Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

MrGKB ...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.

disinterested_spectator 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.

dougdoepke An odd thing about the movie is that no one comes off very sympathetically. That goes for life styles as well, whether working class, upper class, or hedonistic hippie. Everyone's compartmentalized and disdainful of non-peers. Of course, the movie's crux lies in working class Joe's (Boyle) alliance with white-collar Bill (Patrick) over their mutual hatred of hippies. And that's following Bill's pivotal murder of his daughter's drug dealer boyfriend.The movie was much talked about at the time. After all, the hippie movement was widely seen and heard on America's airways, but not so working class America's reaction. For guys like Joe, it seemed everybody was making social progress except for working class white males. Plus, pot-smoking kids were doing things that beer swilling blue-collar guys could only dream about—free time, free sex, few responsibilities. Worse, these kids were insulting the nation's traditions, the very ones that afforded them the luxuries they enjoy. The movie may exaggerate some, but the nub of Joe's hatred of those he thinks are ruining the country is on the mark. (Then too, I suspect a similar sentiment lives on in today's Tea Party, though not as pronounced.) The movie also suggests the potential of a broader cross- class reaction. Significantly, Joe's working class anger eventually spreads to white-collar Bill, as together they make war on what they see as a youthful parasitic class. To me, the movie's really about the emerging crisis of the Vietnam era, concerning not only who will shape the nation's present, but its future as well. Now, after 50-years, the hippie movement may have vanished, but the animus against minorities and others regarded as not fully American remains a potent force. The movie may have aged, but this aspect hasn't. In passing-- note in the movie how the feminist movement has yet to have impact. Thus uppity women are not included in Joe's long list of cultural evildoers. Still, it's entertaining to wonder how Joe and especially his dutiful wife would react to housewives desiring more options.The movie itself has a number of memorable scenes. I especially like it when our two crusaders guzzle booze while denouncing pot-smoking kids. Then too, Joe's barroom tirade came at a time when audiences were not used to such uncensored explicitness as gutter obscenities and hateful ethnic slurs. Thus Boyle's fiercely delivered rant was spellbinding at the time, and I suspect still is. But most of all is that subtle sequence of Joe and Mary Lou (Callan) sharing an awkward evening with their social betters Bill and Joan (Caire). What a masterpiece of staging, scripting and performance. It's almost wrenching to watch the two wives try to deal with the class barriers separating them once they've been thrown unceremoniously together. Caire is especially meaningful as she betrays hardly a hint of what she's really thinking, while the eager Mary Lou does her best to please. Yet every time the housewifely hostess does something agreeable, Joe steps on it with an uncaring remark. Comparisons with TV's Edith Bunker and All in the Family (1971-1979) do hit the mark.It's easy to deride Joe's unabashed vulgarity. Still, he's always straightforward about what he thinks. No guess-work there, unlike the white-collar guy who plays up to him once he thinks Joe's going to be his new boss. Plus, Joe works hard at a demanding foundry job. In short, he's that average joe who does the sometimes dirty work that keeps the nation running. In that key regard he deserves respect, maybe not for everything he thinks, but surely for what he does. And maybe if hard working guys like him got more respect for what they do, they wouldn't be so ready to take frustrations out on others. To me, that's one of the most important issues raised in a movie that's as relevant today as 50-years ago when I first saw it.

JoeB131 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.