Fat City (1972) User Reviews

Harsh times

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 20 November 2015]

Fat City is a small film directed on location in Stockton, California by legendary director John Huston.

It is about small time boxers and small time losers. Stacy Keach is a washed up boxer, a drunk, making a comeback but really not up to it. He is in a tempestuous relationship with Susan Tyrell who is magnificent as his drunk girlfriend. The booze oozes out of her pores and she really cracks that paralytic look in her face.

Jeff Bridges is the up and coming boxer but he immediately loses his early fights, he gets his pretty girlfriend, Candy Clark pregnant and gets some irregular work as a labourer sometimes working with Keach in the fields.

There is nothing grandiose or bombastic about Fat City. It really is introverted dealing with the underclass in the early 1970s. The location filming adds a lot of authenticity and rawness.

Keach who was a noted Shakespearean actor of the American stage is very believable. He plays not a has been but a never was, who wants to have that one final crack of something big but he will get nowhere it as he always gets sidetracked, usually by booze.

Bridges at the time was the young up and comer with a mixture of enthusiasm and wide eyed innocence. He was 23 years old when he made this film and was already a veteran with an Oscar nomination to his name as he was a child actor working in his father's show.

A critic pointed out something novel about this boxing film. These almost desperate people we meet go out of their way to be kind to each other no matter how hopeless their situation.

When Keach argues with Tyrell you expect that he will hit her. When her ex-boyfriend turns up, you again expect that he will get in a fight with Keach. However you find people struggling to be nice and civil to each other.

Boxing actually plays a small part in the film. Fat City is a forgotten gem of 1970s cinema.

Requiem for losers and daydreamer believers.

[Pedro_H · 8/10 · 7 November 2005]

The down-to-earth tale of two small hall boxers -- at the opposite ends of their careers -- and the blows they take in and out of the ring.

This is one of the best American movies ever about normal working class lives where failure is common and the only thing you can do is pretend otherwise or drug it all away to nothing. I know why so many people prefer Rocky to this -- this is too real for them. Indeed it is almost too real for me!

Stacey Keach was given the role of lifetime in this. He really does look like a failing boxer turned to flab (although maybe that is nature -- not punches!) trying to find a life (of sorts) beyond the ring. Bridges really does look and sound like the daydreamer believer that makes the boxing game go round. Johnny No Talent who thinks he is Mike Tyson when his face finally clears up.

They don't make films like this anymore. The Europeans can, although they are rarely shown and end up too self indulgent. Everyone here gets what they deserve, which is sadly, very little. That is what sport is about in real life -- lots of people failing so that are very small few can succeed. The best the majority can hope for is some exercise and comradeship.

(This contrasts with most sports movies -- which are about glory. Or at least glory through struggle.)

This is the best late John Huston film and every single frame is a frame of reality and believability. Maybe that is what leads so many people to say "so what", the world outside their window has many of the same elements and there are many times you feel you are -- indeed -- looking at real life.

A Tale of Two Heavyweights

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 19 June 2012]

Fat City has deservedly taken its place among the fine films about boxing that Hollywood has done. It most closely resembles Requiem For A Heavyweight and you get double the entertainment because it's about two boxers in that division whose prospects for success are limited.

Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges meet at a YMCA gym. Keach a heavyweight who has seen better days was a good prospect to go all the way, but he married the wrong woman who drained him dry and left him. But Keach is a glutton for punishment and he's taken up with Susan Tyrell who is mesmerizing when she's on the screen. Not that the prospects are good for him to hold out for something better, he's no prize either.

But Keach sends Bridges to his former manager Nicholas Colosanto and he also joins them. Bridges has never had a professional fight, but he's clean cut, all American and white. He might be a good draw if he can learn to fight. His debut isn't promising. And he and wife Candy Clark face the problems of all newlyweds.

The air of sadness that hangs around Fat City is that the audience knows full well these guys aren't going anywhere. Keach gets matched with a similar over the hill heavyweight played nicely by Sergio Rodriguez. He barely outlasts him and while the little entourage is celebrating this beginning of a comeback, we see Sergio leave the arena alone as the lights turn out after him. Very effectively staged by John Huston.

The highlight of Fat City is Susan Tyrell who as TCM was showing this film as its prime time feature was reported to have passed away. What an incredible performance as a down and out alcoholic. She received the only Oscar recognition for Fat City as she was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Boxing fans will appreciate the realistic approach Fat City takes in regard to the sport. Others of us will just like the great performances and realistic filming that typifies Fat City.

"Just when you get rolling, your life makes a beeline for the drain."

