When a unfeeling mayor refuses to render aid to an injured city employee he opens a can of worms which he goes nuts trying to close. Reminded me a bit of Jack Finney's novel "The Night People" because the hero's stunts got more and more outlandish until his outings culminated in the mother of political harassments. Thumbs up.
Add a Review
-
helpless_dancer13 February 2004
-
avallyee21 September 2013That's the intent of this movie. It was clothed in an amalgam of New York humor types, Marx Brothers chaos, and Hollywood sentimentality. Still, it had a unique flavor.
Funny how many people have commented on the 80's categorization of this movie. I wonder how many of these self-declared cinematic scholars were even alive at that time. Yet they presume to claim knowledge of the era's style(s) and motivations.
I am a first hand witness of that time and the release of this film. I can tell you two things: One, it was far more successful at the time than Wikipedia, IMDb, or the Razzies seem to want to report. Two, it resonated with many who were alive at that time - and still does.
This is not a complex film. No deep philosophical message. No vitriol. Maybe that's why current reviewed can't "relate: to it.
In fact, it's quite a superficial piece. Still, I'd place it's flawed middling dialog against most movies produced since. Especially the critically-acclaimed ones.
Some have denounced its unlikely plot. I agree with that assessment. This is no suspense piece or thriller. I felt the story is a scaffolding for eclectic comedy mixed with homage to people who are too often dismissed as silly or frivolous. So many people have talent which is never realized or appreciated. These are the people of Terry and Jimmy Lynch's life. And yes, NY is and always been home to many of these folks. I believe they used to be called non-conformists. Sociologists categorized them that way for decades. Not sure if anyone even bothers with that term anymore.
I'm sure the sage cinematic critics understand that film, like all art forms, continuously blend reality and unreality. So there will be unlikely scenarios like the one Terry Lynch put himself into concerning his off-duty fire rescue. I'm sure many actual fire fighters dismissed that plot device. I know I found myself agreeing with the mayor when Jimmy shouts his fragmented account of Terry's situation. I'd say Terry totally mishandled his presence at that fire. So I had some failing in the suspension of disbelief while my viewings. But I also know that sometimes there's more than a single incident. The Lynch family back story helped a little. Ultimately, I allowed the film to tell me what it wanted to say. I didn't agree with some of its premises - including the romanticization of Jimmy's destruction of property. Still, it was fun. A guilty pleasure - fanticization of one person's battle against a perceived cruel, cold, de-humanizing institution.
This was unique to the 80's ?
Arguably, there's more pseudo-history now than ever. One tweet can be taken as fact by millions of "followers" - how I loathe that use of the term. Way way too much "following" - far too little originality. Once upon a time - originality was the goal of expression. Now anything that is not exactly as deemed "sweet" is summarily rejected.
If this films represents the 80's, so be it. At least there was some courage to protect a single person's right to differ.
There are still those who value individuality and will defend it. Snide, spoiled kiddies be damned.
I'd take Turk 182 as champion over any of the cheesy, faint "literary" heroes or heroines of today. -
bkoganbing12 June 2015Back in the day I was given a bit of practical political advice that I follow to this day. Cops are controversial by the nature of their job. But everyone loves a fireman because they're only there to help, everyone is glad to see them and want them to get their just due when they're injured. Take up the case of firemen and you'll never go wrong.
Something that Robert Culp playing a New York City Mayor modeled on John Lindsay should have realized. But he's an arrogant sort and that becomes his downfall.
Turk 182 is the call sign of graffiti artist Timothy Hutton the younger brother of firefighter Robert Urich who is injured off duty when he performs a rescue, it's what firemen do. Then he goes through all kinds of fecal matter trying to get a disability pension. Hutton does not give up and when he's rebuffed at City Hall he wages a one man guerrilla war on the city administration leaving all kinds of graffiti in very public places impugning the integrity and efficiency of the current administration, always with the call sign Turk 182. Turk was Urich's nickname and his ID number with the Fire Department was 182. Takes them a while to figure that out.
