Brad reviews COCKFIGHTER (1974), starring Warren Oates!

Posted on July 5, 2025 by Bradley Crain

I read about the movie COCKFIGHTER many years ago, and I remember the review being very positive. I had never watched the film before, but with today being Warren Oates’ birthday and it being available on Amazon Prime, I decided I’d finally watch it.

Directed by Monte Hellman and based on Charles Willeford’s 1962 novel, COCKFIGHTER introduces us to Frank Mansfield (Warren Oates), a man completely obsessed with the southern “sport” of cockfighting. As we meet him, he’s in the process of losing a bet and a cockfight with Jack Burke (Harry Dean Stanton). The loss isn’t just a setback, it costs him all of his cash, his truck, his trailer, and his current girlfriend Dody White (Laurie Bird). We also notice in these early scenes that Frank only communicates through sign language and writing notes. It seems that he’s been living under a self-imposed vow of silence. Two years earlier, on the eve of the big, season-ending cockfighting grand finale, Frank’s big-mouthed braggadocio caused him to lose his prized cock, and the prestigious “Cockfighter of the Year” medal in a meaningless hotel bet, also against Jack Burke. Frank vows not to speak again until he wins that medal. Coming up with cash in the only way he can by selling his family’s home, Frank buys a new cock named White Lightning from Ed Middleton, played here by the film’s writer Charles Willeford. Armed with new fowl and a new, capital rich partner named Omar Baradansky (Richard B. Shull), Frank will not let anything stop him, including the love of his life Mary Elizabeth (Patricia Pearcy) or an axe wielding competitor (Ed Begley, Jr.), from being named “Cockfighter of the Year” and finally regaining his voice and the respect he desires!

COCKFIGHTER definitely has some things going for it. First and foremost, Warren Oates is so good in the lead role as the obsessed man who puts success in cockfighting above anything else in his life, including every other person. He literally sells the family home out from under his alcoholic brother Randall (Troy Donahue) in order to fund his next cock purchase after he’s gone bust. This sets up quite the sight gag for such a gritty and realistic film as a large truck and trailer drives away the family home taking up the entire state highway. When his long time fiancé asks him to give up cockfighting, he just gets up, leaves her shirtless and heads back out on the circuit. He writes her a letter from the road and tells her he loves her, but he also makes it clear that life without cockfighting is a life that he’s unwilling to live. Oates’ Frank Mansfield is not the kind of person you’d ever want to depend on in life, but he’s also an uncompromising individual who is determined to live life wholly on his own terms, accepting of the successes and failures that come with it. I watched the film because it features Warren Oates, and after having done so, I can say that his performance is truly special.

COCKFIGHTER is one of those movies that makes us feel like we’re watching real people, and that’s kind of fascinating even if they reside in a world that we don’t really want to live in. The primary credit for that has to go to director Monte Hellman and Oscar winning cinematographer Nestor Almendros (DAYS OF HEAVEN). The restraint that is shown in the storytelling, as well as the sweaty, ramshackle authenticity of the Georgia locations, brings the story to life. The supporting cast also does its part to create the world of COCKFIGHTER. Harry Dean Stanton as Jack Burke, Frank’s primary rival in the cockfighting game, is excellent as you might expect, and he seems a lot like a regular guy. I really like Richard B. Schull, who plays Frank’s outgoing and talkative partner Omar. His friendly and gregarious personality seems a little untrustworthy at first, but he turns out to be the most likable person in the film. And finally, I want to shoutout Charles Willeford. Not only did he write the source novel and screenplay for COCKFIGHTER, he also gives a solid performance as Ed Middleton, an old-timer in the game who treats Frank with honesty and decency when he’s hit rock bottom.

With all the positive things I’ve said above, I have to address the graphic depiction of cockfighting in COCKFIGHTER. This was the 70’s, and the scenes shown here are real and were very difficult for me to watch. It’s not fun to see animals fight and kill each other, and this is coming from a person who loves fried chicken and is not particularly an animal lover. The scenes are presented as matter of fact and in service of the story, but that still doesn’t make them easy to watch. Director Monte Hellman has gone on record to express his personal disgust at even filming these scenes. While a movie made in the 1970’s probably couldn’t have been made without these sequences, I just wanted to make it clear that this film is probably unwatchable for a lot of people.