[chaos-rampant · 18 April 2010]

John Huston is amazing to me. He defined an entire genre with his foot barely in the Hollywood door, then he kicked the door down and walked in to clear well deserved Oscars as both writer and director, he took his Oscars with him to Africa to get hammered with Erol Flynn and go out on safaris leaving behind him a big production to go to hell, then came back to find they had nailed a new door in place of the one he had torn down so he didn't bother to knock at all this time, he packed his things and went to a small dingy bar where Mexicans and barflies go to kill their time to make movies about killing time, movies about misfits and people who are dead inside, movies like Fat City and Under the Volcano, to adapt Flannery O'Connor and James Joyce, to soar above and beyond what anyone might have expected from any director of his generation. It's 1972 and John Huston is still relevant as ever. How many directors can you name who turned out some of their best material in their fifth decade directing movies? Venerable relics like Clint Eastwood move over, American cinema (not simply Hollywood) already had a patriarch in place long before any of you looked through a viewfinder.

It's also amazing to me how an indomitable absolute badass of a successful director can know failure so well. This is a movie where people box but it's not about boxing. There's no triumph to be had here and the crowd gathered in the small suburban boxing hall in Stockton, California, to pass their time is not there to be pleased. Most of them are probably the same kind of deadbeat with no future and a sh-tty job as the third-grade boxers who beat each other for their amusement. We get the young upstart boxer with the fast legs and a bright future ahead of him if only someone could train him right but this character can only make sense when we see him standing next to Stacy Keach, the aging boxer who won't see thirty again and who maybe had a chance once but blew it for women and alcohol and now he's desperate for one last throw of the dice.

The sad beauty of Fat City is that we're not looking at some kind of last defiant stand, we don't enter the ring for one last moment of triumph with the lights blaring bright and the crowd cheering, this is not The Wrestler anymore than it is Rocky, the lights were not only dimmed long ago but they probably never shone bright enough anywhere except in the protagonist's head. The closest Stacy Keach came to glory some odd 10 years ago was in itself a failure. Were his eyebrows slashed with a razor or not that fateful night down in Mexico we never find out. For most of its duration Fat City is a beaten man with sunken cheeks and a grim unshaven wan face wearing an expression of incredulous outrage.

Then we're inside a rundown cafe, the walls are painted in sickly washed-out colors and old men play cards around tables in felt, and we sit down for one last cup of coffee on the cheap formica counter. We see the young boxer standing next to the washed-up has-been one who can't even be a mentor anymore and an old man, a walking shell of someone "who was maybe young once", comes over to serve us and it all makes sense. "Maybe he's happy" says the young one. "Maybe we all are" says the other, and we know we're not, life doesn't quite work out that way, but it's all we have. The old man turns and smiles a toothless smile (senile or knowing, who's to say) and Fat City fades out into one of the most touching heartfelt endings I've seen. Fatalists cannot afford to miss this one, it's the stuff dashed hopes and broken lives are made of. Rejoice.

Going down the drain

[imseeg · 7/10 · 24 March 2018]

Jeff Bridges is young and charming in this movie about an upcoming boxer who meets another boxer (Stacey Keach) who is going down the drain. First I expected it to be a standard boxer movie portraying a young man who was going to make it big. But soon I discovered this movie was about losing. About drunks and has beens. Depressing. But not so depressing that it isnt great to watch Stacey Keach perform a drunk so well. Another actress got nominated for an oscar, but it should have been Stacey Keach who really deserved an oscar. Never seen an actor perform a drunk so well. Almost couldnt believe that Keach was actually acting sometimes, because he looks so wasted and completely lost.

John Huston directed Fat City in a documentary kind of style. The photography resembles a real life look in the run down bars and boxing halls. Real life bums and poor people are being used as extras. This movie is depressing, even boring sometimes, but nevertheless still fascinating to watch, because of its true to life portrayal of everyday people.

My only criticism is that there is a romantic subplot with a woman that kinda slows down the movie in the middle. There is definitely a lack of dynamic in the middle. But hey, that is the life this drunk is leading. Nothing much happens except for another night with booze. And another... And if you can stumach a movie about losers who are going nowhere than you will appreciate this movie as much as I did.

However depressing the story might be at times, the photography and the acting are way up there, truly excellent!!! And because of these marvellous acting performances the depressing lowlife characters that are being portrayed in Fat City are still very endearing and fascinating to watch.

Overlooked masterpiece

[wisewebwoman · 9/10 · 22 October 2005]

I had deliberately overlooked Fat City in the past believing it to be yet another twist on the formulaic and Hollywoodization of boxing stories. Was I wrong! I'm so glad that I unexpectedly caught this and was riveted from the get go. Fat City is an amazing film, made even more stellar by the casting of Stacy Keach, Jeff Bridges, Candy Clark and Nick Colasanto. It is hard to distinguish between these marvelous actors as their performances, under the hands of the maestro John Huston, are incredible. Stacy Keach is the focus however, and he carries the film with the able performances of the aforementioned. I believe this to be one of the most overlooked films of all time.