Timothy Hutton gives a fine performance as a working class ethic Irish kid from Windsor Terrace one of the last truly ethnic Irish neighborhoods in New York City. But he's the lead in a fine ensemble of players who really make this a New York City story.
Speaking of police there's a contrasting pair in this film with Darren McGavin as a very wise veteran and Peter Boyle as this homicidal maniac of a detective who takes the graffiti activity of Hutton almost as a personal insult. I've seen examples of both in my day. I should also point out the performance of Kim Cattrall as the social worker who gets personally involved in Urich's case when she falls for Hutton.
Turk 182 is a personal favorite of mine in terms of telling stories about New York City. A pity it's not out on DVD or Blu-Ray. -
jsisgod21 February 2000I saw this one a couple years ago on Cinemax, and didn't think it was half bad.
Sure, the plot dragged at times, but how can you hate Turk 182? The film makers had good intentions.
Basically, the plot revolves around a guy (Timothy Hutton) and his brother (Robert Urich) who is injured trying to save children from a fire. Because the guy was intoxicated at the time, the city refuses to foot his medical bills, regardless of the fact that he saved these poor kids from certain death. So, the Timothy Hutton character heckles the mayor by covering the city of New York in graffiti (long story).
Overall, I thought it was a cool idea that was, for the most part, well executed by the cast and crew. So, if you can't find anything good on TV, check out Turk 182.
Zimmerman flew and Tyler knew! :-) -
Kim Cattrall looks fabulous. The movie may be old but she was new. There was a short love scene but, unfortunately, there was no nudity.
I miss Bob Urich. How can someone so incredibly healthy die so young.
The movie plays well--heavy, fake accents and all. The one exception to the enjoyment of this simple fare is the soundtrack. What a god-awful music score. It's like trying to watch a fun movie while sitting next to a calliope. Otherwise, I did enjoy the movie.
I'm taking away two stars for the story and to pay for some acting lessons, and two stars must die for the music director's mistake.
-Cosmically-Psychic-Bob -
I love this movie, despite its flaws. Let me tell you why you will probably at least like it, too.
I have been reading through the comments of this movie and find myself agreeing with many of the generally positive and some of the negative comments made by previous posters. This remains to me a lovable movie, and after nearly 25 years, something of a cult classic.
What always got me was the basic story of the 'dead-beat' younger brother, Jimmy Lynch, played by Timothy Hutton, standing by his tough, elder, FDNY fire-fighting brother, Terry, played by (the very much missed) Robert Urich. Terry had always taken care of Jimmy, but Terry was now the one in need of help care, having been injured and subsequently depressed, after trying to save a girl from a fire.
Terry has been denied benefits and help because he was off-duty and intoxicated. Jimmy goes all the way to NYC Mayor Tyler (Robert Culp), but is rebuffed.
Jimmy's inventive and high-profile - if unlawful - one-man campaign to play on the woes of the Mayor's own re-election campaign and eventually gain public sympathy for his brother's plight, endears him to, and gains the intrigue of, the people and media of NYC, much to the chagrin of the Mayor, and in particular, his staff.
From the early "oh no!" and indignation of elder brother Terry's plight, to the amusing "Turk 182" campaign, you find yourself gradually getting more and more behind Jimmy. But the "Turk 182" campaign against the Mayor is anonymous and its true motive is still to be revealed. You realise, as does Jimmy, that in order to succeed in publicising his brother's case, Jimmy must reveal the true motivation behind "Turk 182! Which must also mean revealing himself and that will inevitably mean having to face consequences.
By the time you get to the thrilling finale, if you are not rooting for Jimmy Lynch...well you just ought to go and change your name to "Scrooge" and have done with it.
