City Hall

2/16/19961h 51m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ It started with a shootout on a rainswept street and ended in a scandal that shattered New York. ~

Overview:

The accidental shooting of a boy in New York leads to an investigation by the Deputy Mayor, and unexpectedly far-reaching consequences.

Director:

Harold Becker

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$40,000,000.00

Revenue:

$33,440,204.00

Key words:

drug dealer
corruption
undercover agent
police
undercover
presidential election
war on drugs
mayor
investigation
drugs

Cast

Al Pacino

~ as ~

Mayor John Pappas

John Cusack

~ as ~

Kevin Calhoun

Bridget Fonda

~ as ~

Marybeth Cogan

Danny Aiello

~ as ~

Frank Anselmo

Martin Landau

~ as ~

Judge Walter Stern

David Paymer

~ as ~

Abe Goodman

Anthony Franciosa

~ as ~

Paul Zapatti

Lindsay Duncan

~ as ~

Sydney Pappas

Luna Lauren Velez

~ as ~

Elaine Santos

Richard Schiff

~ as ~

Larry Schwartz

View full cast & crew

Reviews (3)

t
talisencrw
Written 9 year(s) ago
6
Being a huge fan of Al Pacino (from the likes of 'Heat', the 'Godfather' movies, and 'Dog Day Afternoon' especially) and having had a huge crush on Bridget Fonda ('Single White Female', anyone?) back in the day (Peter Fonda's famous daughter was named 85th sexiest star in film history, and Mrs. Danny Elfman hasn't been involved in film, unfortunately, since 2002), I was hugely disappointed in this film, especially since I had loved director Harold Becker's previous 'Sea of Love', which also starred Pacino. The first half was decent and involving, but it kind of slid off the rails, interest-wise for me, the rest of the way and got too talky and uninspired.

I don't really know if the problem was with the script or its direction. I know I'm not the greatest John Cusack fan in the world (I find he's much better in comedy, like his sister Joan), but he had pretty good co-stars, whose talents were basically wasted, in Martin Landau, Anthony Franciosa and Danny Aiello (these guys were BORN for these roles and films, so on paper, this should have really worked out well). I had always wondered why this film had bombed so miserably, and now I know why. In cases like this, more should have been done to alter the story arc, just some basic tweaks, to make it more suspenseful and/or (though I usually balk at such 'Hollywood' tendencies) some romantic tension (a beauty such as Fonda's was misused--they may as well have hired someone else). All in all, a wasted opportunity that's worth a look if you like dramas about corruption--just don't go in with big expectations, and don't bother with a rewatch.
JPV852
Written 4 year(s) ago
7
Saw this one maybe 20 years ago and for whatever reason had a hankering to check it out again. Not great or ambitious as it sounds and pacing was a bit off, but in general found it engaging and had solid performances. I do wonder how much better it could have been under someone like Scorsese. 3.5/5
GenerationofSwine
Written 2 year(s) ago
10
There is a historical accuracy in how the film is presented. A small thing, the murder of a boy, builds and builds, and unravels all the layers of the onions until the ripples can be felt at the highest and most powerful levels.

That is, essentially what happened with Watergate where a simple B&E brought down Nixon. It's also what happened, almost 2,000 years earlier with the Conspiracy of Cantoline.

If you are tuned to it, like The Paper, it's not just about corruption, but about ripple effects and that is pretty cool.

And, it's really well acted, well enough to make you lament that Cusack and Pacino aren't paired more often.