Overall, COCKFIGHTER is a relic of the 1970’s. It’s a gritty and realistic film, featuring a great central performance from Warren Oates. It’s also an ethically troubling film that features real animal on animal violence. Based on that I don’t necessarily recommend the film. Rather, I just want to share my own thoughts, and you can determine if you want to watch it or not. That’s what I’ve tried to do above.

Film Review: City Heat (dir by Richard Benjamin)

Posted on May 31, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1984’s City Heat, Clint Eastwood plays Lt. Speer, a tough and taciturn policeman who carries a big gun, throws a mean punch, and only speaks when he absolutely has to.

Burt Reynolds plays Mike Murphy, a private investigator who has a mustache, a wealthy girlfriend (Madeleine Kahn), and a habit of turning everything into a joke.

Together, they solve crimes!

I’m not being sarcastic here. The two of them actually do team up to solve a crime, despite having a not quite friendly relationship. (Speer has never forgiven Murphy for quitting the force and Murphy has never forgiven Speer for being better at everything than Murphy is.) That said, I would be hard-pressed to give you the exact details of the crime. City Heat has a plot that can be difficult to follow, not because it’s complicated but because the film itself is so poorly paced and edited that the viewer’s mind tends to wander. The main impression that I came away with is that Speer and Murphy like to beat people up. In theory, there’s nothing wrong with that. Eastwood is legendary tough guy. Most people who watch an Eastwood film do so because they’re looking forward to him putting the bad guys in their place, whether it’s with a gun, his fists, or a devastating one-liner. Reynolds also played a lot of tough characters, though they tended to be more verbose than Eastwood’s.

That said, the violence in City Heat really does get repetitive. There’s only so many times you can watch Clint punching Burt while various extras get gunned down in the background before it starts to feel a little bit boring. The fact that the film tries to sell itself as a comedy while gleefully mowing down the majority of the supporting cast doesn’t help. Eastwood snarls like a pro and Reynolds flashes his devil-may-care smile but, meanwhile, Richard Roundtree is getting tossed out a window, Irene Cara is getting hit by a car, and both Kahn and Jane Alexander are being taken hostage. Tonally, the film is all over the place. Director Richard Benjamin was a last-minute replacement for Blake Edwards and he directs without any sort of clear vision of just what exactly this film is supposed to be.

On the plus side, City Heat takes place in Kansas City in 1933 and the production design and the majority of the costumes are gorgeous. (Unfortunately, the film itself is often so underlit that you may have to strain your eyes to really appreciate it.) And the film also features two fine character actors, Rip Torn and Tony Lo Bianco, are the main villains. For that matter, Robert Davi shows up as a low-level gangster and he brings an actual sense of menace to his character. There are some good things about City Heat but overall, the film is just too messy and the script is a bit too glib for its own good.

Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood had apparently been friends since the early days of their careers. This was the only film that they made together. Interestingly enough, Reynolds gets the majority of the screentime. Eastwood may be top-billed but his role really is a supporting one. Unfortunately, Reynolds seems to be kind of bored with the whole thing. As for Clint, he snarls with the best of them but the film really doesn’t give him much to do.

A disappointing film, City Heat. Watching a film like this, it’s easy to see why Eastwood ended up directing himself in the majority of his films.

Late Night Retro Television Review: Highway to Heaven 3.19 “Normal People”

Posted on April 10, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Thursdays, I will be reviewing Highway to Heaven, which aired on NBC from 1984 to 1989. The entire show is currently streaming on Tubi and several other services!

This week, Jonathan and Mark help out at a halfway house.

Episode 3.19 “Normal People”

(Dir by Michael Landon, originally aired on February 11th, 1987)

This week, Jonathan and Mark find themselves assigned to work as handymen at a halfway house for patients who have recently been released from a mental hospital but who are still not quite ready to reenter the society. As usual, Mark is skeptical about working with anyone outside of his comfort zone but Jonathan soon shows him the error of his ways. It seems like almost every assignment was really about teaching Mark to be more tolerant of people who were different than him.