You can debate the rights and wrongs of the decision not to give the Terry Lynch character his fire-fighter benefits, but the fact that NYC could take that position, and Jimmy continues to fight it on his brother's behalf, should tell you that the decision is perhaps not clear cut, hence the central conflict that the movie works from. It wouldn't really work if there was no reasoning whatsoever behind it other than, 'The Mayor and the city are evil and stingy'. That's the stuff of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
However, would you expect an off-duty Fire fighter to standby in such circumstances where a little girl is trapped in a fire, when the trucks and fire fighters are not there yet, although he's a had few drinks, but isn't fall-down drunk? Clearly the movie takes the sympathetic view that it is a pretty poor way to treat a man who risked his life, to save a little girl, and was injured in the process.
This is key to the movie. If you are not going to accept that premise then you may not have sympathy for the central characters and will not enjoy the film as much as those that can and do.
No, it's not the greatest film ever made, and yes it is essentially a feel-good movie. It's a bit flimsy in places, with some dodgy accents (I am not even American, let alone a New Yorker, and I was amused at some of the accents) and it had some thin characterisation in some of the support roles; but that thin characterisation is partly responsible for this movie's greatest asset. Bear with me, here.
That feel-good movie factor you get from this film arises from the empathy for Jimmy and Terry Lynch, and how you find yourself rooting for "Turk 182" and willing him on. The empathy and sense of injustice you feel for the characters would have suffered by having the Mayor and his minions, particularly Peter Boyle's 'angry detective', having deeper or greyer characters and coming across as at all sympathetic. Whilst the point of conflict can be considered debateable, the film's sympathies are clearly one-sided and black and white.
I think Robert Culp plays the Mayor here perfectly. The character is hardly an evil, sneering Bond villain, and it's left unclear if he is actually even guilty of being anything more than a successful politician. Culp's performance just leaves you feeling in your bones that the Mayor is "dirty" and probably guilty of something - and he does not therefore warrant any sympathy.
I can see that one of the reasons I love this movie is because it is a little bit more black and white and one-sided than real life tends to be - and if it had been greyer, it simply would not have given me, or its audience, the same level of empathy for Jimmy Lynch's sense of injustice and I would not have got the joy out of his antics as "Turk 182" that I did when I first saw it back in circa 1986 - or still got when I last saw it in 2009.
The character of Terry Lynch may seem pale in comparison to his contemporaries - such as Tommy Gavin and his buddies from "Rescue Me", but it was a feel-good movie made in 1985. It was made in mind of the video generation and aimed generally at a youngish audience. You could take the girlfriend to the movies to see Turk 182 - or rent the video for the couch at home.
So relax and enjoy it for what it is, rather than slate it for what it isn't. Get behind "Turk 182", and maybe you'll experience some of the joy that I got out of this movie. -
bemanning2 April 2000Though the cast is first rate, this turkey is painful to watch. Since the entire premise is based on the older brother (Urich) being wronged, one can not help but notice that the evil city had a good point. When Urich's character was performing the act that would lead to his troubles, I kept thinking about how many regulations and common sense this character was defying. The David and Goliath scenerio is meant to be the underpinnings of this flick, but was David the real bully?
-
Jay0910195111 March 2009A bad movie all around. It is in the same class as some of Edward J. Wood's worst movies. It's non-stop corn-ball over-acting. People who have never lived in NYC must get a real laugh out of this. I hope for their sake they don't think for 1 second the city is really like this! And to top it all off, they used Giants Stadium as a NY landmark when any person with a 2nd grade education knows it's in the state of New Jersey and only cops you see there are NJ State Troopers. The scene with the super-train is painful to watch as the mayor is singing a song for 3 year old kids while waiting for the train. What a bad movie! It makes no sense and I wonder where the producers got enough backing to create this real bomb.
-
When a simple, jovial New York firefighter is badly injured rushing into a fire while off-duty, his kid brother takes up his cause with the mayor after he's refused workers' compensation. Somehow that leads to a series of graffiti-based public black eyes for the administration that quickly escalate in size and media coverage. Naturally Jimmy, the barely-legal brother, is behind it all. A close follow-up to director Bob Clark's A Christmas Story, the two are, oddly, very similar in tone and candor. The whimsical, light touch works for a family holiday tale, but in a streetwise take on corrupt politicians it doesn't really fit. A stiflingly straightforward plot, one-dimensional characters and senseless love story don't help matters. This wants to seem charming, funny and intelligent, but in practice it's bland, soft and out of touch. The one real hook could've been a focus on how, exactly, Jimmy manages to constantly thwart the mayor's security measures and lay his tags, but most of that activity is left to our imagination. Weak, flavorless and bereft of passion, it's a real dud.
