Skip tracer Tommy Nowak is tracking Lou Ann McGuinn for a bail bondsman in California. Lou Ann is also being chased by her husband Roy McGuinn and his birth right/neo-nazi friends for ... See full summary »
As the film opens on an Oklahoma farm during the depression, two simultaneous visitors literally hit the Wagoneer home: a ruinous dust storm and a convertible crazily driven by Red, the ... See full summary »
A hard but mediocre cop is assigned to escort a prostitute into custody from Las Vegas to Phoenix, so that she can testify in a mob trial. But a lot of people are literally betting that they won't make it into town alive.
Kansas City in the 1930s: private investigator Mike Murphy's partner is brutally murdered when he tries to blackmail a mobster with his secret accounting records. When a rival gang boss goes after the missing records, ex-policeman Murphy is forced to team up again with his ex-partner Lieutenant Speer, even though they can't stand each other, to fight both gangs before KC erupts in a mob war.Written by
Tom Zoerner <Tom.Zoerner@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
The time-frame of this film can be verified by identifying evidence of certain events depicted in the film. Two movies are showing at the cinema during the picture-house sequence. They are a double bill of Horse Feathers (1932) and Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933). The former premiered on 10 August 1932 whilst the latter debuted on 27 May 1933. Prohibition was repealed on 5th December 1933. As such, the film is set during 1933. See more »
In the scene where Spear gets into a shoot-out with the thug in the hallway and stairwell, he shoots the thug a total of eight times, all in the upper chest area. However, later when he and Murphy are examining the bodies in the morgue, there is an overhead shot of the same thug and he has no upper chest wounds of any kind. See more »
[referring to the briefcase Murphy's holding]
He says there's a bomb in there.
[looks at Murphy]
Well, two sticks of dynamite and a hand grenade.
What were you gonna do after you dropped it?
I don't know, Ollie.
See more »
"City Heat" is a movie that should have been something special. When made back in 1984, it seemed like a great idea of having two of Hollywood's biggest moneymaking actors back then (Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds) starring together in an action/comedy that takes place during the 1930s. But something went wrong early on during the production. Blake Edwards wrote the script and was slated to direct. But Edwards walked off this movie to direct Dudley Moore in "Micki + Maude", and former actor Richard Benjamin came on to take over the directing duties. BIG MISTAKE!!! Even though Edwards still got screenplay credit (under the pseudonym Sam O. Brown), changes were made in the script, and "City Heat" ended up a mess. What a shame! I can still remember Chicago film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert blasting this movie when it came out. Ebert gave it 1/2*, and Siskel gave it no stars. The movie opened back in early December 1984, and two other big movies opened that same week (Eddie Murphy's "Beverly Hills Cop" and the "2001" sequel "2010"). Back then when Siskel and Ebert were doing their movie review show "At the Movies" (this was before their show went nationwide as "Siskel & Ebert"), they would have a skunk on the show to talk about the stinker of the week honoring the worst movie that they reviewed that week. "City Heat" won the honor over "Beverly Hills Cop" and "2010" as the stinker of the week. That's major criticism considering the presence of two big superstars. Now I didn't think "City Heat" was that bad, but it's bad. To me this was a big disappointment. Eastwood plays a cop; Reynolds a private eye. Former partners who now don't get along, they're forced to team up to erase crime from the streets of 1930s Kansas City. Eastwood and Reynolds come off O.K. as this odd couple of crimebusters, but they should have been better. At least they come off better than they're supporting cast. The supporting actors (from Jane Alexander to Madeline Kahn to Irene Cara to Rip Torn) are all wasted, not making much of an impression. Another thing that bothered me about "City Heat" is that it has a phony feeling throughout. It feels like this movie was shot on a movie set instead of real outdoor scenery. That makes the movie unrealistic. Plus, the fight scenes and all the glass breakage is totally laughable. I laughed every time I heard glass breaking during the fight scenes. "City Heat" is an asinine crime comedy that I think would have worked if Edwards had directed it. Roger Ebert made a memorable take on "City Heat" saying quote: "Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds are stuck in one of the biggest bombs of the year, an incomprehensible mess disguised as a period gangster picture". It's a mess alright. Though my rating is a little higher than Ebert's because I felt that some of the action scenes have punch. But that's not saying much. "City Heat" was so bad to most people that this was the first and last time Eastwood and Reynolds starred in a movie together. Blake Edwards had a good movie on his hands, but Richard Benjamin came on to mess it up.
*1/2 (out of four)
19 of 36 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this