MovieChat Forums > Shakedown (1988) Discussion > Very good cop movie, but

Very good cop movie, but

I just bought this movie on dvd yesterday. I hadn't seen it since I was a kid in the 80's. I had forgotton how good it was. It was very entertaining. Both of the main characters were fantastic with their roles. Sam Elliot played his role perfect, as an undercover good cop. And Peter Sellers or whatever his name was, did a great job as a wise ass public defender. They paired up to make a good team. I thought that the story was very good, and kind of original, and the action was very entertaining. It has some actors in it, that you recoginize, but you don't know their names. The only problem was the ending. Why would you do an ending like that if you're the writer or director of this film? For an hour and a half, the movie is awesome, then it just turns into another cheesey 80's flic with that airport scene. Ok, I love the Porsche 911 turbo, and you can keep that part in the movie where, the Porsche is chasing the plane, but Sam Elliot climbing onto the wheel and climbing up on the plane, and hanging on all over New York City. Cmon. He shoots the plane with his .45, and then throws a grenade in the plane. Gimme a break. He's a cop, and he's killing two innocent men with the pilot and co pilot. Couldn't they have kept some of the chase scene, but only tweek the ending to make it a lil bit more believable? Anyways good film, just can't get by that ending. Maybe that's why a lot of people haven't heard of this film, because it's very forgettable with an ending scene like that.


i agree, sometimes hollywood doesnt always know how to end a movie..


Hollywood had nothing to do with this ending, which
I liked because it's over-the-top. It was all Glickenhaus, who was a maverick B-movie maker never doing it a la Hollywood.


Peter Sellers?!! LOL!!

I'm the saddle.


I watched this last night and always forget how good it is.

I always remember liking it, but when you watch it its better again.

The ending is terrible though. It seems they did not know how to end the movie.

The plane scene was obvious because they did not know how to an action play off and have the public defendant involved with the police, especially when the case was over.

One thing that was very apparent to me was the its clear the scene of the two of them in the water was the true end of the movie, as you can see the scene of them together freeze for a second like it was to have the credits role up, its also the type of shot you see in the last scene of 80's buddy action movies.

I doubt the scene at the dining table was drafted in the script for the end of an 80's buddy cop action movie.

Furthermore if anyone noticed the very final scene in the prison is the exact same scene from earlier in the movie. I don't mean reshot, I mean its the same scene with an extra line of voiceover.

It seems the studio or Glickenhaus decided to add on the dinner scene at the end of the movie using Peter Weller to give some of the movies non action plot line some closure, Weller then must have gone, and then someone else tacked the very end of the movie using a simple copy and paste of the earlier prison scene in the film.

Watch the end scene you'll see what I mean.


"Anyways good film, just can't get by that ending. Maybe that's why a lot of people haven't heard of this film, because it's very forgettable with an ending scene like that."--iujon779

Yeah, I completely agree. The movie was just awesome until that scene with jet. It's still an awesome viewing experience and I well remember New York City in 1988. All those locations are pretty close to reality, especially Times Square.

That scene where Sam Elliot was chasing the assassin who took the police car, was pushing the envelope, but wasn't as suspension-of-belief shattering as that jet sequence. That homeless area ( on Riverside Drive) that they drove through with all the homeless squatters was pretty close to reality as well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the director had actually paid a homeless community some money to allow him to use it in that sequence.

Live Long and Prosper!


Dude, I couldn't read through your first sentence because it's one long paragraph.

I assume your literary skills & explanatory ability are low.

Regardless, there should be breaks in textual content.

By having one long paragraph you paint yourself as uneducated -- maybe only HS or a GED, but below average level.

Thanx for nothing, dumbass.

 