-
ray-28015 December 2005Turk 182! is one of those films that doesn't explain itself. The plot is explained, but the culture and backdrop are not: New York City is presented in all its glory, as the bureaucracy and the politicians who run it are pitted against an injured firefighter (Robert Urich) and his graffiti-artist-turned-political-activist brother (Timothy Hutton), who ensures that neither the Mayor nor the city forget the name "Turk 182!" Kim Cattral appears as Hutton's sidekick/love-interest, and sidecar passenger in his motorcycle, in a role far more "sexier in the city" than anything she turned out in her HBO series. Notables in the remainder of the cast include Robert Culp as the over-the-top mayor who wants to regain control over the "vandalism," and Paul Sorvino in a highly amusing cameo involving the abuse of the Giants' Stadium scoreboard.
In this movie, Turk's brother was injured off-duty while saving the lives of some children during a fire. Since he was drunk at the time, the city refuses to pay his medical expenses, and Turk's activism is born. Like any good graffiti artist, Turk leaves his mark anywhere and everywhere, while eluding law enforcement. As one who was a teenager living in New York City in the 1980s, and who knew several serious graffiti artists, I can say that while the movie was a sanitized version of what they do, they got enough of the flavor of that culture to show its power when confronted with an injustice.
If you've never been to New York, or if you are there now but weren't in the 1980s, the movie is an excellent period piece that will reveal a great deal about the city through its backdrop and subplots, many of which were as or far more interesting than the main plot. New Yorkers generally don't care about anything that doesn't affect them, but when they do, the city literally grinds to a halt, as do the New York politicians who follow their lead.
With so few movies reflecting New York City so accurately, this one is definitely worth watching, and the story it tells, however simplistic and over-the-top in its execution, is still worth telling occasionally in yet another form. This is a very intriguing film. -
oh madeline8 April 2001The Paul Sorvino sequence itself is classic. Timothy Hutton makes a fine hero for this ultimate feel-good movie. I've seen this 3 times, and enjoyed it more each time. Robert Culp is perfect as the mayor. Darren McGavin and Peter Boyle are both wonderful in their supporting roles, as are Robert Urich and David Wohl -- even though they are given less to do. I see a couple people referring to this as a turkey, and I'd like to know why. I thought the characters are very true to themselves, and the relationships were well-thought out, well-paced and well-executed. Forget the critics, just watch and enjoy.
-
redkiwi30 June 2002As far as films of the 80s go, this is very much of its time, with the acting -- featuring an INCREDIBLY young looking Timothy Hutton! -- the script, the setting, the direction and even the music.
However, this is a very enjoyable "cute" movie about a the brother [Hutton] of a firefighter [Urich] who was injured at a fire and saved a little girl after having a couple of drinks.
Refused compensation, the brother sets off to ruin the election campaign of the mayor of New York with a series of sensational graffiti stunts.
The love interest is predictable, but this is still a fun film without getting serious -- it knows its place. -
Director Bob Clark ("Porkys," "Murder By Decree," "A Christmas Story") films one of his best ever here. When an off duty fireman (Robert Urich)attempts to save a child from a burning building, he is injured. But due to the fact he had been at a local bar at the time of the fire, the city of New York deny's him his earned and justified Pension. When his younger brother (Timothy Hutton) tries to get some justice for his brother he is rebuffed by everyone including an arrogant Mayor (Robert Culp)of New York. After his brother is blamed and arrested by the police for a minor bit of mischief that he is responsible for, Jimmy Lynch fights back, using a plan that will literally drive the politico nuts. Also stars Peter Boyle as an over the edge cop, and Daren McGavin as a police detective. Kim Catrall is a social worker that wants to help Jimmy in the end.
