Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

French Connection

2/22/2015

B-
2.83

I can remember two things from this movie - the car chase and cleaning out the bar - Bryan
I think the only actor anything's really asked of is Hackman, and he delivers as the single-minded Popeye - Jon
Hackman's hair is HORRIBLE - Blair

Initial Review by Riley

You ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie? I think it’s safe to say that’s an early nominee for best line next year. The problem is what does it mean. Theories… my initial thought was Popeye was referring to a prison in Poughkeepsie and was asking if they had a criminal record and had already served time, therefore could strong arm them more. Adding to that I figured the picking feet part had something to do with getting bent over for some prison rape. After a google it seems I wasn’t the only person who made that assumption. Apparently, however, it was based on an actual good cop bad cop routine the real detectives the movie was based on used. One cop would ask direct questions then the other would chime aggressively with a nonsense question to confuse the perp into actually answering the real question while trying to figure out what the hell was just asked. I choose to believe that it’s a little of both.

Anyway, on to actually reviewing the movie… I think I learned a lesson and it’s that not all classics hold up the same way. I don’t say that to imply The French Connection wasn’t a good movie but for an action movie it was incredibly slow by todays non-stop blow shit up standards. I think I wanted/expected something in between the pace of the movie and todays action movies that don’t have enough time between explosions for character and plot development. There were long slow stretches that were just too much, 95% of the time in Marseilles in the beginning was just showing how pretty Marseilles is.

Couple things I did love were seeing so many of the cop movie/show things we see today be used to great effect. The detectives begging the captain for a longer leash to go after the bad guy, kissing captains ass to for him to get a court order, FBI and local cops hating each other, etc. I don’t have knowledge of cop movie/show to know when that started but it felt very much like Law and Order copied 90% of their plots on things that happened in French Connection.

You can’t talk about this movie without mentioning Popeye’s car chase in pursuit of the train. I’ve known about this scene for years as what’s considered among the top car chases in movie history and it didn’t disappoint. I loved the fact that his car got beat the fuck up and he wasn’t somehow Michael Shumacher and drove 100 mph through tight traffic with no problem.

Hackman and Scheider were fantastic with Hackman clearly the Jordan to Scheider’s Pippen. No real female parts in the movie so no nominees.

New York in the 70s was a shithole

Overall the pacing and the stretches where nothing happened (damn stakeouts) hurt the movie for me. Of the older “classics” we’ve watched together this felt like a distant 3rd to Taxi Driver and The Good the Bad and the Ugly. To confirm my grades lined up that way I went back and saw I gave a B- to GBD so I read my review, I had B+ in there but wanted to bitch about a few things, hindsight says B+ was right. So I’ll go B for French Connection.

25 Comments

Drew

2/23/2015 10:47:17 am

When I watch a film, I am curious as to how it opens. If it grabs my attention and does not relinquish it. French Connection goes in reverse. The beginning failed to get my attention, the middle got it, and the end kept it.

Hackman's "tough guy" approach to Scheider's pragmatism made for a good team. Doyle and Russo should be considered one of the better duos in all of film. That is how much I value their teamwork.

The car chase was an absolute classic. I do not recall a student devil doing that. Did anyone not see Hackman driving? The camera work was superb and the way the car keeps going after taking such a beating was surreal. That scene deserves the hype,

What was a bit hokey concerning that scene was the conductor dieing of a heart attack or passing out or whatever. He just collapses and the train crashes into something. Also, that crash defies the laws of physics because if a train travels at that speed, I am fairly certain a derailment would have happened. Also, what happened to the people on the train when the guy exits? They just disappeared. Just odd.

I like how the film displayed New York City race relations. The black clubs were constantly sought after by Popeye and Buddy for crime and/or information. That foreshadowed the current relationship between enforcement and the black community. It was exemplified when Popeye breaks out "nigger" in the dialogue. Its usage stunned me but I quickly realized two things. One it was the early 1970s and two it fit with the distrust theme. He is quickly reigned in by Russo's response "he could have been white," which is rebuffed with Popeye's "you can't trust anyone" line.

