Joe (1970) Poster

(1970)

User Reviews

Review this title
84 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
The Blinding Veil of Political Dogmatism
Bill Compton is a wealthy, conservative advertising executive who would be living the traditional American dream were it not for one thing: his daughter is a hippie. She and her boyfriend spend their days doing drugs and wasting time. After she overdoses, Compton accidentally kills the boyfriend in a fit of rage. Later he meets Joe, an ultra-right-wing blue-collar worker, and drunkenly tells the man his murderous secret. Joe believes he's found a kindred spirit in Compton and the two form an unlikely friendship. However, Joe's virulent hatred for anything and anyone liberal makes both men's lives increasingly complicated, violent and dangerous.

Directed by John G. Avildsen, 'Joe' is a character study and a drama about evolving cultural mores, highlighting the ideological schism that emerged between generations following the counter-culture revolution of the 60's. Norman Wexler's screenplay is sharp and full of fantastic, grittily realistic dialogue. It is unhampered by bias, scathing of both old school conservatism and the 'free love' attitude of the hippie movement alike- not to mention political extremism and classism. While the story contains moments of violence and can be a tad melodramatic from time to time, at its' heart it's a clever, subtle examination of two multi-faceted, realistic characters.

Compton and Joe are disillusioned by a society in which they no longer feel comfortable. As many were at the time, they are threatened by the hedonistic lifestyle the youth of the film embody. However, they are also strangely attracted to it. Compton and Joe want to partake in the 'free love' but can't allow themselves to because of their deeply held conservative beliefs. Thus, they are left out in the cold so to speak, and their violent reaction to their uncertain place in the 'modern' world seems like a foregone conclusion from the beginning of the film because of the strength of Wexler's characterization.

Having said that, the supporting characters are all a little hollow and underwritten in comparison to Compton and Joe, most notably Compton's daughter, played by Susan Sarandon in her big screen debut. She comes across like a parody of a hippie, the kind you'd see dancing in the background of a Peter Sellers' farce from the 60's- or perhaps even one of the 'Austin Powers' films. What makes it all the worse is the fact that Sarandon is completely stilted, wooden and lacking in charisma. Though in a few years she'd start giving the powerful, nuanced performances she's known for today, it's a wonder her awfully mediocre work in 'Joe' didn't derail her career just as it was beginning.

On the positive side of things, 'Joe' features an atmospheric original soundtrack from Bobby Scott that makes good use of songs from the likes of Exuma and Dean Michaels. Michaels 'Hey Joe' is particularly memorable, with lyrics reflecting the narrative beats of the film, as well as the ideology of the titular character. Besides directing, Avildsen also acted as cinematographer and his work has a naturalistic quality that is most affecting. The film is also very well-edited, having a brisk pace that makes Compton and Joe's journey to the dark side all the more exhilarating and frantic.

Dennis Patrick stars as Compton, delivering a performance of style and subtlety. Not as colorful or as openly bigoted as the titular character, Compton is nevertheless a complicated person with darkness in his soul, a man capable of extreme violence. Patrick couldn't have been better in the role, bringing to it much depth and intelligence. He makes Compton sympathetic- which is no mean feat considering the actions the character takes in the film- and he and co-star Peter Boyle work together marvelously.

Always a reliable actor, Boyle is brilliant as the bigoted blue-collar worker Joe. While not a likable character by any means, Boyle imbues Joe with a certain seedy charm and complexity that is intensely interesting and effective. He plays Joe as a regular man whose perception of reality is skewed by his political inclination, as one who can't see the truth from behind a blinding veil of conservative dogmatism. Boyle's assured performance is a joy to behold, and one can tell that he understood the character's motivations perfectly.