This film is one of those feel good movies, with a lot of good moments and a fine understated moral. With this one Bob Clark is a modern day Aesop.Most definitely worth a watch. -
turk_1828 July 2002Terry Lynch gets a raw deal by on-the-take Mayor Tyler (Robert Culp). Only one of his fellow officers believes in him and it is up to his brother (Timothy Hutton) to shed light upon the city's mistreatment of his brother. Graffiti artist extraordinaire Timothy Hutton is magnificent in this fast-paced action-adventure yarn about one man's pursuit of justice for his brother. Expertly directed by Bob Clark, this one's unexpectedly delicious. Be ready to root hard for the hero.
-
vexted6 February 2021I saw this film back in the 80's and thought it was a light hearted, man against the world charmer. I still, after all these years stand behind that statement, and more importantly, sentiment. I recently looked to buy this film digitally, but can't find it, at least digitally. So I'll buy it on dvd till then. Having said this I'm writing this review impart due to some negativity I found while looking for this film. It seem many reviews about this film focuses on the plot holes, as to how Turk 182 can accomplish all his feats of daring do. Really!? If you can't except a brothers attempting to right a wrong for his brother the only family he has than don't but this film, and turn your heart in on your way out the door. Timothy Hutton, Kim Cattrell & Robert Urich have wonderful chemistry and a palpable empathy that helps the audience bond with them instantly. If your a fan of Frank Capra and his man again world movies you'll love this film. To paraphrase "it's all about the characters stupid " don't get hung up on the hows just enjoy The Who's.
-
What an epic movie this was...as a youth i was very interested in the central theme in this film, that of social disobedience. What do you do when your brother breaks his back while saving a young child from a burning building, and the state refuses to pay for his hospitalization..If you're Timothy Hutton there is only one answer..take up with Kim Cattrall and cover the town with grafitti. And not just any grafitti...Grafitti which scandalizes the mayor. The ending is as thrilling as it gets, which along with a Paul Sorvino Cameo and the generous usage of a stunning motorcycle with side car brought this reviewer to his knees...A must for motorcycle with sidecar enthusiasts and Spencer For Hire afficianados...
-
dflynch2154 February 2021Originally put on the shelf, Turk 182 finally got released thanks mostly to Timothy Hutton's Oscar for Ordinary People. Although Turk 182 isn't an Oscar-caliber film, it's still an enjoyable movie to watch. The cast is excellent. Timothy Hutton is fine as an indolent Irish-American lad, Jimmy Lynch, who decides to help his victimized older brother by exposing the mayor's scandalous ways. Jimmy uses the Brooklyn Bridge's colorful 100th anniversary celebration to demonstrate that you can fight city hall.
-
elshikh425 December 2009My first title was "I love the 1980s, but not to this extent!". On second thought, I found that this is a bit harsh and mean to this movie.
It got a fine ground for: a funny revenge story, the kid who beats the monster; or the playful resistant who beats the unjust sheriff, and the suppressed objections against a reign when go off by a hero to overthrow it. However, the dealing wasn't as fine.
For all the time, you're asking yourself: where is this plot going to?! It's nothing but one practical joke after another. I thought that the lead would go and investigate the corruption of the mayor deeply with a game of many disguises, exposing more evidences every step ahead. But sorry. All what we had was just exposing for (Zimmerman Flew and Tyler Knew) for endless times! The enemy / the mayor looked so nice and helpless more than menacing or tough which weakened the conflict utterly. His men were talking more than doing, seeming old and defeated without anything to fight with; so more weakness for the conflict. Actually all of that turned the movie into the dullest, most boring, Robin Hood story ever!