I was not a fan of the ending. Charnier just ran away? That was pretty lame. Maybe that happened in the Richard Moore book and William Friedkin tried to keep author integrity. I am unsure but certain it was lame. A logical explanation for his escape cannot be had. Could we at least be shown that jumped into a lake or river?

Sean got it right when he wrote "not all classics hold up the same way." This is a classic and needs to be viewed but I do not think it is fantastic. It stands the test of time and is a film in Hackman's legacy (He won his only Oscar for Best Actor - he won Best Supporting Actor in Unforgiven - in this film and to be honest, I saw him better in other films. Hoosiers, Bonnie and Clyde, Mississippi Burning just to name a few). With that in mind, it is a good film.

Grade: B

sean

2/24/2015 01:07:24 am

They showed a shot of a braking mechanism in the track so it did brake into the collision

Shane

2/27/2015 11:25:36 am

I love Mississippi Burning, but Hackman's character seemed to slick. I liked Doyle a bit more because I think it's how cops are: They think they're always right and they'll destroy everything to prove it.

Bryan link

2/24/2015 02:58:24 am

A big downfall of watching these movies while spinning is that taking note is a pain. A big plus is that I can't get distracted by my phone or computer. If you thought my reviews were short before...

I can remember two scenes in this movie - the car chase and cleaning out the bar.

The car chase was fine, but they reached into the 'camera tied to the bumper' too many times for my enjoyment.

Hackman and Scheider were fine, but The French Connection is just a long, uneventful episode of CSI for me. Not that I watch CSI, but I'm guessing this is what it's like.

This movie had some nice twists like every time Hackman is foiled. I wish he had a good punch line for every time he's wrong.

The phrase "Picking your feet in Poughkeepsie" is annoying engrained in my head.

Overall, decent story line for the cops not constantly winning. I like that the bad guy got away in the end. Pretty 'meh' overall. C.

PS: Sorry so short, off to comment on other reviews.

Bryan

2/24/2015 03:01:49 am

Did Hackman use the phrase "Knock you into next week" here and in Hoosiers. I had no idea he was the same character repeatedly. Hooray Movie Club for knowledge!

2/24/2015 03:51:12 am

Remember as I read here. The blood special effects were atrocious.

2/27/2015 11:26:33 am

The blood special effects were hilarious.

Bobby

2/28/2015 06:36:41 am

I'm pretty sure some of those shots were ketchup...

Jon

3/1/2015 12:16:12 pm

I'm a fan of 70's blood effects, Moe Greene's eye notwithstanding. Anything's better than current, bloodless, PG-13 gunshot wounds.

2/24/2015 03:00:02 am

"Of the older “classics” we’ve watched together this felt like a distant 3rd to Taxi Driver and The Good the Bad and the Ugly."

Well said.

2/27/2015 11:29:39 am

Of the classics, I'll go:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Taxi Driver
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The French Connection

Though, I think Taxi Driver is technically the best movie of the four.

Sean

2/27/2015 01:01:32 pm

forgot to include Butch and Sundance in that one its 2nd behind Taxi Driver

3/1/2015 03:30:37 am

What makes a classic hold up better than others? Seinfeld holds up better than other comedies because there is very little technology dating the show and it's just funny. Westerns hold up incredibly well. Is that because they're more of a history book than something we've come close to experiencing? Will French Connection be better 30 years from now?

3/1/2015 03:42:10 am

It can be a number of thing that allow one movie to hold up better than another. Strong camera work can go a long way towards making up for non-hd. While it caused increased tension during the chase for French Connection it was very jerky. Today they could smoothly do the same views and its be better. Dialogue helps movies hold up better for me, I always prefer to glean something of a characters personality through conversation than making assumptions based on background- years make those assumptions more difficult. Other than that I assume Jon has a 3 page dissertation prepared for what allows movies to hold up

3/1/2015 04:13:14 am

Shaky cameras now are considered 'art'

3/1/2015 12:56:44 pm

I don't know that technology has been an unqualified positive for movies. We might be in a Golden Age of TV, but I don't think anyone would make the same argument about movies. Technology has democratized the process of filmmaking, but I'll take the practical effects of The Thing over the CGI effects of The Thing remake every time. Bryan's right that shaky-cam is the norm for a lot of movies and TV, so I don't know that improved camera technology has helped that much. Smoother action scenes also tend to mean more editing, which detracts from clearly being able to see what's happening.