In short, John G. Avildsen's 'Joe' is a powerful and clever parable about bigotry, principles and violence boasting a fine Norman Wexler screenplay and a great soundtrack from Bobby Scott. Dennis Patrick and Peter Boyle deliver two fascinating, impactful performances of great depth and complexity that are highlights in both men's filmographies. Although the supporting characters are a little underwritten- and some questionably acted- 'Joe' is a terrific movie that has only gotten more relevant and entertaining with time.
34 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A stunning portrait of unbridled hatred.
Hey_Sweden20 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The 1970 classic "Joe" owes a lot to the performances of its leading actors, especially Peter Boyle in his star-making turn in the title role. Joe is a blue collar bigot; he's actually pretty democratic about it, as he seems to hate all those who are "different" equally. He makes the acquaintance of Bill Compton (Dennis Patrick), a well-off advertising executive who's just accidentally killed the drug pushing boyfriend (Patrick McDermott) of his young daughter Melissa (Susan Sarandon, in her film debut). Joe figures out that Bill is a killer, but even armed with this knowledge, he doesn't exactly blackmail Bill. Rather, he thinks he's found a kindred spirit, somebody who despises hippies as much as he does. The result is an uneasy sort of relationship that forms the crux of the movie, as it develops. Bill isn't as angry a man as Joe, but he does find him to be an interesting individual.

The way that a few separate worlds, and worldviews, collide, makes for good entertainment in this effort from screenwriter Norman Wexler and director John G. Avildsen. The generation gap provides further conflict, and seeing Joe and Bill eventually immerse themselves in the hippie universe is no less than fascinating. (The two of them do so as a means of searching for Melissa, who's run away.) They try to prove to each other how well they can adapt to this kind of lifestyle, including taking hits from a bong. Naturally, it isn't long before Joe is reminded of just how much he loathes hippies when he and Bill are robbed, and he spurs the increasingly distressed Bill on to a violent revenge - and a devastating conclusion.

Described in many reviews here as an even more volatile version of Archie Bunker, Boyles' Joe is a true force of nature, and the actor is so good in the role that he basically makes the movie. The other actors (such as Audrey Caire as Bills' wife and K. Callan as Joes' wife) are fine, and Boyle and Patrick do work well together.

A film very much of its time, "Joe" is a well paced drama that is definitely worth a viewing. It's likely to stick in peoples' minds after it's over.

Eight out of 10.
20 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
That's the way it was
berry-michael618 September 2012
This was the first movie I viewed, just by chance, after my discharge from active duty in the Army in 1970. Forty-two years later, remembering nothing of the plot, only that I left the theater very emotional (rare for me), I found a DVD copy at a local library.

I now realize why I have since not been able to regard Peter Boyle as anything but a frightening character, even in his comic role on the TV series "Everybody Loves Raymond." To be fair, his 1976 role in "Taxi Driver" didn't help, but his face, as seen in "Joe", is still the stuff of nightmares for me.

That said, I learned that it was the now long-forgotten hostility between sectors of our society, so brutally represented in the film, created by the debacle in Vietnam that affected me so deeply in 1970. Today, even to one who was there, the experience of living in an America so torn, so close to open rebellion, is hard to conceive - even harder to explain. But fresh off the plane, still somewhat glum from the cold stares at the airport caused by my uniform, this film hit me like a hammer. And guessing from the huge profit it made, it did the same to many.

It shocked me that I hadn't remembered Susan Sarandon was in this film - she has been one of my favorites - and, as a bonus, the then 24 year-old Ms. Sarandon appears nude. How could I have possibly forgotten that?
30 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Just an Average Joe
disinterested_spectator19 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Bill, a respectable businessman, kills his daughter's drug-dealer boyfriend in a fit of rage after she overdoses. In shock over what he has done, he goes into a bar to have a drink. In the bar is Joe, a man who hates blacks and hippies, and who is giving full vent to his spleen. In one sense, Joe's rant is dated, couched in terms of the events of the late 1960s. But in another sense, his diatribe is a timeless expression of bigotry, one that it is just as fresh in the twenty-first century as it was back then.

Bill confesses to Joe that he just killed one of those hippies, because it eases his conscience to admit his crime to someone who "understands," though he quickly says he was just kidding. Later, when Joe realizes that Bill actually did kill a hippie, something he has always wanted to do, but probably never would have, he calls Bill up and says he wants to get together. The two of them form a deadly combination, resulting in a massacre of hippies. Inadvertently, Bill kills Melissa, his own daughter.