The neighbors aren’t happy about having a halfway house in their neighborhood. They vandalize the yard. They blame the patients for every little thing. When some neighborhood kids accidentally start a fire, the blame is put on a teenager at the halfway house. Jonathan encourages the patients to try to leave the house and socialize and show everyone that they are just like normal people. Jonathan also punishes one snobbish neighbor by causing her to have mishap with a stack of melons at a grocery store. I’ve noticed that, during the third season, Jonathan and the Boss seem to take an extra delight in humiliating people.

Eventually, the stupid kids start another fire, which gives one of the patients that chance to save their lives. It also reveals that the patient was not responsible for the earlier fires. Everyone comes to realize the error of the ways. Hurray!

This was a good example of how Highway to Heaven‘s earnestness often made up for scripts that were a bit obvious and heavy-handed. There’s nothing subtle about this episode but it’s still so achingly sincere in its message of tolerance that it’s hard not appreciate it. The show’s good intentions stand the test of time.

Lisa Reviews an Oscar Winner: The Sting (dir by George Roy Hill)

Posted on February 2, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Earlier tonight, as a part of their 31 Days of Oscar, TCM aired The Sting, the film that the Academy selected as being the best of 1973. I just finished watching it and what can I say? Based on what I’ve seen of the competition (and there were a lot of great films released in 1973), I would not necessarily have picked The Sting for best picture. However, the movie is still fantastic fun.

The Sting reunited the director (George Roy Hill) and the stars (Robert Redford and Paul Newman) of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and told yet another story of likable criminals living in the past. However, whereas Butch Cassidy largely satirized the conventions of the traditional Hollywood western, The Sting is feels like a loving homage to the films of 1930s, a combination of a gritty, low-budget gangster film and a big budget musical extravaganza. The musical comparison may sound strange at first, especially considering that nobody in The Sting randomly breaks out into song. However, the musical score (which is famously dominated by Scott Joplin’s The Entertainer) is ultimately as much of a character as the roles played by Redford, Newman, and Robert Shaw. And, for that matter, the film’s “let-pull-off-a-con” plot feels like an illegal version of “let’s-put-on-a-show.”

The film takes place in the 1936 of the cultural imagination, a world dominated by flashy criminals and snappy dialogue. When con artists Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) and Luther Coleman (Robert Earl Jones) inadvertently steal money from a gangster named Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), Lonnegan has Luther murdered. Fleeing for his life, Hooker goes to Chicago where he teams up with Luther’s former partner, veteran con man Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman). Gondorff used to be one of the great con artists but he is now living in self-imposed obscurity, spending most of his time drinking and trying to avoid the FBI. Hooker wants to get revenge on Lonnegan by pulling an elaborate con on him. When Gondorff asks Hooker why, Hooker explains that he can either con Lonnegan or he can kill him and he doesn’t know enough about killing.

The rest of the film deals with Hooker and Gondorff’s plan to con Lonnegan out of a half million dollars. It’s all very elaborate and complicated and a bit confusing if you don’t pay close enough attention and if you’re ADHD like me. But it’s also a lot of fun and terrifically entertaining and that’s the important thing. The Sting is one of those films that shows just how much you can accomplish through the smart use of movie star charisma. Redford and Newman have such great chemistry and are so much fun to watch that it really doesn’t matter whether or not you always understand what they’re actually doing.

It also helps that, in the great 70s tradition, they’re taking down stuffy establishment types. Lonnegan may be a gangster but he’s also a highly respected and very wealthy gangster. When Newman interrupts a poker game, Lonnegan glares at him and tells him that he’ll have to put on a tie before he’s allowed to play. Lonnegan may operate outside the law but, in many ways, he is the establishment and who doesn’t enjoy seeing the establishment taken down a notch?

As entertaining as The Sting may be and as influential as it undoubtedly is (Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean films may be a lot more pretentious — which makes sense considering that Soderbergh is one of the most pretentious directors in film history — but they all owe a clear debt to The Sting), it still feels like an unlikely best picture winner. Consider, for instance, that The Sting not only defeated American Graffiti and The Exorcist but Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers as well. On top of that, when you consider some of the films that were released in 1973 and not nominated — Mean Streets, Badlands, The Candy Snatchers, Day of the Jackal, Don’t Look Now, Jesus Christ Superstar, and The Long Goodbye — it’s debatable whether The Sting should have been nominated at all. That’s not a criticism of The Sting as much as it’s an acknowledgement that 1973 was a very good year in film.