Moreover, an annoying question: How the young lead could pull off all of these tricks, to sneak into highly guarded places many times without anybody seeing him?! We didn't have the chance to watch him carefully while doing that. Seriously, that could have made some thrilling scenes instead of a torpid sequence of photos! Then the matter of the climax. The mayor was finished anyway, so what this last move was going to add? It looks perfectly goofy. And what's the motive to kill Turk AND opposite to hundreds of witnesses, let alone all of these TV cameras as well?? And after the end, sure that Turk would be prosecuted for deforming the city, so how about bringing back his brother's lost rights?!
So by now, it'll be cruel already to talk about things like the role of the heroine and how it was so empty, to sound eventually like an extra. For example, why she wasn't the mayor's daughter? Or at least a girl from his staff who believes in him then gets sympathetic with Turk's case?!! Anyway, I won't do this scriptwriter's work for him. Simply there had to be a love interest anyway, and they did it.. anyway. Generally, this script wanted a lot, but truly what it wanted the most was some reformation!
The second killer element was the lead himself. (Timothy Hutton) ranged between blank, bland and idiot, missing the charisma and the credibility. He was throwing his good lines badly, acting so uninterestingly like he's in a cold rehearsal. This is a Razzie worthy material folks (to a degree where I suspected it was deliberate!).
In totally painful irony, the supporting role of the brother went to the one who got the charisma, the talent and the wit (Robert Urich). This man assured here that he was undoubtedly a good actor, and one of the unluckiest too. True that he would be saved by being cast as the lead role in the TV hit series, and one of my favorites, (Spenser: for Hire) in the same year, but to tell you the truth, still (Turk 183!) is his better work as an actor I have ever seen, if not the best, in spite of the fact that his cinematic career was dead and gone after it. It kills me even more when he got nominated for the Razzie of the worst supporting actor for his super performance in here, while in the same year (Jon Voight) got nominated for the Oscar of the best actor for his disastrous performance in (Runaway Train). This is a mystery for me. A real provocative one!
Technically speaking, it's only the editing at the last sequence which celebrated the lead to an exaggerated extent that bothered me. Because aside from that, the directing was so intense and attractive. The image looked bright and sharp. And there was a sweet lovable spirit all over the movie. Nevertheless, director (Bob Clark)'s name was related to some of the most infamous movies like (Rhinestone - 1984), (Loose Cannons - 1990), and (Baby Geniuses - 1999). Well, sometimes the director's taste for not-so-good scripts, while leading his actors clearly bad, can destroy him!
Although it got a well-meaning goal, but it isn't well made, having a miscast as a lead. Plus it doesn't stand a chance in front of its competitors in the same year: (Back to the Future), (Brazil), (Mask), (Rambo: First Blood Part II), (White Nights), and (The Goonies). But it's still watchable and nice compared to the year's horrible pieces: (Rocky IV), (Legend), (Death Wish 3), and yes.. (Runaway Train)!
The most interesting thing about this movie is that it was made. In the 1980s, there was a room for little goofy and childish movies such as this one. The executives were having the carriage to make a product with no-star, no-nudity, and no-explosion. It is a feel good movie from the 1980s, with its distinct innocent entertainment. Now, you have to feel real good about that apart. -
I saw this movie while studying (or watching movies) in Toronto many years ago and it stuck with me. I only saw it once yet I still think of its impact on me then. Having lost my brother just the year before I too wanted justice and this movie hit me good. Fine flick. Fine flick, indeed. Never heard much about it then or since - 'cept in my head. Oh my, if you could only read what's painted inside my head. To tell you details about the movie I couldn't begin to do so. It was just one of those flicks which grabbed me and hung on for the next 21 year ride. In fact, the reason I'm writing this now is because I saw a freight train go through Kingston today festooned with colourful tags and I thought about Turk 182 again. Why? I don't think about Kermit when I witness the annual spring and autumn frog migration. Enjoy the movie.