The first time I saw the movie was in 1970. As the years passed, my memory was that Bill and Joe killed a bunch of harmless, peace-loving hippies. But having seen the movie recently, I realize that the hippies are not portrayed sympathetically. Early in the movie, when Melissa enters the room she shares with her boyfriend, he is taking a bath. She gets in the tub with him, and he immediately gets out. It is not clear whether he is merely indifferent to her romantic gesture, or whether he despises her, but either way, he treats her like dirt.

Speaking of dirt, that reminds me of their feet. Notwithstanding the bath, their feet are filthy. Back in those days, having dirty feet was de rigueur for hippies, because being unclean was a way of displaying contempt for the rules of society. And just to make sure we know they have the required dirt and grime, when they get in bed together, the camera films them from the end of the bed so that we get full view of the bottoms of four filthy feet.

Later, when Bill and Joe participate in an orgy of sorts, we get the spectacle of Joe's naked beer gut coming down on top of some hippie chick as he prepares to have sex with her, after remarking that he doesn't need any foreplay. While this allows us to see how crude Joe is, as if we were not already convinced, it also tells us something about the hippie chick on whom he descends, for a girl would have to be pretty much of a lowlife to take part in such a degrading act.

Furthermore, the hippies are thieves, for they rob Bill and Joe of their wallets, which angers them so much that they track the hippies down, at which point things get out of hand and the massacre ensues. In other words, the hippies are unlikable, dirty, and immoral. And while it would be going too far to say that they got what they deserved, their behavior does seem to vindicate much of what Joe was saying about them in the bar.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Some people shouldn't try to cross paths; unfortunately, they do.
lee_eisenberg26 June 2005
"Joe" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.
34 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Chillingly Realistic
Linda_S17 January 2008
New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.

Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.

What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.

