Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Rodrigo Amaro At one point one of the characters of "Prince of the City" quotes this: "The law means everything to me and if any arm of the law is corrupt nothing can work, nothing. It is simple as that." But both the movie and the real life seems to proof that the law is a body and the arms of the law has too many hands, too many fingers and they always want more than they can and should carry, they don't follow what the brain says: don't be corrupt, respect the honor code and things like that. In the story all the parts (police officers, detectives, district attorneys) works on different levels, one team doing the right thing and the other being corrupt, stealing and other assorted things. But in the story there will be one guy who has the proof to others and to himself that he can change things and make the law work again even though he was part of the wrong side.Sindey Lumet's second installment on the dark side of the law is "Prince of the City" whose story resembles "Serpico" and "Night Falls on Manhattan", both of these films telling stories about the lack of ethics of police detectives on law's duty. It tells about good people who want to bring these people to court and judge them for their crimes. The movie was taken of a real case. Treat Williams plays Daniel Ciello a corrupt police detective approached by a prosecutor (Norman Parker) to catch another detectives like him involved with the Mafia and other unethical behavior and bring them to trial. This detective is reluctant, nervous about what he's going to do, only accepting the task with one condition: he won't rat any of his friends, they must be out of the investigation. But that seems to be impossible. Daniel will be spiraling out of control while investigating another police officers, detectives, drug dealers, mobsters, recording their conversations but the D.A.'s office wants more and more names and some of Daniel's friends might get burned. Will Daniel survive to all this pressure?By hearing the plot you'll think that the film is filled with clichés and it has some, but for the most part "Prince of the City" stays in a original presentation of facts on a thrilling story that goes for almost three hours without boring the viewer. Here's a story about a guy who wants to get some redemption over his corrupt and criminal past trying to do the right thing, but he always see that doing the right thing is not so easy, and probably he'll disappoint his friends and family by investigating another cops. Treat Williams has a incredible performance playing this tough guy who has a Shakespearian dilemma and must fight against everything and everyone.The drama is very convincing, knows how to deliver some tense moments and it also has a strong but slightly sense of humor (the detectives meetings talks is a great example). Lumet did a terrific job here, among his best films of all time and I dare say that it is was better than "Serpico" even Lumet must think that because he always felt that "Serpico" was one dimensional, it didn't embraced the police work and the law work as a whole, it wasn't so much realistic. "Prince of the City" skilfully managed to get all that, presenting a deep and powerful statement over both sides of the law. Among the best moments of the film I select Daniel's testimony on court about the things he made and seen while on duty, and the prosecutors reunion trying to decide Daniel's future, having one side against him, quoting that he's a criminal and other supporting him, saluting this man's good work for them. These two moments are perfectly alternated between each other (thanks to a great editing), creating a extraordinary effect on the viewer.The supporting cast includes good performances of Jerry Orbach, Bob Balaban, Richard Foronjy, Lance Henriksen, Lane Smith, Lindsay Crouse, James Tolkan, Norman Parker (he should've obtained a Oscar nomination for his role), one cameo by Alan King and one small scene featuring a very young Cynthia Nixon. This a truly case of a great but underrated movie. 9/10

haildevilman Lumet never made a bad film.I'm from the city (Philadelphia) so I can relate to the atmosphere here. And the story of a corrupt cop trying to do well without hurting his friends is a goldmine of possibilities.Treat's gamut of emotions, while seeming a tad OTT, were nothing but enhancement to his scenes. And the script itself was Oscar worthy.The load of supporting characters was great as well. Every one of them was a scene-stealer in their own right.The brotherhood of cops in just about any city probably goes though similar trips. The internal hell they go through was evident here. And the attorneys who claim to be their friends while secretly going their own way was a wake-up call as well.Best scene had said attorneys deciding whether to prosecute. That's when you saw who his real friends were.This is a cop drama with brilliant performances all around. Like most of Sid's films. Unlike most, this is lost in the shuffle. Time for a rediscovery.

jzappa "The law doesn't know the streets." But that doesn't mean that blurring the lines of the law is necessarily a good thing. Many law officials criticized this film during its release, perceiving it as glorifying its corrupt cops and vilifying the prosecutors who toiled to convict them. That is not what the film does. There are no black and white hats here. The story divides its characters into two sides, yes, but they are all struggling throughout to assert a concrete ideology within the oceanic gray area that is the law, and the good and evil it represents.The axis of the film is that Danny Ciello will not inform on his partners. Outside of his wife and kids, who know them like uncles, they are the only people who care about him. He will make the deal to talk about the involvement of narcotics in the corrupt activities of other cops, but not his dear and implicitly loyal friends. As we watch this movie, it is about narcs and New York City crime, but Sidney Lumet wants the underpinnings to be just as visible, how in a corrupt world, one cannot go straight without burning cherished bridges.Lumet gets to the heart of the war on drugs. And we see how it is, was, and will continue to be an utter failure. Addicts depend on the drug. Police depend on the continuation of the trade to uphold their status, and if not their status, their basic living condition. They know that if addicts are going to cooperate with them, they need their drugs. They know that if the courts are going to cooperate with them, drugs must be confiscated and accounted for. They know why they became cops, but they also know more than anyone else on their theoretical side of the law how miserable life is for a junkie. This is a lonely, dangerous and thankless dichotomy of a 24-7 job that's never finished, and if they want to skim a little drug money, that's their way of making it feel more worthwhile.Because Danny Ciello, based on New York cop Bob Leuci, who cooperated in a 1971 internal affairs investigation, is such a demanding and grueling role, almost always on screen in stressful, tiresome and emotional situations, I spent a good deal of the movie having trouble with the casting of Treat Williams. He was a no-name at the time, and that is what Lumet wanted, but there is something incongruously theatrical about Williams that is inconsistent with the rest of the actors. But he does convince us in the latter half of the film that he is falling to bits on account of his job, his testimony and the inextricable fate of the two that he will eventually have no choice but to rat on his friends.Prince of the City is a crime film, about cops, drug dealing, set in New York, and Lumet captures the gritty NYC streets of the 1970s that he encapsulated in Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon as if the era had never left. But it's not a violent film at all. There are many characters, hardly any of whom we really get to know beyond their legal and moral standpoints in the story. There is a later scene wherein a meeting of prosecutors debate whether or not a charge of perjury is justified. Its ethical issues are passionate and effective to us, but the verdict is a coin toss in the political climate. The movie answers none of the gray questions posed. It only threatens with possible scenarios.

benzing Just watched this recently; saw it on it's first run when I was seventeen and Treat Williams was a hot young actor destined for stardom. I liked it then; now, I don't know what I was thinking. Way too long, badly plotted, and the acting by Williams was just atrocious. Scenery chewing at its worst: "you guys don't understand (wracked sobs, facial contortions) we're the only thing between you (arms flailing] and the (bows head, shoulders shake spasmodically) jungle!!!!" Did I really like this when it came out, or did I just read the reviews by Ebert and the like and convince myself that I'd better like it? Pauline Kael nailed it pretty well even back then, but other than that the critics loved it.