Joe (1970)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Blistering performances.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

After beating--and unintentionally killing--the drug dealer who has been shacking up with his daughter, a New York businessman leaks his secret to a blue-collar worker in a bar and, just as unintentionally, begins a curious friendship with the rough-hewn bigot. Technically amateurish examination of America's loss of morals circa 1970 is saved from being a wallow by occasionally smart, often funny satire and character development, as well as by strong performances. Peter Boyle's Joe exemplifies the uneducated, underpaid working stiff, though his hate-filled rants at society in general smack of an intentionally controversial bias. Director and cinematographer John G. Avildsen puts Joe up on some imaginary platform where no one dares refute his complaints; however, at a comical orgy late in the film, we also get to see Joe as a cloddish buffoon who's no Valentino in the sack. Avildsen is very wise to show us different sides of this character, as well as Dennis Patrick's apathetic white-collar executive, but nothing is really solved by the 'shocking' finale. Norman Wexler's screenplay was Oscar-nominated, though his jabbing, stabbing dialogue is a great deal more provocative than his simple-minded, unhinged plot. ** from ****

"Joe" is the kind of film that Hollywood certainly doesn't make anymore. It's bleak and challenging, with an ending that comes as a slap in the face. If you want to see a movie like this these days, you have to try hard to find one.It's about two men who have nothing in common except for hatred. They take that hatred to its logical conclusion. It is likely that the screenwriters had seen "Easy Rider"; the bleakness of both pictures' endings is similar. In "Joe", however, you're not with the hippies: you're watching them from the outside in, through the eyes of two people who would never be accepted as one of their kind: a rabidly racist working stiff and a stuffy executive.The movie is worth watching for Peter Boyle in the title role. This is a disturbing role, but I am not surprised that some audience members cheered his performance back in the day. Boyle is a natural in roles like this, and watching this movie, I couldn't help but think that if Joe were around today, he'd be voting for a certain billionaire in the next election.

John G. Avildsen directed Norman Wexler's inflammatory script about a middle-aged "square," who, after accidentally killing his daughter's pusher/lover, teams up with a bigoted blue collar nitwit (the title character played with a lot of bravado by Peter Boyle) with tragic results. They commiserate and find common ground in their intolerance of ANYTHING they're not: liberals; blacks; the young. A time-capsule of the early 1970s, this plays like an R-rated version of ALL IN THE FAMILY with Boyle playing Archie Bunker with guns. The acting is all first rate...not only by Boyle, but by Dennis Patrick, Susan Sarandon and, at least briefly, Patrick McDermott as one of the most unlikeable victims in movie history. A violent, unforgiving film. It's certainly unsettling but what is it telling us? It's OK to have junkies & pushers running rampant as long as they're peace-loving? It's become a classic.

I think this movie can be called the movie of misdirected rage.The characters of Joe and Bob were relics of the WWII generation who didn't quite understand their kids opposing the war, taking drugs and listening to rock and roll. But I think their real rage was at the fact that America was beginning her long decline from the heights the war left her at."Joe" himself is a low-rent Archie Bunker, ranting at all the things that have made him angry, living his life of quiet desperation, until he teams up with Compton, a guy who wants to avenge himself on the hippies who ruined his daughter.Honestly, most of the movie looks silly, the characters are worse than one dimensional, they're laughable. Peter Boyle was capable of better stuff.