This film needs to be remembered.
27 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Archie Bunker goes to hell
dtucker863 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This was one of John G. Avildsen's first films (he is the man who directed Rocky and The Karate Kid). This was also one of Peter Boyle's first films (yes the Peter Boyle who was Young Frankenstein and on Everyone Loves Raymond). Life magazine even had a write up on this film, released the year after Easy Rider Joe sort of takes a look at American society from the other end of the spectrum, that of a conservative blue collar bigot. In real life Peter Boyle is a very kind gentle man (he said he had a hard time changing his voice into Joe's aggressive snarl). For example, Joe talks of how good it felt to kill Japs in WWII. In real life, Peter Boyle's military service was shortened by a nervous breakdown. Nevertheless, Boyle is chilling in his monologues where he talks of niggers and queer liberals. All In The Family came on a year after Joe was made and Joe is really a nightmarish version of Archie Bunker. All In The Family made us laugh at our fears and prejudices, Joe hits us with them like a punch in the face and makes us sick. This was one of Susan Sarandon's first films and she is good as the wealthy businessmen's daughter whose father is forced to kill her at the end. The bloodbath in the end of this film is horrific and expertly done. It reminds you of the violence in The Wild Bunch. This is the film that made Peter Boyle a star and "hardhat" a household world. This movie is never shown on tv and is very hard to find on video but it is well worth your time to see it. Maybe that reason that Joe was so popular is that there is a little bit of him in all of us. He represents our fears and hates and inner demons. Maybe were looking at ourselves and that makes it even more chilling.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Lines in the sand
encyes3 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: Read this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for its violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"It's your ass now Compton!"
classicsoncall31 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - "Come on, get with the Pepsi generation". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - "Would you buy a used car from this man?" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. "Joe" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from "Joe" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in "Young Frankenstein"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.
20 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Joe, priceless welcome Peter Boyle and Susan Sarandon
thejcowboy2228 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Still a powerful movie that's hard to pull away from. This is not The Sound of Music by any means but a cold hard look at America in the late 60's. The anti establishment clashing with the old school generation of post World War II. In a weird ironic twist of fate Ad executive Bill Compton learns of his only daughter's Melissa (Susan Sarrandon) drug overdose on methamphetamine. Bill decides to go to his daughter's Greenwich Village apartment to gather up some clothes and personals while she's convalescing. Bill to his dismay, milling through the dilapidated filth ridden apartment, (pills and drug paraphernalia cluttered,) runs into Melisssa's drug dealing boyfriend who happens to say all the wrong things about his daughter, taunting the troubled man to no end which infuriates Bill to point where he grabs the druggie and bashes him against a wall till his skull cracks. Laying lifelessly on the floor Bill flees the apartment and ends up at a Tavern where a bald, overweight individual is mouthing off about Blacks and hippies and the sorry state of the world. Enter Joe Curran (Peter Boyle) who captivate you, the viewer, and drags you into his 9-5 factory working slob world. Meanwhile our shaken ad executive/ first timer of manslaughter in the first degree, has the look of someone who just killed someone for the first time. Joe in his intoxicated state sees right through Bill as he admits to killing someone and Joe says, "Your kidding?" Bill looks right back at a stunned Joe and takes the bold statement back by saying "Just Kidding!" But Joe is dubious and has this feeling about Bill as pleasantries are exchanged i.e. what do you do for a living etc... A few days later Joe and his simpleton wife watch the news about a drug dealer found dead in an apartment. A bell goes off in Joe's head as he realizes that Bill actually committed that act of violence. Joe is moved by that action rather than calling the authorities. Instead he looks up Bill Compton and reaches him at his Ad Agency by phone as per prior conversation that night at the bar. They meet at a bowling alley as classes clash throughout the rest of the movie. Bill with his important advertising executive position. Very distinguished professional, aged but handsome, tall and grey well reserved disposition and impeccably dressed. On the other hand we have Joe. The World War II veteran factory worker who is flamboyant, extremely uncouth due to his lack of education, making a meager salary, bigoted and hates just about everything from Blacks to Gays. Makes you wonder if Norman Lear got his Idea for the Television show All In The Family while watching this movie. I noticed the similarities when Joe tells his wife to be quiet during dinner. Despite the two men's backgrounds, Bill and Joe have a chemistry and a mutual admiration for each other as they both believe the world is going to the dogs. Joe invites Bill and his elegant yet snobbish wife Joan played by Audrey Caire to Astoria, Queens to Joe's Railroad styled tracked home. Joe's wife is preening in anticipation as the Royals (The Compton's) enter their home Joan is a pro at patronizing Joe's wife May Jo on her home, her drapes and unusual name. Joe boasts that not only does he have ginger ale in the house but he also has seven up to go along with the cheap scotch. After a gourmet meal of Chinese take out in the Curran's cramp dining area the men enter Joe's man cave full of bowling trophies and deer heads but Joe's pride and joy is his cabinet full of weaponry. Joe takes out a machine gun and says, "Your not supposed to have this it's illegal." Joe wants to make it quite clear that he won't tell a sole about Bill's involvement murder in his daughter's apartment. Joe summons Bill's Wife to the basement as Joe also reassures Joan that there's Nothing to worry about. May Jo tells Joan to her disdain that they should get together at her Manhattan upscale apartment real soon. The Compton's return to their luxury Central Park apartment as Bill pours some brandy for his wife and himself. Starts a fire in front of his elaborate fire place. Earlier that day at the Hospital, Melissa laying in bed relaxing has a visit from her girlfriend who breaks the shocking news that her boyfriend was murdered in her apartment. Melissa panic stricken gets dressed and runs out of the Hospital. Meanwhile at the apartment a soothing snort of brandy shared with the discussion of Bill's plight of the murdering of that no good hippie boyfriend is discussed as we hear noises from the other room as a devastated Melissa overhears the reality that her Father murdered her boyfriend . She runs out of the apartment as Bill tries to stop her without any luck . Melissa flees into the city night and Bill's is wondering what to do next. Don't worry cause Joe has a plan to find her with resounding results and an ending you'll never forget. Wonderful screenplay by Norman Wexler and kudos for his early work of cinematography/director by John Avildsen who is also famous for physical movies such as the Rocky and Karate Kid films. Great period piece which still resonates with today's social climate.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good Social Commentary, Stiff Dialogue
ray-rwalk273012 October 2006
My interpretation of the movie is that it strives more to make a social comment at the cost of being realistic. The characters are a little bit over-the-top. And some are horribly stereotyped and lacking dimension: the upper middle class couple who are obviously refined and look down their noses at the blue collar class (this is stated with Bill and Joan's visit to Joe's home); the super archetypal "Archie Bunker" who drinks Bud (naturally!), bald (of course no one refined would be bald!), unworldly and borderline illiterate (he never heard the word "culture?" He is not familiar with the cliché "When in Rome..."? That's not just uneducated but isolated from humanity.), and crass (without exception blue collar people eat like pigs!). I realize that the Joe character must be an idiot with few redeeming features in order to construct the plot and not evoke any sympathy for his particular plight in life, but it is so in-your-face that it detracts. (You don't need to beat us over the head with what kind of guy he is. Just the movie title is a big hint.) You would think they could have forgone one stereotypical feature to at least make some attempt at believability.

