Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (January 14, 2025)
Via films like 1973’s American Graffiti and TV shows such as 1974’s Happy Days, nostalgia for the 1950s reigned supreme in the early to mid 1970s. Yes, Graffiti took place in 1962, but that year existed as a cultural continuation of the 1950s, so for all intents and purposes, it reflects the vibe of the prior decade.
In this vein came 1974’s The Lords of Flatbush. Set in the Flatbush area of Brooklyn, the story focuses on four high school students who form the titular “social club” – ie, a gang.
This crew includes David “Chico” Tyrell (Perry King), Stanley Rosiello (Sylvester Stallone), Butchey Weinstein (Henry Winkler) and Wimpy Murgalo (Paul Mace). Though they continue to attend school, they show little interest in studies.
Instead, the lives of the “Lords” revolve around girls and brawls. We follow their ups and downs, mainly as they navigate various relationships.
This means a movie without much actual plot. Lords instead depicts the characters’ journeys.
Well, sort of. That statement implies a level of depth that never manifests in this thin tale.
50 years later, Lords probably maintains a connection to the culture due to the presence of Stallone and Winkler. Lords hit right as Happy Days wrapped its abbreviated first season and Butchey feels like a less cool version of the Fonz.
Stanley comes across like a tougher version of Rocky, and he becomes the closest thing to a
full-blooded character the film possesses because he exists as the only one who shows any actual growth. Unfortunately, that offers more of a reflection on the bland quality of this movie than it is an indication of any strong writing or acting;
Lords tends to come across as a dirtier - and much less compelling - version of American Graffiti. Actually, the movie also shares a lot in common with 1971's Last Picture Show
Both took the period locations of the 1950s and imbued them with a more graphic nature than we saw in the sweetly innocent Graffiti or Happy Days. That worked well in Show but doesn't do much here, as ultimately Lords seems like little more than a half-rate combination of those two much better movies.
The film simply delivers little of interest, largely because characters generally feel flat
and uncompelling. Our main lead, Chico becomes the worst of the bunch for two reasons.
First, Chico occupies the most screen time but we never see any sort of character development or nuance. He always remains a handsome lunk out to get laid.
Second, King seems inappropriate for the role. The other three members of the gang all look like thugs to some degree, but King would seem more at home as the star quarterback. Not for a second do I buy him as a juvenile delinquent type, and King lacks the acting chops to make it work.
It doesn’t help that not a single member of the cast passes for a high school student. They varied in age from 24 to 28 so the prospect of them as much younger kids feels preposterous.
Also, none of the leads ever becomes especially likable, with Chico again as the worst offender. He seems like an awful person and his pals don’t fare much better.
Not much happens in the movie, which doesn’t necessarily turn into a flaw as long as the characters work and the writing's crisp. Since neither become the case in Lords, the general lack of plot hampers the film to a strong degree.
It just kind of plods along with no real reason to exist, so it's just there. Ultimately, the movie seems mildly interesting as a curiosity due to the cast, but Lords does little to sustain the viewer's attention even across its brief 84-minute running time.
