It's a hard crime story about a Philadelphia shop owner who has enough of the criminals' violences and ravages. He organizes a patrol of civil people. It all starts to go wrong because his ...
See full summary »
It's a hard crime story about a Philadelphia shop owner who has enough of the criminals' violences and ravages. He organizes a patrol of civil people. It all starts to go wrong because his team's actions are taken as racial discrimination ... Written by
Kornel Osvart <email@example.com>
Thieves, Pimps, Prostitutes, Muggers and Drug Dealers beware. John D'Angelo's out to make his neighbourhood safe. He's declaring his own personal war on crime and he doesn't want your kind around here any more.
One of two 1982 theatrical feature films first released that year with the title of "Fighting Back". The movies are the American vigilante action thriller picture "Street Wars" aka "Fighting Back" [See: Street Wars (1992)] and the Australian youth drama feature film Fighting Back (1982). Ironically, both pictures featured a number of prominent "Tom" personnel: The U.S. movie starred actor Tom Skerritt as John D'Angelo and had a character called Tom Cassidy played by Jim Lovelett, whilst the Australian film was based on a novel called "Tom" (1978) by John Embling, had a central character named "Tom" played by Paul Smith, and had Tom Jeffrey being a co-screenwriter and one of the producers on the picture. See more »
5.8 rating about right...wanted to like this more, but movie is aimless
I love these 1970s and early 80s gritty movies, and in this regard, the film delivers. The large old American cars, the street scenery, the police, etc. all has that feel that you don't get in today's movie. But overall, the film fails to deliver. By the middle of the movie I was starting to get bored waiting for something more interesting to happen. Much of the movie is also unrealistic. The police seem virtually non-existent, which is not genuine (even if the point is that a neighborhood watch is needed). The rivalry with the pimp also made no sense, there were a series of meetings which just did not flow with the plot. Overall, you are unlikely to be very satisfied with this film, although it is reasonably watchable. This is why the rating is in the 5-6 range and the film remains obscure. The few reviewers who gave it an 8 to 10 rating are waaaaaaay over-rating the movie and do not know what a true 9 or 10 movie is (in my view, only 4-6 movies a year can really be called a 9 or 10).
2 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?