Some of the acting is reminiscent of the stiff Dragnet exchanges. For example, I cannot remember the exact quote so I will paraphrase, "Get this. The old man says, 'I got all the grass I need, sonny boy.' Is he putting me on?" I mean, really. This is so stilted you can almost see the actor's eyes moving across the lines.

Also, some of the development is too quick to be effective. For instance in the final sequence when Bill Compton is furious with Joe, all Joe has to say to finalize his personality conversion is, "Hey! Don't kill me, kill them!" In an instance we witness a complete personality flip in Bill. True, the whole event started with Bill accidentally killing someone and *uncharacteristically* feeling some pleasure about it, so he does have it in him. But he was never presented as someone with the potential of a cold blooded killer. I think it would have been much more effective to draw his inner rage out more gradually; some horrific event involving his daughter needed to occur to complete his transmogrification, not just her running away. To be fair, there was some gradual change in Bill over the course of the movie, but for the most part he seemed to be going along with Joe in order to hush him and use him rather than be him. He never convincingly converted to a Joe even though the movie attempts to tidy this up with their political agreements about society.

That said, I do think the final scene has good emotional impact. The message of the movie is clear: the generation gap is so wide that it's dangerous. Also, I do like the fact that not everyone is so one dimensional. Some do have at least a hint of good and bad. For example, it would have been too easy to make the victims ridiculously Pollyannaish, but thankfully the hippies, too, have their flaws. They come off more like self-indulgent children rather than self-proclaiming purveyors of social change, which how I personally view them. (Not to deter, but to that point, if the anti-war movement was so sincere about fixing the ailments of society, why instead of partying in San Francisco in 1967 didn't they march out to the poor nations of the world and build homes and feed the poor? Because it was more about self-indulgence than truly helping fellow man.) I think that element gave it some depth--not much, mind you, but it could have been worse.

I recommend the movie to anyone interested in that period and who can ignore the Dragnet like features. It may have its laughable delivery from time to time, but its point is very visceral and relevant to the times.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Still Very Relevant
aimless-4623 June 2004
Caution-possible spoilers ahead….. Just watched 'Joe' for the second time. The first time was 30+ years ago on an Air Force Base. I was reminded of that by the Air Force overcoat with Tech. Sgt. stripes wore by the boyfriend/dealer; we airmen had quite a laugh the first time that appeared on the screen because that is a 'lifer' rank. Over the years I have carried several other images from the film. Foremost was the absolutely beautiful and vulnerable daughter of the executive. As someone else commented, you could not take you eyes off her. I did not realize until now that this was a 20-year old Susan Sarandon in her first movie. What a loss that she did not do more movies when she looked like that. I also recall the irony of having a counterculture hero like Peter Boyle playing the title role of a right-wing gun nut. Not unlike George C. Scott playing generals in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. And of course the shocking ending made a lasting impression.

