Three Italian-American brothers, living in the slums of 1940's New York, try to help each other with one's wrestling career using one brother's promotional skills and another brother's con-artist tactics to thwart a sleazy manager.
Johnny Kovak joins the Teamsters trade-union in a local chapter in the 1930s and works his way up in the organization. As he climbs higher and higher his methods become more ruthless and ... See full summary »
The story of the rise and fall of the infamous Chicago gangster Al Capone and the control he exhibited over the city during the prohibition years. Unusually, briefly covering the years ... See full summary »
This is another story of the secret Coast to Coast auto race across America The only rule is, the first to finish is the winner. Naturally, anyone driving 55 isn't going to win. They'll ... See full summary »
Mike Vecchio and Susan Henderson are preparing for their upcoming wedding. However, they seem to be the only two people at the wedding that are happy. Mike's brother Richie and his wife ... See full summary »
This, the second adaptation of Raymond Chandler's novel, is much closer to the source text than the original - Murder, My Sweet (1944), which tended to avoid some of the sleazier parts of ... See full summary »
The size & positioning of the writing on the chalkboard in the beginning of the movie changes between shots. See more »
If you ever show my girl a ring like that again, you know what's gonna be written on your tombstone? "I was dumb enough to show Frannie Malincanico a $1600 ring," ya got that?
See more »
Way before the Fonz, way before Rocky, there was this small film known as the Lords of Flatbush. Set in the 50's it follows 4 guys who belong to "a social athletic club" known as the Lords (Flatbush being an area of Brooklyn). Pinned up in Leather jackets, brylecream, and being juvenille delinquents the film follows their antics. This movie is real void of any plot. The film synopsis I read on the back of the VHS tape said it follows the lives of these 4 guys as they soon decide that they have to grow up and join the real world and possibly let go of their friendship. Problem is the film is mostly just ad-lib dialogue and empty of any story to follow.
One guy (Perry King) is suppose to be falling for a smart girl who tells him to grow up, Another (Stallone) is in a pickle cause he got his girl pregnant and she wants to get married. Other than that, that's all you ever know about the characters. The back of the tape mentions that one character (Winkler), realizes he has to make something of himself out of his delinquency in hopes of going to college. However in the film Winkler has only one scene that gives any insight into his character which goes something like this:
Winkler: "You know I should really do something, you know?"
Soda jerk: "I know what you mean"
Winkler: "Ok I'll see you later"
[Walks out the door]
That's it! This is character development???? I didn't even hear the words 'go to college' in that dialogue..
The film doesn't stand the test of time either. Since it's somewhat just documetary like with hand held cameras and ad-libbed dialogue, the film is ridiculously choppy and seems like it was but together in 2 hours from outakes. Perhaps this was radical in '74, but today it's been improved and done way better and this looks terrible. This was a film that got Stallone noticed, and created the Fonz character for Winkler. There is ONE brilliant scene which involves Stallone in a jewellery store, stuck with his girlfriend and her friend badgering him into purchasing a very expensive engagement ring. But like I 've said, one good scene does not a whole movie make. The roof top 'pigeon' since is horribly bad and meaningless.
I am a big sucker for nostalgia too, and thought that would make me like this film more, but it is slow, badly put together, and filled with one dimensional characters. In short, it is empty. The final wedding scene and the 4th member giving the toast along with the flashback of their lives is pointless since the 4th member hardly had any role in the film. If you removed him, the movie wouldn't be any different with his absence so why is he even there??
Rating 3 out of 10
5 of 8 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?