Uneasily straddling the ways of the old Hollywood and the coming openness of the late 60s and 1970s, Studs Lonigan is neither fish nor fowl and is simply hard to watch. The main attraction for contemporary audiences is the cast, but the most interesting aspect of the film is Haskell Wexler's cinematography. At times overly busy--his use of noirish angles gets annoying at times, and isn't aided by poor editing by Verna Fields--Wexler nonetheless leaves a great impression and hints at the great work to come in films like Bound For Glory. When he gets it right, the photography is simply stunning, channeling elements of the French New Wave and the outside-the-studio naturalism that was soon to be the norm. Unfortunately these moments only comprise about ten minutes of total screen time, the rest of the film consisting of a hackneyed tale of youth in revolt during the Roaring Twenties. Even Jack Nicholson and Frank Gorshin can't do much to render Philip Yordan' s screenplay particularly appetising.
7 Reviews
Wasn't too bad until ....
PatrynXX29 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The bad abrupt ending. Someone said it was a happy ending. Not the 1960's movie I saw. It was a make up your own ending movie thus confusing. The movie is overtly depressing throughout and not a huge fan for it. The dvd copy had made Jack the big thing and that's all it has on the cover is Jack, on the movie cap on the back Jack. Who's hardly in the movie. If this had a happy ending I'd hate to see what the other one is that doesn't.
Quality: 6/10 Entertainment:: 4/10 Re-Playable: 2/10
Quality: 6/10 Entertainment:: 4/10 Re-Playable: 2/10
Studs as Dead End Kid
sgfarrell_919 February 2007
I read the Studs Lonigan trilogy in the early Seventies and I was blown away by how James T. Farrell accurately described my own Irish-Catholic working-class background. I also saw the made-for-TV movie that was based on the novels when it came out in 1979. I didn't see the 1960 film until the late Eighties, and I had mixed feelings about it. I was surprised at how it had the feel of movies like REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE and the THE WILD ONE. I thought Christopher Knight was fine, if rather tormented as Studs, and Nicholson and Gorshin were fine as Weary Reilly and Kenny Kilarney. However, I wasn't wild about the happy ending of the movie. Studs Lonigan was suppose to die after living a pointless life. I also felt neither of the movie versions were able to effectively focus on the Dead End Kids or West Side Story aspect of Studs' south side of Chicago.
This film doesn't really go anywhere.
planktonrules13 September 2020
The title role for this film went to Christopher Knight, which is surprising since this was his first role! In fact, after making this movie, he only played one more part in his very brief career. The story is a very low-budget combination of the three books by James T. Farrell...and combining all these stories into one film made for a very dull and disjointed...rather episodic picture. The problem also is that Studs was really not a criminal type...more a ne'er-do-well who never amounted to anything in this film set through the 1920s. Had he done more with is life, the film would clearly have worked better. But a film about a loser who never amounts to much...well, making it work is very difficult if not impossible.
The only reasons to watch the film is that it's free to watch on YouTube and you can see Jack Nicholson in a relatively bland part as one of Studs' friends. Not much fun watching this one...and I really wanted to like it much more than I actually did.
The only reasons to watch the film is that it's free to watch on YouTube and you can see Jack Nicholson in a relatively bland part as one of Studs' friends. Not much fun watching this one...and I really wanted to like it much more than I actually did.
A fascinating cliche that you can't turn away from in spite of its genuine wretchedness.
mark.waltz30 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The original novel by James T. Farrell was probably no Faulkner or Fitzgerald, but it's obviously one that was equally impossible to put on film correctly. Even with top notch studio support or casting or a masterful director, it probably would have come out looking as bad as it ends up here. The characters are the epitome of every 20's archetype, and the leading character played by Christopher Knight seems a bit challenged to say the least, certainly not a desirable choice for any nice girl, and yet they all think they can change him.
Mother Katherine Squire has enabled him much too much, to father Dick Foran's frustration, and he has two no-good pals (Jack Nicholson and Frank Gorshin). Of the women he encounters, the only one with the strength to get through to him is just another enabler, the tough as nails Madame Josephine (Madame Spivy), who could care less as long as she gets the money to run her speakeasy. When he's sentenced to prison for rape, it's obviously not the first time, with his being part of a group scene earlier where Nicholson insinuated gang rape towards a drunken floozy past her prime, searching for love far too late in her life.
This is one of the most disturbing films made in the years before the 1967 code change. The writing is exploitive, the acting melodramatic and the music far too much in its cry for emotional impact. Studs as a leading character is not likeable even when Knight desperately tries to find the good elements deep within him. There's a very laughable moment featuring the very butch Spivy who points him onto two mobsters who ask him subtly to commit a hit for them, knowing full well that he won't be able to go through with it. Spivy is up there with Athene Seyler ("The Loved One") and Edith Massey as unforgettable grotesque women in 60's and 70's cinema. A major flaw in the editing has jarring cuts between scenes. Still a film that once you watch, you'll never forget.
Mother Katherine Squire has enabled him much too much, to father Dick Foran's frustration, and he has two no-good pals (Jack Nicholson and Frank Gorshin). Of the women he encounters, the only one with the strength to get through to him is just another enabler, the tough as nails Madame Josephine (Madame Spivy), who could care less as long as she gets the money to run her speakeasy. When he's sentenced to prison for rape, it's obviously not the first time, with his being part of a group scene earlier where Nicholson insinuated gang rape towards a drunken floozy past her prime, searching for love far too late in her life.
This is one of the most disturbing films made in the years before the 1967 code change. The writing is exploitive, the acting melodramatic and the music far too much in its cry for emotional impact. Studs as a leading character is not likeable even when Knight desperately tries to find the good elements deep within him. There's a very laughable moment featuring the very butch Spivy who points him onto two mobsters who ask him subtly to commit a hit for them, knowing full well that he won't be able to go through with it. Spivy is up there with Athene Seyler ("The Loved One") and Edith Massey as unforgettable grotesque women in 60's and 70's cinema. A major flaw in the editing has jarring cuts between scenes. Still a film that once you watch, you'll never forget.
Incredibly Realistic!
curtaincall900013 March 2003
adopted from the novel, this movie is one of the best movies EVER! christopher knight plays the misguided teen through a tough life in chicago. i saw this movie to see frank gorshin in his early career and i've never regretted it! the story really makes you think and if you're looking for good actors this is the movie to see! the cast was really in tune with their characters which made the movie really real. a superb film with an excellent cast and a great story!
Philip Yordan's crass version of the Farrell trilogy
CineVidReviewer20 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Christopher Knight got fifteen minutes of fame portraying the title character in this Irish-based, coming-of-age melodrama. It's expectantly episodic, and overplayed by all. The unnerving urge to rise from lower to middle-class by our puzzled pilgrim is rightly discomforting, and the cryptic finale seems to suggest it is the inevitable punishment of all dumb, working-class studs to listen to their priests and find a wife, have a family, and pursue monotonous, middle-class monogamy. The only thing of interest in the film are the fates of Stud's pool-hall cronies (one of which is an engaging Jack Nicholson). A ludicrous product of its time, albeit with a stirring, early music score by Jerry Goldsmith.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