The characters are a bunch of losers, but they don't know they're losers and keep reiterating their dreams. They operate on a level that is below average and live in impoverished surroundings, always believing that something good is around the corner. There is no big win in this, the wins remain around the corner.

There's basically no beginning, middle and end. It is a study of the underbelly of a town in California, the seedy bars, the dirty restaurants, life in the one room with kitchen-in-a-corner of a walk-up fleabag hotel. Stacy Keach pulls you into this world, he lives and breathes the character he plays down to the last few minutes of screen time when he takes a look around the rathole of a restaurant he's in, surrounded by people like himself and the film freezes for about a minute before it moves on.

You catch his stark awareness at that moment. And all of his life, past, present and future becomes crystal clear to him. You don't think he's going to do much with this newfound insight. It doesn't matter. And that's the point. Bleak and beautiful. All in the same minute of time. 9 out of 10. Thanks once again, Mr. Huston.

Great performances from Stacy Keach and Susan Tyrrell

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 18 November 2013]

Ernie (Jeff Bridges) is a loser fighter who can't last more than the time it takes to hang up his robe. Tully (Stacy Keach) is an old drunk and a fighter past his usefulness. Tully laments the old times and is trying to get back into the fight game. He shacks up with another drunk Oma (Susan Tyrrell).

Director John Huston brings us a portrait of the ugly side of boxing. These are the nobodys. Susan Tyrrell's performance is truly shocking. Her character is worth the watch for this movie. Although the story follows both Ernie and Tully, it's probably a better idea to concentrate more on Tully. Ernie's story can be told as a side issue to Tully. Stacy Keach has the more compelling character. His struggle is more poignant. He should have been the only protagonist.

A Champion of a Film

[angelsunchained · 9/10 · 19 January 2005]

John Huston's 1972 production of FAT CITY is a masterpiece of film-making and acting. It's more than just a movie of boxing, it's symbolic of the American Dream gone depressingly wrong. Stacy Keach in the finest role of his outstanding career is symbolic of "every-man". His dreams are based on professional successes, which by gaining money and fame, he will be happy in his life. As we know in so many cases, that obtaining fame and money leads many people down an even deeper road of depression and self-destruction. For without emotional success, without love, a person is empty inside. A powerful film. Not a boxing film at all. Boxing is merely the symbolism here; fighting to succeed. "I win the fight and I get my wife back", says Keach's character, Billy Tully.

A great movie, but one that leaves you feeling sad; pondering your own hopes, dreams, and desires. A remarkable supporting cast, high-lighted by a young Jeff Bridges, make FAT CITY one of John Huston's most memorable films. A Champion of movie-making.

Down and Out in Stockton.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 13 November 2009]

A strange and naturalistic story of two boxers in Stockton, California. Stacey Keach is a 29-year-old who quit fighting some time ago and is now determined to regain his former stature. Jeff Bridges is the 18-year-old kid with promise. Both are managed by the talkative, nurturing but grounded Nicholas Colasanto.

In some ways the star of the movie is Stockton, a hot, negligible city in the central valley of California, where the most famous products are beef and vegetables. It's one of a string of such communities in the San Joaquin valley -- Modesto, Madera, Bakersfield -- that are all sun-baked and sere. Conrad Hall's camera captures all of Stockton's seamy underbelly. The gymnasiums, the seedy characters, the cool dim bars, the shabby apartments, the sagging hotels, are all here. Susan Tyrell, a major drunk, is sitting on a bar stool and we see that her dress is zipped up only to her shoulder blades, reminding us that her African-American lover is "in the pokey" so he's not around to help her dress. It's an oddball film. Except for a few principals, the actors seem to have been dragged in off the sidewalks. The dialog sounds naturalistic, the way real people talk, whine, and argue. But at the same time it doesn't sound at all improvised. I have no idea how John Huston got these performances out of the actors.

There's a problem with the structure of the movie, in that there is no central character and no single line of narrative development that grips a viewer. It's more of a "slice of life" than anything else. The time line is a little confusing and we don't really care deeply about what happens to any of the characters. There's no real integration of the lives of Keach and Bridges. They're no more than casual acquaintances.

But all of that is only a minor consideration. If we don't care deeply -- although we hope for the best -- the images and events roll along smoothly. Everything seems somehow right. Stacey Keach moves in with Tyrell who drinks constantly. And he cooks her the most depressing dinner ever committed to celluloid -- charred steak and peas dumped from the can onto the plate. She pules about not wanting to eat. There is a struggle over her plate. She plumps down in her seat at the table and Keach bangs the plate of food in front of her, the peas rolling around the table top like marbles.

