Crappy film

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.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It's not fair to compare this film with "The French Connection" which is a once-in-a-generation coming together of perfect script, perfect cast, and perfect director. (Also perfect timing - America was very worried circa 1971 about whether big cities like NYC were governable. Plenty of academics said "No they're not!") That said, I will proceed with my comparison. The greatest strength of "The French Connection" is its gritty realism - its near-documentary feel. We are convinced this is how New York cops speak, move, and behave on the mean streets while chasing down drug traffickers. We miss this in "The French Connection II" where, too often, things feel artificial, forced, staged.The second big problem with "II" is all the fricking scenery chewing going on. Gene Hackman was a 900 pound elephant by the time the producers started developing this picture - what he wanted, he got. I would be willing to bet that he wanted the addiction/withdrawal sequence to be lengthy and detailed ("Hey, I can really ACT here and get me some AWARDS"). The sequence ends up being show-offy after 15 minutes. (I will say, the way Hackman says "Dandy little southpaw" is gorgeous.) The score is mediocre (a sharp contrast to the razor-sharp, minimalist scoring of the original, even though they're written by the same guy). The photography is average (again a sharp contrast).Re the fish-gutting sequence at the beginning of the film - this would work much better if we were informed from the outset that they're looking for drugs, then we'd find their work funny and intriguing rather than weird. Re the cultural/language gulf between a New York Irish cop and Marseille - this is moderately amusing for a while but gets played-up too much. Re the red truck in the heroin lab - it's parked a good 60 feet from where it logically should be; this is Amateur Hour filmmaking, done merely to create a little bit extra shoot-'em-up excitement. Re the inside of the heroin lab with all the test tubes and lab technicians - this is interesting stuff - much more could have been done with it.

New York police detective Jimmy 'Popeye' Doyle (Gene Hackman) arrives in Marseilles, France to track down drug kingpin Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). Inspector Henri Barthélémy (Bernard Fresson) is dubious of his methods. Henri puts two cops to follow him. He manages to shake his tail. Charnier's goons capture him and turn him into a drug addict.It is a lot of language barrier which gives the movie an exotic feel. The drug addiction is not my favorite turn. Breaking Popeye down may be an interesting idea but it is more of a temporary stopover. There is lots of gun action. The shootouts are chaotic. There is a chase but nowhere near as exciting as the one in the original. It does end well but that original car chase is an iconic touchstone in cinematic history. Overall, this is a fair crime drama.

THE FRENCH CONNECTION was good enough to stand alone- and not just because it was a great movie, but because the Real Life "Charnier," a war hero who helped the Resistance against the Nazis in World War II, was never held accountable for his drug dealing(s) by the French government. He got away with it. End of story. But, Hollywood being Hollywood, there had to be a sequel to such a successful movie- thus, FRENCH CONNECTION II. Despite the inevitable ending- which undercuts the irony of the original film's ending-, there IS a long, drawn out sequence that makes the whole thing worthwhile: Doyle's addiction and "rehabilitation." Unfortunately, even THIS sequence isn't original in its conception: it's a rehash (if you will) of a similar scene in MURDER, MY SWEET, wherein the hero, Marlowe, is kidnapped and hooked on drugs. He, too, undergoes painful withdrawal- but, for my money, it was done better in MURDER, MY SWEET than in FRENCH CONNECTION II. Not a complete waste of time, but a far cry from the original.

OK, Popeye's here! Doyle and his inseparable hat are back once again on the run to get Charnier (Fernando Rey), known as Frog One, the smart criminal who ran away from him in the film directed in 1971.This time the hunt will take place in Marseille instead of New York and he's no longer with his cool partner Russo but instead of all that he's stuck with the bureaucracy of the French police, following lots of procedures that won't allow his tough reprehension of bad guys, beatings and the famous 'Have you ever picked your feet on Poughkeepsie!'.Gene Hackman brings back the character in all of his glory, his mannerisms, his unusual humor and some innovations brought by the screenplay, things that might upset viewers from the classical first episode. Doyle's instincts are a little bit right yet he always manages to do something wrong. Here, they're always wrong when they do exist, and after some innocent strolling through Marseille, Popeye is abducted by Charnier and he's "transformed" into a drug addict, something that obviously it'll ruin his reputation as a cop and even better to Frog One, it'll distract the obstinate detective in following him. So, this is how complicated Popeye's mission is."French Connection II" is a little disappointment if compared to the Oscar winning film directed by William Friedkin. That was the movie that practically created action films in the way we know now, to me, action films started there. Let alone, this sequel directed by John Frankenheimer is a decent film that has its moments and has its good presences. Very slow, barely thrilling and without the documentary style outstandingly developed by Friedkin, the sequel has two huge problems that must be taken in consideration: 1) a plot like the one presented here would fit better in action films made now. The director would edit things nicely instead of putting so much effort and so much time with an addicted cop, slowly rotting with the abstinence period. The always excellent Hackman was incredible in those long moments, suffering hell on Earth without drugs. 2) What upsets me the most is the fact of this being an unnecessary following to "The French Connection" and I tell you why. The first film was based on a actual case that happened in 1961, but the movie changed some facts (the amazing car chase scene never happened). The director states in the audio commentary that Charnier escaped and never got caught, and died very recently. So, this sequel is completely pointless since is a complete work of fiction, only made to return money to the studio. It works to show how different is the police work in two different countries, the whole procedures and schemes told by the police captain (played by Bernard Fresson, very good) who really doesn't get along with Doyle from time to time. The few action moments were good, the ending being the greatest moment of all. It's not the kind of film for those who don't enjoy dialogs and plenty of dramatic moments, and this film has them in abundance. I like it but I'll always miss Owen Roizman's elaborated cinematography; Friedkin's direction; Roy Scheider's presence; Ricky Bravo camera movements and the minimalist musical score, all in the first film. Another comparison I make is that there's something in France that is visually interesting to see in films specially if they're directed by Frankenheimer, who returned there to make the exciting "Ronin" (that is a perfect action film also filled with good dialogs!). It's a reasonable good sequel and it can reach higher notes if you've never seen the first chapter. 8/10