30+ years ago it was the most talked about movie that ever played on the base. We thought it was a great film then and I have been reluctant to see it again because I was afraid that it would be as disappointingly dated as Easy Rider. But watching it today I was amazed at how well the film has held up. It is a very strong script with few holes although you have to wonder about the boyfriend immediately getting out of the bathtub when Sarandon gets in with him.

Searching for an explanation of why this film is still so entertaining I have to think it has something to do with the perfect physical casting. Boyle was physically believable as Joe (as others have pointed out his portrayal would inspire the Archie Bunker character a few 'years later). Did Ted Knight model his 'Caddyshack' character-Judge Smails after the Dennis Patrick's advertising executive in 'Joe'? They look alike and sound alike. Patrick was totally believable as the wrapped-too-tight upper middle class executive. And Sarandon's doe-eyed innocent with the Raggety Ann doll still evokes a protective response from all male viewers-perfect casting.

The nude and drug scenes actually hold up (they were very provocative for their day) and are as explicit as anything to be found in 'Thirteen'. About the only thing that dates this film is that the violence is not realistic or graphic. 'Joe' was about the same time as 'The Wild Bunch', and the tone of movie violence had a just begun to change.

Another reason this film holds up is that events in the past couple of years have brought back the relevancy of the theme and context of this film. In the film both types of 'conservatives' are portrayed as full of fear and hate toward the unconventional ways of the counterculture; and filled with envy at their free and hedonistic lifestyle. The counterculture is portrayed as mocking the straight culture; and although paranoid toward conservatives (legitimately so given that this was just a couple months after Kent State) they cannot resist flaunting their lifestyle in an attempt to antagonize. The political landscape is not all that different 30+ years later. I'm not sure conservatives envy young people and liberals as much as 1970, but they fear and hate them more.

An excellent film that surprisingly is as relevant now as it was in the early 1970's.
69 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A sleeper hit of the 1970s
AlsExGal25 September 2018
It's about a square ad executive (Dennis Patrick) who kills the drug dealer boyfriend of his junkie daughter (Susan Sarandon, her film debut). He strikes up a friendship with a bigoted factory worker (Peter Boyle) and the two decide to infiltrate the hippie world of lower East Side of New York.

This is a gritty, sometimes funny look at hippie and drug culture. Peter Boyle is excellent as the loudmouth working stiff, being both funny and scary at the same time. The music is good too, an excellent song sung by Jerry Butler is played over the credits and there is a hilarious country tune dedicated to the Joe character. The film is not for everyone, if you are offended by foul language, racial slurs, nudity, drugs or violence, you should stay away. In fact, you should probably stay way from the 1970s if you are so offended.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Fascinating Mess
DelBongo22 January 2009
Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.

The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.

It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.

But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hey, Joe...don't it make you want to go to war...once more?
nunculus31 July 2000
Norman Wexler, who went on to encapsulate the zeitgeist in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and to create deathless, hyper-offensive camp in MANDINGO, was a prince among hot-button-pushers in JOE. When a Madison Avenue type (Dennis Patrick) throttles to death the sneering drug pusher who was the lover of his daughter (Susan Sarandon), he meets an unlikely fan and friend: Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), a racist, hippie-hating hardhat type who's as far from the genteel Mr. Compton as warm root beer is from gravlax and eggs. The movie is as flummoxing, and as weirdly elating, as a deeply abusive boyfriend. One minute it's getting you to giggle along with the no-baloney Joe; a second later, he's a Hitlerian psychopath. At times, we're touched by the friendship and mutual respect that crosses class lines; at other times, we're made to chuckle at Joe and his wife's homely ways, and at still others Compton's brand of magazine-derived good taste comes in for a beating. Like another surprise hit of its year, PATTON, JOE has that non-lecturing, read-it-this-way-or-that quality. Nearly every scene has something for an audience to cheer or boo (and oftentimes, those are the same things). The director, John G. Avildsen, has a few real winners (SAVE THE TIGER, NEIGHBORS) in his undistinguished career; this may be tops among them.
27 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
More a cultural signpost than a great movie...
MrGKB17 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
...John "Rocky/Karate Kid" Avildsen's breakthrough feature "Joe" propelled two hitherto unknown actors, Peter Boyle and Susan Sarandon, onto the path to fame and fortune along with Mr. Avildsen, all the while creating a remarkably telling snapshot of the American psyche at a dangerous nadir.