These are all bottom-feeding losers -- reprobates and incompetents, a little stupid, but the movie treats them with tolerance and even some affection.

The fight scenes are unlike any others you're likely to have scene. Huston must have known something about the craft, since he was once a fighter himself, among a thousand other things. But these fighters are amateurish and clumsy. They bounce around face-to-face and unleash flurries of punches with neither style nor skill -- thump thump thump thumpthumpthump! Not hard, but unending. There's none of the focus on blood and gore that there is in, say, "Raging Bull," yet men are knocked out, or they win but are so dazed that they think they were knocked out instead of the other guy.

The whole thing is slightly insane but it works. You find out all about the value added theory of walnut production, whether it has to do with the plot or not.

The side of boxing we rarely see

[susansweb · 9/10 · 6 September 2001]

Probably one of the most realistic films about boxing. Not the big prime time fights but the small time boxing matches that spring up in town after town. Great performances all around with extra notice to Nick Colasanto as Ruben who could be related to his Coach in "Cheers" and Stacy Keach as the brain-addled old fighter that will never be able to quit. His fight scene at the end with the Mexican boxer who is only there for a paycheck win or lose, really says a lot about how boxing can be a pathetic sport. Keach's Tully is probably how a lot of boxers end up. Typical late John Huston film that focuses on the underbelly of American society. And a good one too.

Honest 'old-school' cinema in which the story and characters are still important

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 10 July 2005]

Boxing is a surprisingly popular subject for movies. I don't have to present you the "Rocky" movies of course, but there were plenty of other (and in my opinion also better ones) than those movies. Think for instance of "Raging Bull", but also "The Hurricane" and "Ali". "Fat City", I hadn't heard of before. I guess it's a movie that isn't able to compete in this genre, because it doesn't present the life of a famous boxer, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth a watch of course.

"Fat City" is a story about two boxers. One of them, Tully, is at the end of his career when he meets an 18-year old, called Ernie, for the first time in a gym. He asks him to be his sparring partner and soon is convinced about the boy's quality as a boxer. He tells Ernie to go see his former trainer, who will certainly lead him to the top. But inside as well as outside the ring, both men have a lot of problems...

What I liked most about this movie was that it took its time to develop the characters. This weren't just two men who have a family that doesn't mean much to them and who only think about using another guy's head as a punching ball. No, this movie shows their difficulties in their personal lives and the reasons why they aren't so successful in their careers. Still, that wasn't always enough to make me forget about certain flaws. Especially Oma didn't always look very convincing. She more or less gave me the feeling of being a caricature and that's not a good thing. On the other hand I must also say that I admire the fact that they didn't use any great stunts, big explosions, car chases,... This is old school cinema in which the story and the characters are still important. I wish they would make more movies like that nowadays. I give it a score between 6.5/10 and 7/10.

Overlooked and forgotten, still packs quite a punch

[ah`Pook · 8/10 · 6 February 2000]

American audiences don't generally go in for realistic stories of human despair and suffering that offer very little in the way of hope or relief. This may explain why John Huston's Fat City has been condemned to obscurity, a real shame considering what a great flick it is. It's the sort of movie you see and remember but can't quite pick it out of a line-up... a shuffling, mumbling story of down-and-out pugs in an off-the-map burgh. You're taunted with the possibilities of the story picking up to... well if not epic at least noteworthy proportions... but, all of the characters' minor victories are mitigated by their simultaneous defeats. Keach's Tully is the main thrust of the story, though it tends to veer off on the occasional tangent. A has-been who possibly never really was, crushed by the departure of his wife and overwhelmed by the constant little defeats in his life. Huston really drives this point home, that all of these little defeats add up. Without giving too much away, suffice to say Fat City is a film where mood overshadows plot. The mood is indelibly rendered by Conrad Hall's dark, dirty images, which nearly swallow the characters in the depth of their shadows. Watching it back to back with fellow pugilist opus Raging Bull (1980), it's easy to see that Huston was a keen observer of human behaviour, while Scorsese was a keen observer of Hollywood films of the thirties. And don't even talk about Rocky. I would compare it favourably with Barbet Schroeder's Barfly (1987), another film about fringe life in California, and even Vincent Gallo's excellent Buffalo '66 (1998), though of the three it is the bleakest and the least accessible.

The Seedy Underbelly of the Boxing World

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 12 October 2018]

Bummer movie from director John Huston about two boxers, one washed up and one up and coming, and their refusal to recognize the limits of their talents.

Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges give really good performances in their respective roles, but the whole movie is hampered by a screenplay that creates one-note characters for them to play. It's not until the film's final ten minutes or so that anything resembling a character arc appears for either actor, but by then I was so depressed by the sodden despair permeating the film that I just wanted it to be over.

Susan Tyrell gives a nails-on-a-chalkboard performance as a drunken disaster of a broad and was predictably nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her troubles. The Academy loves nothing more than to recognize hammy performances, and hammy drunk performances are all the better. The film also features Candy Clark, who would go on to score her own Oscar nomination the following year in "American Graffiti."

Grade: B-

While it is well made and many critics loved it, I hated this film.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 4 November 2019]

Every so often, you hear about how wonderful a film is...only to be bitterly disappointed when you finally see it. This was definitely the case for "Fat City"--a John Huston film about some lowlife boxers who live on the margins of society. While I think Huston got the look and feel of these people, the story itself is oppressively grim and depressing....and about as much fun to watch as a car wreck!

The story features a down-and-out aging boxer (Stacey Keach) and a young guy who decides to become a boxer (Jeff Bridges). The aging guy spends his time doing migrant work for minimal pay and hanging out with drunks...including a loud and obnoxious lady he picks up one evening. The younger guy has a pregnant girlfriend to care for as well as his career. By the end of the film, little has changed (apart from the loud and obnoxious girlfriend running off)...and you can't help but wonder WHY...why did you watch this and why should you care.

Dull, listless and seemingly pointless....you can tell that I really did NOT enjoy watching "Fat City"!

Yet another overlooked 70s gem...

[Infofreak · 26 September 2002]

The 1970s produced some of the greatest American movies of all time, that's indisputable. But while everyone focuses on (the admittedly very good) more famous works by Scorsese and Coppola, many equally worthwhile movies get little attention - 'Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia', 'Scarecrow', 'Fingers', 'Tracks', 'The Panic In Needle Park', 'Blue Collar', and this one, arguably John Huston's most underrated film. The four leads Stacey Keach ('The Ninth Configuration'), Jeff Bridges ('The Last Picture Show'), Susan Tyrrell ('The Killer Inside Me'), and Candy Clark ('American Graffiti') are all outstanding, and in Keach's case it's possibly his finest performance to date. What an underrated actor Keach is! This is a powerful and haunting look at the underbelly of American working class life, a subject very rarely dealt with honestly in contemporary Hollywood films. 'Fat City' doesn't deserve its obscurity. It is a small masterpiece. Highly recommended to people who value downbeat and realist dramas more than dumbed down popcorn "entertainment".

One Of Huston's Most Atypical Films

[elevenangrymen · 7/10 · 20 January 2013]

Billy Tully is a broken down boxer approaching his thirtieth birthday, and one day he goes to the gym to work out, when he meets Ernie, a young boxer. He tells the boxer to go see his old manager, and he does. Then Billy goes to a bar, where he meets Oma and Earl. Oma is a loud mouth, and she is drunk. Then Billy goes home and Ernie goes to meet Ruben, Billy's old manager. Ruben sees talent in Ernie, and immediately signs him on.

Meanwhile Billy, unable to hold a job, goes out to pick onions, looking for some work. After work, he heads to a bar and meets Oma. Earl has been sent to prison, and she is all alone. They talk for a while and then Billy convinces Oma to let him take her home. They start to live together, and Ernie begins losing fights. Then Billy goes to Ruben, as he has decided he is going to box again.

This is an unusual film. Up until now, I've always been able to pinpoint Huston's style, maybe it isn't continuous, but usually I can identify a film as a Huston. This is an exception to the rule. When I was watching this film, I could find no link at all to Huston. The closest cousin to this film's style would be an early Scorsese. It is the grittiest of the gritty, and the whole thing sparkles with 70s grime. It feels nothing like a Huston.

In the lead role, Stacey Keach must have known this was his shot, and he plays it like it. His portrait of a down on his luck boxer is intense, especially with his scenes with Susan Tyrell. Their scenes are frighteningly realistic. Keach fills his role with great gusto and life. Billy Tully feels like a real guy, and Keach doesn't make him sympathetic either. No, that job belongs to Jeff Bridges. Bridges is certainly very good, but his character seems very one note.

However, his scenes with Candy Clark are well done, and he is certainly a good actor, but Ernie is really a one note guy. Nicolas Colestano as Ruben is excellent, and his manager is full of life. However, aside from Keach, the film's greatest performance comes from Susan Tyrell. She is excellent as Oma, a bundle of nerves who alienates everyone she loves, it's a great performance. Her scenes with Keach are some of the film's best.