-
BenTramerLives7814 April 2020Turk 182 is an under appreciated piece of 80s cinema. Timothy Hutton stars as Jimmy Lynch, a young man whose older brother, Terrence, is a fireman who is injured saving a little girl while off duty. Terry can't get compensation because he had been drinking when he rescued the girl. Jimmy goes to City Hall, but the disgraced Mayor (Robert Culp) dismisses Jimmy when he tells him that his brother left a bar to go to the fire. Jimmy begins to taunt the Mayor with graffiti and becomes a local hero. He uses his brother's nickname, Turk, and his badge number, 182. While this film was often dismissed by critics, I find it to be an endearing and entertaining movie. Timothy Hutton and Robert Urich are great as brothers. Robert Culp, Peter Boyle and Darren McGavin are also great. This film reminds of a Frank Capra picture. I highly recommend it.
-
OK, I'll have you know that I own a copy of this film so don't think I hate it viciously. It's not a bad story, and Hutton and Urich do well at their heavy New York accents. Actually, if there's one thing that makes the story, it's the thick flavor of 80's NY that runs through it. Some notable bit characters (notably Dick O'Neil) do great jobs as curmudgeons, and Culp and Boyle are completely evil. However, Steven Keats COMPLETELY blows it as a total NY buffoon stereotype- lines like "Dis is bee-yoo-tee-fulll", and "Dis is yoo-ge (huge) wit a capital U!" don't make him much more than a cartoon. Kim Cattrall's acting is pretty flimsy to boot. The ending is absurd beyond words- all of a sudden the mayor and all the cops revert their anger towards him and all cheer on Turk in a complete Hollywood photo finish. Please.
For me, the draw here is pretty much linked to the graffiti aspect of the movie. The sequence where Hutton sandblasts the subway train is fun stuff, as well as the over-the-top feats with the scoreboard, the mounted police horse, etc. But it's important to note, especially in the time period, that no such graffiti writer in New York could avoid massive and brutal prosecution. The story of NY writer Smith has so many parallels to this story it's hard to tell which came first- Smith's late brother Sane has even gone by Sane 182 in homage to the film. Smith painted his name on the side of the Brooklyn Bridge and not only made headlines, he came under the city's first million-dollar lawsuit. Turk 182 effectively makes the mayor look demonic, but only in a silly comic book way. There are some real heroes with real stories to tell from those days; maybe one day a realistic portrayal will come down the pike when people are ready to see both sides of that story. -
smidget284 November 2000Timothy Hutton is great in this flick as a young guy who uses his talents to avenge a problem in his family. When no one listens, he, by any means necessary, does something about it!!! I think it is a fun older movie that I always enjoy.
-
jamesglu9 February 2000...the directors of this film hired the Columbia University marching band (or several members of it, anyway, including myself) to be the band for the scene at the Queensborough Bridge. Despite having been in the movie, I only watched it for the first time last night, and did it ever stink! We were definitely the highlight of the movie, despite being made to wear those stupid polyester red bandanas to make our official blue and white uniforms more colorful. It was torture to have to wait for our scene, near the end of the movie. What were they thinking when they wrote this dog?? I'm almost glad they didn't bother to credit us...
-
jamalionerf19 August 2002This film, to me, has so much larfing I find I am on my knees, like man before, with tears brought down. There is alot of good times, alot of nice ones, tender, emotion, it has too much. Music, like the other 80's films of the 1980's, IT IS the best. Kim Qutro, she is so nice in this film, better than Pretty Woman!!!! VERY ATTRACTION!! I recommned to many one, to all, that this film is TOO good, watch out for the motorcyces!!!!!
-
slapborisday14 June 2005This is the worst movie ever made. It's horrific. It's about a guy who is angry at the government because his drunk brother who is an off duty fireman tries to save a girl from a burning building and then gets injured. The mayor, played by overactor Robert Culp, won't help the brother so then Timothy Hutton, overacting mucho, writes graffiti on buildings. He is able to do things that not even Superman, Jesus and Einstein, working as a team, could have figured, and pulled off. The acting is horrible and so is the directing. Robert Urich also overacts. This movie is plain horrific. It's implausible and just plain stupid. Bob Clark had his BLEEP up his BLEEP when he made this garbage. Oh those aging hippies with their hearts on their sleeves... EEK!