For me, I go into classics with high expectations, because being called a classic means something, especially when that term now encompasses black-hat-white-hat Westerns and anti-hero 70's films. Someone watching a classic in the 1970's would likely marvel at how much more complex storytelling is in their present, and not have as high an opinion. I think influence is an important thing to keep in mind, but that's divorced from the movie itself. Maybe there's no such thing as classics while you're watching them: just a story being played out, irrelevant of when it was made. Thinking about it's place in history can happen after. Ultimately, if you don't like a classic, that's an opinion that should be owned, as long as you can back it up. I hate Family Guy, but I do like a scene where Peter talks about how he doesn't like the Godfather and proceeds to argue against it. At least he can defend his obviously wrong opinion.

Riley's right, I do have a lot to say about this. The main takeaway from the many hundreds-more words I could write is to not assume that a movie's automatically better or worse based on if it was made in 2014 or 1952.

3/3/2015 01:01:02 am

I think you have to credit for a movie for starting a trend, though. If you've never seen a buddy cop movie before, the first one you see is going to feel fresh. If you watch 5 in a row, it's not going to strike you as original. So if a movie spawned clones, then give it credit for that. You can't unwatch the other movies, but we're all smart enough to give an objective credit.

3/3/2015 01:04:33 am

I also think dialogue is a great way to measure classic movies. Too many of them seem cheesy and as if they're written by someone guessing how to speak English. In older movies, characters tend to blab out what is going on rather than letting us watch what is going on, which is something I know that Kissel hates. Don't treat the viewer like an idiot.

2/25/2015 07:15:14 pm

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday and he had Fran Lebowitz on. I don't really know who she is aside from an NYC personality, probably a writer. She started going on about how she prefers LA now to NYC, not because LA has gotten better, but because NYC has gotten so much worse. She didn't really go into detail about why this is, and this is likely a false nostalgia from the intelligentsia, engaging in the treasured past myth that conservatives justifiably get so much shit for. Whenever I hear someone like her or Anthony Bourdain talk about how much worse NYC is now, I can't square that assertion with the picture of the city presented in movies like Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, and the French Connection. These movies make NYC look like an urban wasteland full of dirtbags, assholes, a sleazy sex trade, crime, and pollution, but because you can't smoke anymore, or something, the place has gone to shit. The truth is likely that some character has gone away, but when your chances of getting stabbed have gone down so significantly, what's that character worth in the first place? I'd think Popeye Doyle would prefer to live in Bloomberg New York than the version that's going bankrupt.

On second thought, scratch that. Cloudy would prefer to live in Bloomberg NYC. Popeye's a proto-Jimmy McNulty from the Wire, good po-lice but bad for people. Without French kingpins to chase or minorities to harass, he'd likely kill himself, where Cloudy is able to sustain a life outside of the job. Without knowing the specific history, Popeye feels like something revolutionary for the time, the anti-hero cop that audiences wouldn't have been used to seeing, but which has become a cornerstone of all kinds of media since. I suppose Bonnie and Clyde was a few years earlier, but they owned their criminality. We're in the Golden Age of Cinema at this point, where new tropes are being invented and classics are cranked out every week. The French Connection might seem cliched in places, but I'd bet that's only because it invented a lot of the language that we've been inundated with in the 44 years that it's been around.

