well done but hardly outstanding given today's technology. It's a landmark in the sense of Hollywood rewarding a more adult movie (after `Midnight Cowboy') but not a classic. 7/10.
The case here is about drugs. There's a French connection involved. but you may have guessed that. There's actually very little plot at all. Nowadays you would need to inject a few twists and turns - the plot here wouldn't extend much beyond a one hour showing of a TV program. It's not boring as such, or told lazily, it just gently drifts along without any real hurry (despite a couple of car chases). No particular points here - it may have been sharp and cutting edge in its day. but not now and its by those standards I am forced to judge.
Gene `I'm well 'ard' Hackman is good here. He ought to be - he won an Oscar for his role. He's very convincing as the tough-no-nonsense cop, and has a mean determined streak in him that's conveyed well. It's not the same as the surly laconic wit of Dirty Harry - this guy is genuinely hard. I can't fault his winning an Oscar for the role here. The others, such as Ray `Seaquest: DSV' Schneider all are good, but overshadowed by Hackman's energy.
Other qualities of the movie? There's a famous car chase - and it is good. It's well directed by William Friedkin (who won an Oscar here), and matches most of the car chases filmed since in terms of viewer involvement, tension, and speed (although one or two of the elements have since become clichés of the genre). Friedkin adapts a very murky, downbeat tone to the movie which works for the most, although it does make the dialog irritatingly difficult to hear at times. Certainly his work is in keeping with the script's tone, and I can see why he got his Oscar for it (though personally I thought Kubrick was far far more deserving that year). The film, being a reflection of its time, hasn't always aged that well but that can't be ruled against it too much (except in terms of its impact).
I expected more from `The French Connection' than I got. Yes the directing is pretty good, and Hackman is excellent. but there's not all that much substance to it. Being gritty doesn't qualify as actually having depth. The car chase, its most famous attribute, is well done but hardly outstanding given today's technology. It's a landmark in the sense of Hollywood rewarding a more adult movie (after `Midnight Cowboy') but not a classic. 7/10.