Very fishy…

So what’s this about then? The first Connection did end sorta unresolved, what with the main bad guy escaping and all, but it still felt let it had a satisfying conclusion.

But in this one, Gene Hackman goes to France to chase him down, I guess?

This time it’s personal!

The first movie was by William Friedkin, and was kinda special. So far, this one seems to be going for some of the same style, but… not… really nailing it? Once you get past the shots of the fish, this is a lot more traditional.

It’s by John Frankenheimer. It’s a name that’s super duper familiar, without me quite being able to place it, except “action”.

OK, I’ve seen the Manchurian Candidate, and… uhm… nothing else that I can say with certainty that I’ve seen. So if I’ve seen any of them, they didn’t leave much of an impression.

Possibly Black Sunday?

Yeah, this just isn’t very exciting. I mean, it’s not awful, but it feels very standard.

Right:

William Friedkin stated that he never had an interest in doing a sequel to the film and also never watched the film.

It’s very French.

So… they kidnap Gene Hackman, because they want to know what he knows? Because… as a policeman… he surely wouldn’t have told his colleagues? But anyway, to find out what he knows, they…

… inject him with heroin?

Yeah! THAT”LL LEARN HIM

He’s jonesin’ fox a fix!

Man, this movie is kinda boring, isn’t it?

I’m afraid I have to agree with the “public” here. *shiver*

OK, Geoff!

Oh, their bastardly plan was to first make him hooked on heroin, and then torture him by making him go through withdrawal! How evil! How practical!

So drama.

It’s still not over!? I assumed the previous scenes were the cold turkey scenes… but my god. There’s really nothing in this movie? An hour of Gene Hackman getting hooked and then going off heroin? 83% tomatometer? C’mon.

Oh my god. I think this scene has lasted longer than the total length of the movie? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE It’s larger on the inside!

This is brutally boring. But come to think of it, the first French Connection was just so-so until, like, the halfway point, and then it became a lot of fun. Is this going to have a similar trajectory? I mean, surely something has to happen?

Something’s happening!

OK, something’s happening.

Not an expression you see that much these days.

Eh… something’s happening, but it’s not very exciting.

I think Hackman agrees with me.

Yeah, that’s totally what a narcotics production lab looks like, I think.

Yes, can that are one quarter filled with liquid, and then have solder marks on the side — that’s totally the way to smuggle narcotics.

This movie is just so lazy and stupid.

At least the extras put some work into it.

Is this the equivalent of the car/tram (or whatever) scene in the first movie? If so, it’s not as good.

No, here we go — Hackman is chasing the evil French guy… on foot!?

Yeah, it’s pretty risible.

Now he’s running after a boat!

This movie just feels very cheap — two thirds of the movie takes place in a couple of basements, and then the chase scene at the end is Hackman running after a bus. But I see from imdb that it had twice the budget of the original one (but I guess there was some inflation during those four years)… and made a quarter of the money. (The latter makes sense.)

It’s just very bad. It’s incredibly tedious. Hackman delivers a good performance, and I think that’s the most positive thing you can say about it? Everything else is totally pedestrian. And it’s snoresville.

French Connection II. John Frankenheimer. 1975. ⚀

That’s a very particular look… was it filmed with a 16mm camera off of a CRT screen? A… Sony Trinitron screen? I remember I used to film the screen; it’s an interesting effect…

Oh! These really are audition tapes? I assumed that Akerman was making faux audition tapes for some reason.

But these are the auditions for a movie I haven’t seen yet; it’s the next one in this box set: Golden Eighties, which is a musical!!!

Right:

Although Les Années 80 was poorly received at the 1983 New York Film Festival, Akerman eventually secured financing. Filming took place in Brussels over eight weeks in 1985. Budget constraints resulted in a more modest production; for example, choreography was simpler than originally envisioned.

So… this has a 7.0 rating from the 201 people who’ve rated it.

C’mon.

Yes, Akerman is a genius, but this isn’t fantastic.

Heh heh. And this is Brian14Leonard‘s ratings in general:

So… harsh!!!

I haven’t seen that one, but I remember seeing Paul Newman’s version when I was like 20 — that was a good movie… I should see whether that’s available anywhere now.

Yes!

A Spanish release! *yoink*

Oops, I was watching this movie, wasn’t I?

Because… this isn’t a good movie. I mean, I forgot to pay attention there for a goodly amount of time.

But at least there’s music now. It’s so generic, though. It’s like they made a guy generate some music in half an hour and said “make it sound kinda musicalish”.

OK, this is better.

And that’s Akerman directing!

This one’s good, too. Perhaps the music in the first half was just placeholder music…

Oh, I guess this is from Golden Eighties? I mean, a test for that movie.

This looks great. Now I’m excited about watching that movie.

Needs some training in how to make ice creams!

Heh, even for her musical, Akerman can’t resist shooting scenes through doorways, centred. It’s her signature way to compose a scene.

Well! That was different.

I admire Akerman’s chutzpah — she had filmed some auditions, some rehearsals, and some proof-of-concept scenes from the musical. And then she was totally unable to get the movie financed. So it’s a Hail Mary Pass thing — why not send out what she’s got on the film festival circuit and see whether she’s able to get anybody interested?

And it worked! She was apparently not able to get as much financing as planned, but she got the movie made, and that’s what it’s all about.

But is this thing worth watching? No, I’m sympathetic to Brian14Leonard’s plight — sitting in a movie theatre watching this pitch probably wasn’t very entertaining, but his one star rating is overdoing it. The final 20 minutes, which has scenes from the proposed musical, is amusing, has some pretty good music, and is shot gorgeously.

The first hour is basically a ☐ — there’s no reason to watch it. Then there’s 15 minutes of ⚅ — it that had been a 15 minute short, I would have been befuddled, but happy. But instead it’s a melange, so:

Les annees 80. Chantal Akerman. 1982. ⚂