The film was written by Leonard Gardener, adapted from his own novel. The film isn't breaking any new ground with a story of a down on his luck boxer, but Gardener fills his script with enough interesting scenes to keep it from being tired. The score is good, and the opening song sets the mood nicely. Earlier I spoke about the scenes between Keach and Tyrell as being some of the films' best. That is true, but the films best scene is definitely the ending. It speaks volumes without saying much.

The cinematography by Conrad Hall is very spare, shot in brown, dingy hues. It succeeds at showing a world that exists, but no one wants to admit exists. This brings me to Huston's direction. It's very interesting. As I said earlier, the film seems more like it was directed by someone else, but what does that have to say about Huston's direction? Well, for one, it shows exactly how much range Huston had as a director. To compare this to something like The African Queen seems odd, but that they were directed by the same man shows exactly how much talent he had, and how he wouldn't conform to a single genre.

The film is certainly very well made, but it can be hard to watch. I don't quite know how to describe it, other than to say that it just feels too gritty and depressing. It gets hard to watch after a while, until near the end. Then there is the film's subject. It is about boxing, so there are scenes were characters box. To be fair, this isn't exactly Raging Bull, so the boxing scenes aren't outstanding. They are well shot, and because you care about the characters, you have some investment with them, but they go on for a little to long and they could have been cut.

Overall, this is not a bad film at all. It's quite good actually, but it feels draining despite how excellent the performances are. If you feel like a boxing movie, this is one of the best. If you feel like a Huston, this is about how atypical it gets. If you like a good movie, you're on the right track.

Fat City, 1972, Starring: Stacey Keach, Jeff Bridges and Susan Tyrell, Directed by John Huston, 7.5/10 (B+).

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/).

'Fat City' and its Discontents

[nomorefog · 8/10 · 14 April 2011]

'Fat City' has an solid and hard-won reputation. It was released to the cinema in 1972 with little fanfare. It got good notices but was one of those films that could not expect immediate success with a fickle public prone to more showy attractions; today it has a loyal following amongst those not oblivious to its virtues. As embarrassing as it is to admit, on discovering 'Fat City' I clasped it to my heart in gratitude: I had found something worthy of my attention that was not Hollywood vulgarity nor mindless escapism for the great unwashed. It was a film with backbone, a film with brain. 'Fat City' is an unforgettable portrayal of lost and lonely people quietly losing what is left of their lives. They struggle to survive but the struggle is pointless and they are left at the mercy of an unyielding fate that can only be guessed at, because of the film's refusal to pander to audience expectations of mindless resolutions and resolutely happy endings. Winning isn't the issue, but how much it's going to cost merely to survive. But most of all 'Fat City' is a film with its heart in the right place. The characters are not remarkable, they may not even be bright, but they are real and breathing people being photographed as their lives are disintegrating in front of us. Such an approach was relief from the stifling boundaries of Hollywood notions of entertainment when I first saw the film on ex-rental VHS and remains so today.

The characters in this story are played by Jeff Bridges as Ernie, and Stacy Keach as Billy. Ernie and Billy are both going in opposite directions in their lives one up (supposedly) and the other down. They make a connection with each other for the purposes of mutual support and camaraderie, both scarcities in the world of small time boxing in Stockton California where the movie is set. Billy has already begun his downward trajectory towards oblivion for personal and professional reasons. He meets Ernie, an inarticulate young man with some talent and sets him on his way to what they both hope will be a successful boxing career. Things however, don't go entirely to plan. Candy Clark plays Jeff's girlfriend, a lost soul, who seems incapable of making her own decisions. A relatively unknown actress Susan Tyrell received an Academy Award nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her part as Oma, Stacy Keach's mentally unstable girlfriend. Both give standout performances, but Tyrell's is more showy, and it's understandable why the Academy took notice. The film was shot on location in Stockton, and the rest of the cast appear to be locals who effortlessly give the film an authenticity which is so rare for a mainstream American film. Finally, the Kris Kristofferson ballad 'Help Me Make it Through the Night' is prominently featured to excellent effect, in order to illustrate the desolation and loneliness of the main characters.

The lack of a driving narrative is actually one of the virtues of 'Fat City', It makes up for this with lots of atmosphere and interesting and believable people. It takes it's time to tell what story there is, and is almost Thomas Hardy-like in its sense of fatalism. I could be facetious by describing 'Fat City' as a hybrid of Thomas Hardy, with a bit of 'Barfly' thrown in. The two films are strikingly similar in their portrayal of the working class streets of an anonymous, American city, and its characters, largely inarticulate and living on the fringe, which is a polite way of saying that they're poor. It strikes me with these kinds of films which don't wish to be seen as mainstream, how bold they are in depicting the reality of poverty in America as if being poor is a crime. I think this kind of approach is more of a reality now than it was when 'Fat City' was originally made.

