This movie was just bad. Theres no way around it. Its not even funny ha ha bad its just a terrible movie. The acting is subpar, the sound quality is absolutly terible, and there plot is non existent. Stalones accent goes from inaudibly complex to non existent in the span of 3 minuites. Do not watch this movie its just all around terrible. The only good thing abnout it is the humorus trailer for it in the special features section.
shareHey david.This movie was great. The acting were superb and raw. The sound quality was great for the mid 70's. The only thing I agree with you is the plot is a little weak but who cares. This was the first movie I seen in a drive thru and has given me a great memory.
sharei agree with you..i remember this movie....1st saw it on hbo..when we 1st got cable in our area in upstate ny in mid 70s..those were the days..when hbo was showing mcg broadcasts of knicks basketball rangers hockey...an boxing at times
shareI love the movie! The acting, staging, and dialogue is extremely raw - but tht just adds to the film for me. Considering the film was made on an absolute shostring budget, the film makers accomplished an incredible ammount. The young leads all went on to bigger and better things, Stallone, Perry King, Winkler and Blakely - above all else the film is funny (especially the engagement ring scene) and even moving, the way the guys fall out with each other and reunite at the wedding.
I think its a wonderful coming of age drama.
As a career critic in the land of Oz, I've gotta agree with all you admirers. The scene with Stanley and Frannie when they are buying that engagement ring is a classic...in fact I've used it again in a recent review of the film I did for its DVD release. It's probably Stallone's best work as an actor before Cop Land..and I like the scene in which the Lords can't help breaking up over the Frannie / Annie double act.
shareI recently watched the Lords yet again and I have to agree, that ring-buying scene is absolutely magnificent. That is exactly how it would be "in real life" and Stallone is just great, no doubt about it. The guy had super talent even way back then.
shareI gotta disagree with you, man. I thought it was a very sweet, warm and engaging little seriocomic slice-of-life teen coming-of-age film. The rawness of the acting, dialogue and especially the filmmmaking gave it a certain ragged authenticity which added greatly to the film's power and impact. It's got a certain gritty you-are-there lived-in charm that I found to be both convincing and appealing. I consider the film to be a modest, yet surefire little gem myself. The jewelry store sequence in particular was absolutely priceless!
"Warren Oates died for our sins"
[deleted]
That the producers of this movie limited their filming in Brooklyn, to several shots of Coney Island, is a crime. It also shows their lack of commitment to this film. And lack of a decent budget. The studio was not behind this film, either.
shareI remember watching this movie around 1976 or so on OTA TV in NYC. Stallone had just hit it big with "Rocky" and Winkler was "The Fonz." I thought the 'cheapness' of the movie added to the air and ambience. I do agree, however, if they actually shot it in NYC they could have had more scenes with NYC and Brooklyn landmarks (at least the ones from the 1950's that were still around in 1974).
Can't believe it's been 30 years since I saw it on a black-and-white TV, no cable, in the NY suburbs !!
[deleted]
I agree - I just watched it. It was like a bad MADE FOR TV MOVIE. And it came out a year AFTER American Graffiti? I was not bothered by the acting per se but overall I was very un-impressed. I found soundtrack extremely irritating.
"Chico's song(you and me)" and "the Wedding Song" by Jamie Carr? Hu? having a 70's sound to a film set in the 50's was so bad.
"Comedy is the ability to make people laugh...without making them puke" ~Steve Martin
[deleted]
not bad, just not very good
5/10
I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn
That's a good way to describe it.
I was just a high school kid when I saw it in the theater in 1974, but it was obvious to me even then how cheaply made it was. Production values aside, it just wasn't very good. No plot and terrible acting. I remember thinking after I left the theater, "I actually paid $3.00 to see that?"
It was so bad I logged on to IMDb just so I could give it the rating of "1" it deserves. The sound quality alone is awful. The cinematagopraphy is awful. The actress playing the schoolteacher is awful The 'humor' is non-existent. The actors look older than the "teens" in Grease. Painful to watch on every level. There's a difference between "raw" and "amateur" and this one falls into the latter category.
shareI just tried watching this again and I have to agree with you. It just doesn't do anything for me.
I grew up enjoying Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley, and enjoyed American Grafitti.
Lord's of Flatbush has never done anything for me. I want to say it is all Stallone (I have yet to sit thru a single Rocky movie) but for some odd reason, I want to say it was Perry King.
Even more than that, it just doesn't have any life to it like American Grafitti or Happy Days did. The 'characters' don't work or interact to me.
And now you just proved yourself an IDIOT! You have yet to sit thru a Rocky movie??? Go away troll and die
shareProblem solved.
share