This is our second William Friedkin movie after Killer Joe, and he does a much better job here. Where that one was more script-driven, this one is more action-oriented by a wide margin. The excellent surveillance scenes tricked me several times, as I thought someone had blown it, but then, here comes another detective around the corner. The switching back and forth between Charnier eating a fancy dinner while Popeye and Cloudy eat pizza on the corner is one of those great character-building scenes where not a word needs to be spoken. I love any methodical scene (Anton Chigurh fixing his leg comes to mind) that demonstrates an arcane procedure, whether it's the process of testing heroin purity or tearing apart a car to look for hidden drugs. The car chase scene is something we've been talking about and is renowned for a reason. It's totally counter-intuitive to a modern viewer that it would be as messy as it is. There's still dozens of cars on the street, and Popeye gets into multiple crashes, only continuing through them by luck and sheer will. The movie's packed with great scenes and mannerisms that make total sense. If I just killed a guy carrying groceries, of course I would rip a chunk of his baguette as I stepped over his body. Who wouldn't?

As action-packed as it is, and with the deep amount of respect I have for a movie that doesn't end with everything wrapped up nicely, I do think the French Connection is pretty small, groundbreaking though it may be. I think it's a straightforward cat and mouse, cops and robbers tale, and this is as good as those kind of movies get. I think the only actor anything's really asked of is Hackman and he delivers as the single-minded Popeye. However, because there's been so many imitators, and this genre is so recognizable, whether the French Connection started the trend or not, it has to get dinged for it. I can't go back to 1971 and watch it fresh, where it might've totally blown my mind. I can only watch it having seen so many versions of this story, and bringing those experiences to this movie. So the French Connection doesn't get to be in the A's. It's a classic and an admirable choice for Best Picture, but I would have gone with A Clockwork Orange or McCabe and Mrs. Miller, two A movie from the same year. The French Connection has to be satisfied with a B+.

2/26/2015 09:11:41 am

This won Best Picture? Well, that's disappointing... not as disappointing as the actual movie, though.

I had to start this one twice... as I fell asleep within 10 minutes the first time. Now, at first I credited this to a bad week that included an ER visit and sleepless nights, so I thought I'd watch it right after a nap and there'd be no way I'd lull me to sleep again! I was almost wrong. The beginning just isn't interesting. Sure, it sets a few things up, let's you know who the major players are, to a point... but it barely even seems necessary as you can learn all that pretty quickly if you jump in to the movie once everybody is in America.

At least it got better from there. Hackman was pretty solid throughout, as was Schneider and the rest of the cast. The camera work was well done for the most part, as well. The big scene being the car/train chase... it was nice continuous action, but I agree with Bryan about going to certain views too often. They knew they had a good thing going there, so i don't really blame them... as a chase like that was clearly something spectacular at the time.

In general, the story didn't compel me. Maybe it's because Doyle clearly got more chances and credit for his hunches than he deserved.. or that the pace, with the stake outs and such, just weren't doing it for me. I was a little annoyed that the sniper was such a bad shot... he wasn't that far, and he had the element of surprise, so he had as much time as he needed to take that initial shot with Doyle walking toward him. What annoyed me more... as how much ground Doyle seemed to make up when he saw the guy running from the building and had to run back down the stairs. Sure, the guy made it onto the train anyway... but it just felt really unnatural.

The score distracted me more than it added anything to the movie. Especially the times when it felt like it was trying to set the suspense level to 11.. as if we were in a thriller/horror movie. No good.

I was pretty disappointed in the ending, too. We've talked about movies summing things up at the end with some text about key players... and while that has its moments (Mostly when portraying real life events), this wasn't it. You give me this story... show me the rest. If the ending to the story is that bland that it has to just be read, you should probably work on the ending.

Overall, I just wasn't satisfied. I get how the car chase and a couple other scenes can make this stand out, especially back in the 70s, but as a complete movie, it's just not that special, in my opinion. Solid C.

2/27/2015 11:19:30 am

It's always interesting to go back and watch the classics to see how well they hold up. Because of the media dominated world we live in, movies now are paced differently than they used to be. I don't know if it's good or bad, but I do know I enjoy modern movies more than I do older ones in general. And that's when it's hard to compare them.

It's like athletes. You take a role player in the NBA from now and throw him in with players from the 70's. Chances are that guy is a Hall of Famer. Seriously, Nate Robinson would destroy those teams. What makes guys like Oscar Robinson so amazing is I watch him and I realize he could have easily played now and been a top guy. And that's crazy impressive. So, I keep era in mind when judging a movie. But, if a movie is able to hold up across eras, then that's even more impressive.