Boxing is portrayed in 'Fat City' as a nasty, unpleasant business that scars the lives of the men and women who inhabit it and suffice to say, this isn't your conventional Hollywood boxing film. It's not remotely like any other and to compare 'Fat City' with 'Raging Bull' is like comparing aesthetics to real human engagement. Huston has an interest in the characters both as human beings with the ability to act freely (at least once), as well as victims of a corrupt society which really doesn't care for them. The fetishisation of two men pounding it out in the ring is of no concern to Huston, but rather the dubious morality of feeding unrealistic expectations to the poor and disenfranchised when their lives are not enriched but destroyed by the notion of an American 'success' which they crave for themselves but can never achieve because of an unjust economic inequality entrenched in the American system. If this seems like an overly didactic interpretation of the film, it's because the realism it displays is endemic and one cannot help, if one respects a film, to treat it on its own terms instead of offering a critique that is not adequate to its purpose.

According to other critics more influential than I, 'Fat City' is right up there as one of John Huston's best films, and is believed by many to be his crowning achievement. There are some who even rate it as one of the best films of the '70s, but the fact is that this has been far less seen, than other, better known and more familiar titles, that it could be argued, are not nearly as good. For so many reasons, 'Fat City' deserves to be seen by a larger audience who I am sure would appreciate it as much as those who have been lucky enough to see it in the past. For anyone reading who hasn't, you won't fail to be captivated by the lyricism and meaningful human truths of 'Fat City'.

A Complex Film with Terrific Performances!

[namashi_1 · 7/10 · 27 February 2015]

The Late/Great John Huston delivers a gritty, complex film with 'Fat City'. It's a deeply stirring tale about human emotions & the silences we have within. The Terrific Performances only add to its pluses.

'Fat City' Synopsis: Two men, working as professional boxers, come to blows when their careers each begin to take opposite momentum.

'Fat City' is unapologetically saddening & emotionally charging. Leonard Gardner's Screenplay, which is based upon his own novel, moves from being tragic to realistic. However, the slow-pace is a downer. The film unfolds in sleepy mode, luckily, the drama keeps you moving.

Huston's Direction is excellent. He's captured every moment with flourish. Cinematography is top-class. Editing is the only weak link.

Performance-Wise: Jeff Bridges is absolutely fantastic, delivering a great early performance. Stacy Keach is outstanding, as well. The Late Susan Tyrrel is slightly over-the-top.

On the whole, 'Fat City' isn't entirely perfect, but its a worth watching film anyhow.

"Just when you get started, your life makes a beeline for the drain."

[popshrink · 10/10 · 2 February 2005]

How in the world did I miss Fat City's greatness all these years? Ignore the rhetorical question. I read the Leonard Gardner novel when it was published and vastly enjoyed its subdued magic. If I saw the movie, it went past me as an Grad Intern pulling all nighters, and then zoning out during movies in first-run theaters. My friends knew "Great Movies" didn't they? I wasn't gonna stay in and miss out.

Last night, I saw Fat City with "new eyes" - or for the first time! The cast was like a Repertory Theatre cast: All spoke like people speak. Even the local LA boxing legends of my youth. It's far too understated to be compared to "Raging Bull" and proves there was never a recognizable entity like a "John Huston-style" movie.

Astonishing.

A Real Boxing Film - Fat City

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 20 August 2021]

This is John Huston's comeback film after a decade of disappointments. Just like the protagonist Keach, his best days are clearly behind him, but they both had one more good fight in their souls. However, the film is stolen by Susan Tyrell, who gives the best performance of the year for a supporting actress. Cloris Leachman, a fine actress, won for The Last Picture Show, but in my opinion, Tyrell deserved it more. This was one of the first major roles for Bridges, who went on to make several more good films. This is a real boxing film; not like the phony Rocky series or other glorified boxing movies. It is more in the class of Requiem for a Heavyweight, the other real boxing film from Hollywood. It scores a KO.

A cruelly overlooked masterpiece

[ISC · 9/10 · 3 November 1999]

This is a quite simply a brilliant film focussing on the skid row end ofboxing. Keach gives the performance of a lifetime as the punch drunk has-been and Jeff Bridges is perfect as the naive newcomer. The boxing scenes are so realistic it hurts - none of your Rocky histrionics here.

Depressing But Involving

[ReelCheese · 7/10 · 24 June 2007]

It's gritty, disturbing and depressing, but FAT CITY is quite involving and rarely boring.

