Let's be realistic.

Just so...so bad

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

I thought this was pretty damned neat in 1972.Of course we had yet to be drowned in a morass of Wambaugh clones and a surfeit of Harry Callahan wannabes,and wisecracking cops in grubby squadrooms being re - decorated were relatively thin on the ground.It is unfortunate that films like "Fuzz" when they are considered at all are only seen through eyes that have seen a hundred similar films since and,probably unconsciously,critically assessed to a certain extent within a frame of reference that didn't exist when they were made.I doubt if Nietszche was referring to movies when he said "Life must be lived forwards but can only be understood backwards",but it certainly applies to commenting on "Fuzz". Based on the first "Deaf Man" episode in the 87th precinct stories,it featured Mr Burt Reynolds as Det Steve Carella and Mr.Tom Skerritt as Det Burt(correct spelling) Kling. I always thought the 87th precinct was supposed to be in New York,but the film is set in Boston,later to be very familiar to admirers of Mr Robert B.Parker's estimable Private Detective Spenser. I have never been in a police station in America,but if in 1972 they were not similar to the one in "Fuzz",then they should have been . Far more exciting than our more prosaic Victorian ones in London with their echoes of "The Blue Lamp" and "It always rains on Sundays". I worked in them for 30 years and was always expecting Sidney Tafler or John Slater to be brought in protesting their innocence. I couldn't imagine Burt or Tom exchanging one-liners in the charge room in Walthamstow nick for example,or chasing a milk-bottle thief down Priory Court. Our cells weren't full of whores,pimps,second storey men,hustlers and Murphy artists(whatever they are).We had good old English flashers,blaggers and tealeaves."Fuzz" made The Life in America seem so much more exciting.Mr Yul Brynner takes his foot off the subtlety pedal as the deaf man. It is a pleasingly silly characterisation that sets the tone for most of the film.For Ed McBain readers many of the favourites like Lt Byrnes,Det Brown and Andy Parker will be familiar figures,if not perhaps quite as they imagined them. "Fuzz" and the films that followed it cleared the way for "Hill St Blues" and "N.Y.P.D. Blue",that should not be forgotten.It is not a great film,or even a very good film,but it is far better than its reputation would suggest.

Burt Reynolds has made many films, a couple very good, but most are bad. This is possibly the worst. This was supposed to be a big name feature, but a sloppy script, uninspired acting and directing doom it. Burt's miscasting as Steve Carella is bad enough, but Yul Brynner's arrogant, sneering deaf man is wooden. Raquel is forced to hide her best acting assets (you know what) under winter coats, heavy sweaters and boots. There are good actors in it, but they're given nothing to work with. It doesn't come close to the book it's based on. It's hard to believe that prize-winning author Ed McBain was involved in this mess. Avoid it, which shouldn't be too hard, it's hardly ever on TV, and don't waste your money buying or renting it.

By reading comments left by others, I can tell they never read the book "Fuzz" by Ed McBain. I think this is the WORST adaptation of a book I've ever seen. Ed McBain's stories are great! This movie was one TOTAL let down.In response to other's comments: the final shot with the hand in the water is because the Deaf Man was supposed to survive and come back to terrorize the 87th Precinct several more times. If this movie was any good, perhaps they had a sequel in mind. Also, Eileen McHenry's (Burke, in the book), played by Welch, rape scene seemed almost gratuitous whereas in the book, the rapist was successful and this became the root of her troubles and ambitions in the future of the series of 87th Precinct books.This movie showed NO storyline. It was merely scenes (poorly shot and directed) pieced together to form a not-easy-to-follow plot. All these scenes lacked so much detail and explanation, that the viewer was left wondering what was going on. For example, while in the park on stakeout, the blind man with the dog was really a cop (who later shot himself in the foot). This character was never introduced in the movie.Had it not been for Reynolds and Welch (sex symbols of the time) I don't think anyone would have noticed this movie was in the theaters.

Burt Reynolds is so laid-back in this picture I thought he might fall over. He, Jack Weston and Tom Skerritt are cops at the Boston Precinct trying to stop a serial killer from blowing up more politicians, Yul Brynner is the bad guy who knows just what clueless cops these guys are, and Raquel Welch is the new badge in the building (the guys humiliate her for awhile, but she's tough and proves her merit). This is a routine cop comedy with dramatic and sometimes violent overtones, not unlike "MASH" (which it attempts to emulate in its cynicism). It was moderately popular in theaters in 1972 mainly because Burt Reynolds had just posed for Cosmo magazine and the ads and the movie one-sheet played that up. I liked Welch's scenes defending herself in the office (where she's been unceremoniously dumped at a desk) and the climactic moments are well done. The end vocal by Dinah Shore is a wonderful bit (Burt was dating her at the time). But that very last shot is perplexing: there's no explanation for it, and I'm sure it left audiences baffled. It's an artistic shot, done with humor, but considering what happens before it, it makes no logical sense. **1/2 from ****