The French Connection kind of splits on holding up. The first 30-45 minutes are kind of slow and hard to follow. But the back end of the movie really holds up and is something I could see being made today. It's like a bizarro Horns but with no bad accents and uncomfortable uses of racial slurs.

I loved the relationship between Doyle and Russo, but Hackman really takes ownership here while Schneider takes a backseat. I can't be the only one who thought of McNulty and Bunk the entire time, right? It seems like a cliche character now, but Hackman's Doyle came across as angry, obsessive and destructive. I'm sure these traits make for the best and worst police. He had an additional element to him Russo and the rest of the characters lacked. Maybe it's because Hackman is better than the rest or maybe it's just the writing, I'm not sure. I can't take points away for something that is a cliche now, though. i'll give them the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't something the copied. Further, I'm giving them credit for being the source material for The Wire, a critically acclaimed show that perfected this sort of cop relationship. Doyle by all means is an antihero in a time where I'm not sure a lot of antiheroes existed.

The surveillance scenes are fantastic. It isn't just the typical sleep in a car and follow the guy by yourself stuff. I liked that they showed how detailed this sort of thing is. A lot of work had to go into those shots and I suspect a lot of reliance upon the actual officers who this film was based off of occurred.

I also loved the chase scene. That scene absolutely stressed me out. It was fantastic seeing Doyle wreck and then keep going. Those cars were just large hunks of sheet metal strapped to wheels. They're thankfully not made like that anymore, but a crash scene with a car like that is more fun.

The side characters didn't do much for me. Opposing angry cop was a bit too one note. The bad guys were somewhat interesting, but ultimately I wasn't too wrapped up in their fate.

So when Charnier got away in the end, I could see how it would be frustrating. We don't like him enough to root for him and it gives us a loose end that is unsatisfying. I don't know how accurate this movie was to the real life case, but I do know the drug lord in real life actually escapes, so they didn't change that part.

Picking your toes in Poughkeepsie. It's intentionally a distracting question that confuses the criminal to better get a satisfying answer. Considering this was a time where you could still beat people and search an entire bar with no probable cause, it seems unnecessary. But, whatever, it's fun.

This doesn't quite hit an A for me as I feel like a lot of the first 30-45 minutes was wasted and we really only had one interesting character to follow. A-

3/1/2015 03:44:16 am

A- ?!?!? Hackman, the chase, and the surveilance get points - that's fine. But you discount the first 45 minutes as slow and the side characters don't do much for you.

B review, A- score. Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannneee!

3/1/2015 02:14:00 pm

I'll answer for Shane here, Haters gonna hate and Ainters gonna aint

3/3/2015 01:02:44 am

It was probably a B+ review, but I'll usually bump a movie a little bit for being a trendsetter. Also, I loved how the movie ended. You kill an ending like that and I'm going to leave with a positive review.

Blair

3/6/2015 06:47:07 am

I'M REVIEWING...

So, I almost fell asleep through the first 2/3 of this movie. I kept telling Shane that I was tired and we paused it a few times so that I could probably eat more ice cream, popcorn, etc.

I did not follow, nor did I try to follow the first 2/3 of the movie. Shane suggested that it was like the Wire, which made me slightly more interested. Overall, though, it was slow and boring; the most interesting thing for me was being shocked (probably shouldn't have been since this was 1970) by the n-bomb Hackman throws out (I just kept picturing him in Mississippi Burning!) and some of the other outlandish police protocols. Also, his HAIR IS HORRIBLE.

It wasn't until the chase scene that I perked up. Filming, sounds, intensity were all incredibly awesome; I was suddenly on the edge of my seat, very invested in these characters. So, I enjoyed the last 1/3 of the movie.

If we're doing math, 1/3 of enjoyment still receives an F (right, Brian?), but since that 1/3 was really good, I'll go with a -C.

French Connection

B-
2.83

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

French Connection

B-2.83

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

B-
2.83