This obscure character drama follows the parallel lives of worn-out Tully (Stacy Keach), a once-promising-boxer-turned-alcoholic, and his young and eager protégé, Ernie (Jeff Bridges). Bridges' success mirrors what could have been for Tully, who struggles with low-paid labor and a loud, rarely-sober girlfriend, Oma (Susan Tyrrel). Though Bridges encounters challenges of his own, he purposely grows emotionally detached from the older boxer. The final scene, where Bridges reluctantly humors the pathetic drunk by talking over coffee, is poignant and drives home the purpose of the film.

Far from a feel-good ROCKYesque effort, FAT CITY chooses instead to tell the story of a boxer who doesn't make it and the vast untapped potential that will be forever drowned in glass after glass of liquor.

Tully vs Lucero

[rwelsh_legal · 9/10 · 16 January 2007]

Lucero, Sixto Rodriguez (real life former light heavyweight) vs Tulley, Stacy Keach (real life former contender for title of great actor). Boxing as metaphor for life was nothing new to film in 1972 but this sad tale of lives on the margin and dreams forgotten might be the finest most underrated boxing film ever made. The world of fighting in John Houston's tale finds it's metaphor not in the game itself but in the fight between Tully (Keach) and Lucero (Rodriguez). Tully, his time nearly gone, skills eroded from bad food, bad women and bad booze and Lucero his skills gone from too many blows in too many towns with names he could never pronounce or spell. Tully, disheveled, filthy, broken and by film's end reduced to wondering if he too had ever been young. Lucero, though now reduced to being broken in the ring, could never be broken or bent out of it. Walking with dignity and holding himself as a champ, Lucero comes into and leaves the film with the quiet grace that Tulley's character never had nor would ever know (how many of those nameless towns did Lucero ply his trade in, alone?). The great irony of the film is that while he is only in the film for a few scenes, and has perhaps five minutes of screen time, Lucero's battle with Tulley represents Tulley's battle with himself and thus is the only true ring war Tulley engages in. Another minor irony is Tully's calling Jeff Bridge's young fighter and father "soft" in the middle. Truly, it is this "kid" who gives Tully one of several examples of what it truly means to have "heart". Bridge's keeps coming back to the ring even after several brutal beatings and never waivers in his effort to be a father. At first it seems that he will be as much a failure at fatherhood as he would appear to be a fighter. In the end, like Lucero's stoic dignity, Houston's forgotten film stands quietly in the pantheon of cinematic treasures. A true champ can only lose his title in the ring and "Fat City" will stand a Champion, head held high as long as there are those to cherish great cinema. Lastly, I found this DVD for 3.00 @ a local Big Lots, could the irony be more poignant?

depressing look at the back side of America

[helpless-dancer · 7/10 · 17 December 2009]

Practically everybody in this film is a loser. They lose to booze, lust, laziness, or for being unable to figure out any way at all to stop the vicious cycle of their miserable lives. The film concentrates of 2 'fighters', one being an up and comer, the other a down and outer. Neither of the these two could ever give what it takes to become professional fighters because they have no heart for putting out what it takes to become a champion. One barely had the desire to put on his pants in the morning, and couldn't even do that without spending several minutes looking for a cigarette. The other guy's idea of a training session was 5 minutes on the speed bag and then accepting the other bum's suggestion to go get a beer. The film ended like these to pathetic people's lives will play out and finish.

"Yesterday is dead and gone..."

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 24 June 2007]

John Huston was a wonderful character actor, yet his films as a director are hit-and-miss, mostly due to his intentionally erratic or lackadaisical nature which makes his directorial efforts seem self-consciously avant-garde. "Fat City", adapted by Leonard Gardner from his own novel, was produced by slick Hollywood dealer Ray Stark and, while it's admittedly not a glossy film, Stark's commercial sensibilities may have brought Huston down to earth a bit. Stacy Keach gives an excellent performance as an unemployed, out-of-shape former boxer who talks a big deal about getting into the ring again; Jeff Bridges is an 18-year-old kid who goes to see Keach's old boxing manager hoping to start a career for himself. The two stories aren't paralleled with much irony, nor does Huston guide one into mirroring the other (Keach never sees himself in the young man, and their friendship is extremely casual). "Fat City" is a story made up of vignettes--and only a handful at that--which then form the bulk of the movie; once we in the audience realize this, there's nothing to hold our interest except for the acting. The two female characters (Susan Tyrrell and a brunette Candy Clark, looking like Glynnis O'Connor) are not written with much detail: they don't derail the men nor do they enrich their lives, they're simply present. Huston isn't interested in plot mechanics, which is refreshing in a way (he certainly doesn't score points against anybody); however, the film--with its affection for losers and burn-outs--has no urgency, and the final scene between the two protagonists is puzzling instead of emotionally provocative. ** from ****