Indeed, the film enjoyed serious attention and financial success for a low-budget effort, mostly by dint of serendipitous release shortly after the Kent State shooting and the attendant protests, as well as a few other germane incidents that I'll leave to the few who may read this to discover, which is when I first saw it, freshly minted from high school. Exposure in magazines like Playboy didn't hurt, either. Retrospective viewing, though responsive to the film's timely, emotional impact, still reveals the clunkiness of a risibly Oscar-nominated screenplay. Said script evinces every brief moment of its purported eight day creation in a number of suspect plot devices: Joe putting two and two together via unlikely headlines and news broadcasts and Bill bringing his entire purloined stash to the hippie pad being the most egregious examples. Likewise, the dialogue runs the gamut from embarrassing cliché to occasional brilliance, but overall feels a bit too forced to be quite genuine. The film is overtly, painfully political, an O. Henryesque morality play transcribed for the dawning of the Seventies and seasoned with a generous helping of product placement masquerading as picaresque realism, a harbinger of developing trends.

Perhaps this (and despite its flaws) is what makes "Joe" so much fun to watch, and why I give it a higher-than-it-deserves rating. Its blatant polarization and core pessimism make it as relevant now as it was over four decades ago. It taps a bellicose and resentful nerve that's hard to ignore.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Disturbing, with a great turn by Peter Boyle as Joe
Groverdox2 March 2016
"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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Unlikely Friendship
Tonytanzio11 January 2005
Wealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. "Joe" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this "pre-Rocky" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though "Joe" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together.
35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows..
torrascotia8 September 2018
Only the seventies seems to produce movies this bleak. This is not an easy film to track down despite its high ratings on here. Reading the premise of this movie it appeared on the face of it to be a kind of a black comedy but there are zero laughs. The story concerns a middle class, middle aged father who has a daughter heavily into drugs and the hippy movement. After his daughter ends up hospitalised the father confronts his daughters drug pushing boyfriend with disastrous consequences. The father then visits a local bar where he finds Joe, a blue collar worker in the midst of an alcohol fuelled rant about the current state of America, African Americans and the youth culture, all of which he despises. After the father blurts out what he has just done to Joe, he becomes locked into a dangerous relationship with him which has the potential to ruin his life forever. The movie examines how both white and blue collar conservatives respond to a world which they no longer recognise. While Joe and the father share some political views there is still a huge gulf between them due to social class. Where the move appears to have aged are the bigoted rants which Joe is prone to making, its unlikely these would be allowed in modern film making. The final act is shocking but it is not surprising, its a brave movie but certainly not one that would sit well with a modern mainstream audience. They simply don't make them now like they did in the 70's.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Mesmerizing character study
perfectbond12 March 2003
I was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 8/10.
27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A SCARY AVERAGE MAN...!
masonfisk3 June 2023
An early film from director John G. Avildsen (before he cashed out as a Rocky/Karate Kid man) from 1970 & starring the late, great Peter Boyle & Susan Sarandon (in her film debut). Sarandon is a drug addict living w/her asshole of a boyfriend but after a drug binge leaves her OD'ing, her rich parents get her to a hospital to recoup. Her incensed father returns back to Sarandon's apartment finding the deadbeat dealer & kills him in a fit of rage. Winding down in a bar, the father, played by Dennis Patrick, admits his sin to the bartender in hearing range of Boyle, a loud bigot who's been railing against the other from the moment the camera has laid eyes on him. Boyle gets it into his head Patrick is a kindred spirit so he contacts him out of the blue w/Patrick, fearing a blackmail scheme, goes along w/this working stiff even bringing his wife over to their house for Chinese dinner or popping up at Boyle's weekly bowling game. The final third of the film finds the mismatched pair out in the streets of New York trying to track Sarandon down (who has left the hospital) but instead they go on an odyssey into hippie culture confirming their own prejudices while at the same time taking advantage of their circumstances. Probably shocking for the time 50 plus years ago but nowadays in certain circles this may be seen as a right winger's dream (especially the final images involving gunfire at a wintry drug den) but some of the film scoring & shots dilute its power w/the ending almost par for the course being a tyro filmmaker's propensity to shock its audience his first time out of the gate but in this day & age where we've pretty much seen & heard just about everything (at least I hope!), this film's final moments feel a little obvious & force fed. Also starring K. Callan (who played Ma Kent on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures) as Boyle's wife.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Hey, Joe! Whadda Ya Know?
strong-122-47888511 September 2015
If nothing else - It was so plain to see that 1970's "Joe" (an all-American, redneck flag-waver?) was a clear blueprint for 1976's "Taxi Driver". Yep. With just a few variations on the theme, these 2 films were almost identical in the nature of their story-lines.

