Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Wuchak "City Heat" was released a week before "The Cotton Club" in December, 1984. It's basically a farce version of that film, set in Kansas City. You would think that with Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood this would be a solid gangster comedy, if not great, but you'd be wrong.The opening scene where Reynolds gets in a brawl in a diner while Eastwood coolly sits nearby keys off that "City Heat" is not meant to be taken seriously; in fact, it's downright goofy. It's not a good start and the film never recovers.The movie's only 93 minutes long, but it seems a lot longer. Something about it doesn't click. The characters are cartoons so it's next to impossible to care about them. The problem isn't Reynolds or Eastwood, as they have their usual charisma. The problem is the farcical nature of the material and the convoluted plot.Still, it's amusing at times so it's mildly worthwhile if you're a fan of the stars, just don't expect anything all that good.GRADE: D+ or C-

david-sarkies I'm not really much of a fan of Clint Eastwood movies, his silent, calm, and collected characters just don't really seem to mesh with me. This movie is no different. What attracted me to this movie though is the 1920's gangster plot line; this is something that I quite like, though they never seem to turn out how I expected. In these movies one expects to see gun fight with tommy guns, cement shoes, speakeasies, and gangs at war with each other. This movie has it, but the action, as seems to be in a lot of Clint Eastwood movies, is a bit slow.Clint Eastwood's character is not the main character, rather it is an ex-cop come gumshoe (private detective) named Murphy. Eastwood plays Murphy's ex-partner and there seems to be quite a bit of animosity between them. This is the typical personality test that puts together people with opposing personalities, and these two character's personalities are definitely opposed, right to the point where they will start shooting at each other. Murphy is quite extroverted and loud while Eastwood is his usual quiet and calm self.The movie was alright but not really all that gripping, especially how I decided to stop it and go to sleep. The action was slow and the plot was also quite slow. They kept the flavour of the era and it was reasonably easy to see what was going on. Unfortunuately this means that there is little intrigue and when there is little intrigue then something else is needed to fill the space. There wasn't much in this movie that did this. There were gunfights, but even these were slow and tedious to watch. To me, City Heat is a movie to see once and forget.

wes-connors "In Kansas City 1933, wisecracking detective Murphy (Burt Reynolds) tracks the killer of his partner," according to the synopsis writer at Warner Bros. Meanwhile, "Police Lt. Speer (Clint Eastwood) doesn't have much tolerance for the local mob war's body count. Neither guy likes each other, so that makes them a dream team. And it provides the ideal scenario as they clean up the town with slugfests and shoot-'em ups that parody Reynolds' and Eastwood's macho screen images." Original writer/director Blake Edwards was replaced by Richard Benjamin after reportedly clashing with Mr. Eastwood, while Mr. Reynolds suffered a serious injury early in the filming. This didn't mean "City heat" had to be a disaster, but it was. It looks like Eastwood and Reynolds are trying, with a couple of facial tics and gestures, to duplicate the successful Paul Newman and Robert Redford team. Whatever they're trying doesn't work. We're left with Eastwood calling Reynolds short.** City Heat (12/5/84) Richard Benjamin ~ Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Jane Alexander, Madeline Kahn

ccthemovieman-1 I remember a lot of people, not just me, being disappointed in this film. With Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood in the starring roles, we all excepted a really entertaining, good movie. All the publicity made us even more anxious to see it. Well, it never lived up to the hype. I don't know anyone who left the theater satisfied when this was over.This points out an important fact: screen writing is more important than the cast. You can have two charismatic actors, as we have here who are big box-office draws, but if the script stinks the movie is going to be a flop. I don't blame Reynolds or Eastwood. They didn't write this story which is dismal, makes no sense in a few parts (disjointed) and simply is not entertaining. It's pretty hard to have two stars, a good premise, the 1930s as a backdrop, and still have a unlikeable movie! To be fair, part of the problem was the expectation. It obviously was too high for this film, which didn't deliver to meet everyone's high expectations. Maybe if you've never seen and keep your expectations low, you'll enjoy it. And - if for no other reason - it's still interesting to see those guys star in the same film.