Excellente! I saw this when I went on a Poitier spree along with Lillies of the Field and Brother John. His and Steiger's finest hour, the film explores the spectre of racism during the transitional period after the 60's. When Poitier finds himself in a resistant envirnment despite his educational and professional background. I liked him best here, very angry under the skin. But Steiger was a great counterpart. One was completely exterior (Steiger) and the other internal (Poitier) but they both end up pulling together grudgingly. The crime scenes and situation are still rich, and this movie has aged remarkably well considering how "tied" it was to a particular era. This is in part due to the technical superiority of the movie. When push comes to shove, its an intense hate-crime scene. The relationship between the cop and detective, distrusting, but eventually open, has real dramatic appeal. Very pertinent and very well done. Jewison has never gotten the attention I think he deserves as a great director.

A

I agree with that I as nominated him in the Best Director Poll.

And this movie had great big and small moments.

Steiger confessing about his life and the great early scene when Poiter is arrested and brought to Steiger's office.

B+

I think one of the best subtle touches about the film and Poitier's performance, is how solemn it all is. A man was murdered, and the director makes a fine choice by making the men generally disheartened by the ordeal... this is no CSI where the investigators are joking and cracking over the worst of sins. The scene where Tibbs looks over the body exemplifies this the most, he is clearly not happy to be looking over this man, but he does it. The disheartening over the murder also lends way to a lot of the tension and anger that the characters build up.

I agree with dolce that there is a lot of depth internally to his character as well, what's more is that the film doesn't take the leap to stuff a racial message from Tibbs himself down our throats in a blow-up, instead it just gives us the setting and events and lets us interpret the message ourselves. Tibbs feels the racism, and in the cafe or pole fight scenes, he is pained and most definitley not a happy man. It really is a great great performance. Steiger is also very good, they have decent chemistry together.

However for the most part the film is far from flawless. The storyline itself, while it does keep you guessing, is a fairly standard whodunit. The pacing is a bit off, somehow the scenes take too long in one place, and some of the dialogue doesn't feel natural. It's a fun crime story, but it's far from remarkable. I think it was awarded an importance Oscar over a best movie one, though I haven't seen much of its competition to compare.

I recently watched this for the first time and really enjoyed it. Poitier is good, but it's Rod Steiger who impressed me. His gum-smacking sheriff went beyond stereotypes. Good movie that I have to give an A.

It's solid enough for a Best Picture winner. The characterizations are deep and fleshed-out, and this is only enhanced by the two great lead performances (I would've given the Oscar to both of them), but I found myself wanting a bit more meat on the actual story. The whodunit mystery lacks real interest, and I wanted something more engaging and intriguing for these characters to do. I also found myself perplexed by the solution at the end - far too confusing a mystery to be an effective one. This may seem like a contradiction, but what I really wanted was a meaningful, layered story, not a twisted, confounding one.

It's got a great sense of style about it, helped by that great score and Jewison's often flashy direction. But, in the grand ol' year of 1967, it's got nothing on Bonnie and Clyde or even The Graduate. So, a solid enough BP winner, if not a deserving one.

Trixster, read Pictures at a Revolution. It paints a great portrait of those movies and the climate that birthed them.

B+


In the Heat of the Night is a movie that Ive been wanting to see for a long time. It's a shame to admit, but to this day, I have barely seen any Sidney Poitier performances and certainly none of his classic ones. Even though it's not Lillies of the Field, I thought that In the Heat of the Night would still be a good starting point. And good it was.

What I liked the most about In the Heat of the Night is the casual way it dealt with the actual murder investigation. It was very much besides the point. I assume it was a big selling point for the film because, well, crime thrillers sell better than racism dramas, but in its core, the film is pretty far away from the usual whodunit. It's a character piece and belongs as much to Sidney Poitier as it does to Rod Steiger. Both deliver great performances here, but with all due respect to Poitier - Steiger tops him in almost every single scene they are in. Surely, his character was easier to play and to impress with because it is a very showy performance, but he nails it perfectly. He nails the lines, the nails the accent and he nails every single gesture he makes. What's interesting about the characters here is that despite their vast differences, you can also spot one similarity between the two: they are both angry characters. The difference is that Steiger's Gillespie wears his anger on the exterior, while Poitier's Tibbs is a more introverted character, but with just as much anger boiling on the inside. Both make up for one of the best imprefect buddy cop pairings in movie history if you could call it that way. Their layers are peeled off one by one as the movie proceeds with Gillespie's implications of his loneliness towards the end of the movie. It'd be easy to vilify his character, but truth is that he's pretty bitter as a police chief for whom his men have little respect, who is lonely and generally not well-liked. The fact that Virgil Tibbs is also far more competent than him pushes him over the edge a couple of times. It's a very complex character and Steiger pulls it off without coming across as a caricature. Poitier on the other hand, gets some great lines. Who could not like "They call me MISTER TIBBS!"?

Norman Jewison's direction seems to represent the transition between the movies of the 60s and those of the 70s. Had I not known it better, I would have pegged the production year at 1971 or around that. It's pretty flashy direction for the time period, but it fits the piece, as does Ray Charles' great title song.

There were a couple of things that I was not too fond of too. While the whole murder aspect is more of a side story, it still bothered me that the conclusion was so predictable and the motivation so contrived. I guessed the killer about two minutes into the film. I wish it had not been this obvious and lazy, even if it's not the main focus of the film. Moreover, as I said, the reasoning why the murder has happened was a bit too contrived and Tibbs stumbling upon the solution had more of a miracle than actually some logic thinking. It relies heavily on coincidences. Moreover, I also thought that Poitier's Tibbs simply had too much luck during the film with Steiger arriving on time to save him as well as the way he saves himself at the end. It seemed a tad too easy. It still works very well as a character piece and has a fair share of absolutely tremendous scenes to boot, among them the first conversation between Tibbs and Gillespie's in the latter's office and the confrontation between Tibbs and Eric Endicott. Endicott's reaction to the returned slap is just brilliant and, well, sad in a pathetic kind of way.