And, just like Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle character, the character of Joe Curran in this production was hardly an interesting enough person for this twisted tale to base its entire plot-line on the likes of him and his blindly hateful actions.

In one way "Joe" could, very likely, be looked upon as being a disgruntled viewer's step-by-step guide on how to deal with the annoyance of a generation gap, especially when it comes to dealing with hippies.

Yeah. And what better way to get those despicable hippies to co-operate with you, than to aim a loaded rifle right at their heads. (Hey! Talk about "flower power", man!)

Anyway - "Joe" (now 45 years old) was a very dated picture. And any relevance that it may seem to hold for today's audiences hangs very precariously by a single thread.

*Note* - "Joe" was directed by film-maker John Avildsen who (six years later) would triumphantly go on to direct "Rocky" in 1976.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Like Archie Bunker with guns...
JasparLamarCrabb13 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Schmoe
inspectors718 August 2022
Mad magazine did its version, Schmoe, and that was my first experience with John Avildsen's Joe, a movie about the honesty of the lower middle class in relation to the UMC. Most of the reviews on IMDb were about the cultural clash between Peter Boyle's Joe Curran and Dennis Patrick's Bill Compton, two men with very little in common.

Boyle's character seethes with a rage against the welfare state. Patrick's Compton character is a Mad Man who blurts out that he's killed a drug dealer when he visits Joe's blue-collar watering hole after losing his temper with his daughter's dealer boyfriend.

Therein lies the tension, the foul-mouthed factory drone and the upper-crust ad agency type who has drinks with only the right kind of people. These two men have an uneasy relationship, with Boyle trying to understand the UMC but thinking there's no cultural difference between him and Compton.

In a hilarious moment, Joe learns a new word--culture--and has no idea what to do with it.

Dennis Patrick is the more comfortable pair of slippers here. He played so many baddies in his career that, when he shows up, you're put at ease. I've seen this guy! Didn't he play a con-man who tried to fleece Archie Bunker out of a wad of money for "energy-efficient" windows?

Patrick sends his daughter's drug dealer boyfriend to another, hopefully better place, and, only because after blurting out what he's done to a stranger in a bar (Boyle) does the relationship blossom.

After one cringe-saturated moment after another, it becomes obvious that Patrick's daughter has washed her hands of her family. She overhears things that make her run from her parents in a blind panic.

Curran and Compton decide to go on a rescue mission to find the girl, and they're armed to the teeth. When they find the coven of hippies they've been looking for, the movie takes a ghastly turn, one I didn't completely anticipate.

Joe is a dark bit of 1970 relevancy, and it has enough surprises to make it worth watching. Peter Boyle's character is not completely repulsive, nor is Patrick's Compton. It's not a terribly fun movie, and your being entertained is unlikely. What makes Joe work is that the characters are not cartoonish stereotypes.

They can be found in reruns of All in the Family.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Combination satire, melodrama and diatribe is well-acted...but I was relieved when it was over
moonspinner5511 November 2017
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 ****
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed