Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

sddavis63 "The Lords Of Flatbush" is a coming of age movie - part of the trend in Hollywood in the 70's of looking back nostalgically to the 50's, when things were a lot simpler. Girls were girls and guys were guys and Ike was president and everybody had a house and two parents, and all was well. The Lords (or Lord's as it's spelled on their jackets) are basically a gang (or, a "social athletic club" as they call themselves.) They're high school drifters, perhaps smarter than they seem but not seeming to have much ambition aside from girls and the odd bit of mischief like stealing a car or getting into fights. But high school is coming to an end and the future is beckoning and they all react in different ways.To be honest, I really didn't find much of a story here; certainly, nothing that kept me glued to the screen as I watched this. Mostly, it's interesting to watch because of the cast. The two who made it biggest, of course, were Henry Winkler and Sylvester Stallone. Within a couple of years of making this movie, Winkler would be a TV pheenom as "The Fonz" on "Happy Days," and Stallone, of course, would be nominated for an Oscar for his performance as "Rocky Balboa" in "Rocky" - which would become his most famous and iconic character. But at this point neither were particularly well known. It might be a bit anachronistic, but it's hard to watch this film and not see the genesis of "the Fonz" or "Rocky" coming through in Stallone's "Stanley Rosiello" and Winkler's "Butchey Weinstein." On the subject of anachronisms, although there's no connection with the cast, you can't look at the chaotic classroom scene at the beginning of the movie without thinking at least for a moment of "Welcome Back, Kotter," which would be on TV about a year later.Basically, the performances here are fine. I thought one of the more interesting characters was Jane, played by Susan Blakely. She's strangely drawn to Chico (played by Perry King) - perhaps it's a sort of "bad boy" attraction - but somehow she also knows that he's not ready for what the future holds and she'll only go so far with him, while holding on to a much more promising relationship with another guy. Unlike Chico, Stanley does grow and develop as a character, coming to understand the meaning of responsibility, which probably led up to the most nostalgic moment of the movie for me.I was not a child of the 50's, but rather of the 70's and early 80's. But as the movie focused in on Stanley and Fran's wedding, I really did get a feeling of nostalgia, particularly as the closing "Wedding Song" played - thinking back myself to friends from high school that I haven't seen in decades, wondering what happened to them, reflecting on choices I made and how my life turned out (and it's good!) I liked the ending. It doesn't turn this into an especially good movie. There have been better coming of age movies, and there really wasn't any consistent plot holding this together so that it really did seem to drag out a lot longer than its 1:25 runtime. But it is interesting to see actors like Winkler and Stallone at this stage of their careers, before they became famous. (4/10)

TxMike While I have been aware of this title I never saw the movie, until today that is, when it was shown on the Movies! channel. I am roughly the same age as all the actors here, who were mostly mid- to late- 20s when it was filmed. I remember the 1950s and much of what is shown in this movie is fairly authentic to that time.Those of us who take achievement for granted, simply go to school and college, behave in class, do assignments, make good grades, get married, raise a family, have a decent career ... we don't really get how the others waste the same opportunities. And that is the focus of this movie. The boys call themselves the Lord's (yes, it is incorrect) and they fashion themselves as a gang of four. But they aren't really vicious, they do get into small fights, they do steal a car for the night, but no major crimes. They are depicted mostly as teenagers with no focus, no rudder, no concept of what they want their lives to become. They want the girls, and one gets one by virtue of an unplanned pregnancy, but most "good" girls avoid them because, while they are cute and personable, they look and act like losers. And most girls don't want to get attached to losers.It is fun to see actors like Perry King, Sylvester Stallone, and Henry Winkler in their earlier days. In fact the best scene is in a pool hall when Stallone's girlfriend comes in to tell him she is pregnant and he just isn't prepared to deal with it. He might have made mostly cheesy movies but we can see that he really was a fine actor. He makes that scene work.Shot mostly in Brooklyn it is an interesting glimpse into that time but overall not a particularly good movie.

inspectors71 No review here. Just a memory of seeing The Lords of Flatbush, a cheapjack greaser of a nostalgia flick that was designed to cash in on the whole '50s nostalgia craze thirty-odd years ago.I saw it once at the drive-in and once more on ABC a year or two later. In the short time between its theatrical release and television debut, Perry King, Sly Stallone, and Henry Winkler had hit it from moderate to big and I thought my opinion would have improved with the recognition of early work from a talented group of actors. It didn't, and it still hasn't.TLOF is dull and embarrassing, sporting one deep and memorable observation about a character, something to the effect that he weeps when he ejaculates.Them thar's great writin', huh! Skip this greasy mess.

jmorrison-2 A good, decent film about leaving adolescence behind, and the threshold to adulthood.Sylvester Stallone is very good as Stanley, the pug of the gang, who is facing fatherhood and marriage, and tries to amiably go along. He's not too bright, but he understands there is much more out there. His scene on the roof with Perry King is his way of trying to communicate that the world they have been living in is coming to an end, but, through their dreams and imagination, they can go places and experience other things. Things are changing for him, and he instinctively realizes there is much more to the world than their little corner of Brooklyn.Perry King's Chico, on the other hand, is brighter than he lets on, and he understands all too well what is out there and is waiting for them. The trouble is, in the adult world, he will never again have the freedom and power that he has running the streets with the Lords. Growing up is not something he looks forward to. He resents what he sees as the end of the road. He wouldn't mind living out the rest of his life with the Lords, prowling the streets, knocking up girls, fighting with the clean cut kids. In this world, he is powerful and respected, but he senses it coming to an end. His argument on the roof with Stanley is his rejection of dreaming or imagining something, or somewhere, else. His unfortunate episode with Susan Blakely is his inability to relate to her as another human being. To him, she is still just a chick to be laid, not someone he may have to relate to. Everyone around him is growing up and passing him by, and Chico resents it. He basically wants things to stay just as they are.The final rumble at the football field is an example of the Lords in their element, when they are at their happiest. The aftermath of the fight (the accident) is a further reminder that this life is at an end, and adulthood awaits, whether they are ready for it or not.A decent, entertaining movie. Quite an interesting character study, well-acted, especially by King and Stallone.