Jakester It's not fair to compare this film with "The French Connection" which is a once-in-a-generation coming together of perfect script, perfect cast, and perfect director. (Also perfect timing - America was very worried circa 1971 about whether big cities like NYC were governable. Plenty of academics said "No they're not!") That said, I will proceed with my comparison. The greatest strength of "The French Connection" is its gritty realism - its near-documentary feel. We are convinced this is how New York cops speak, move, and behave on the mean streets while chasing down drug traffickers. We miss this in "The French Connection II" where, too often, things feel artificial, forced, staged.The second big problem with "II" is all the fricking scenery chewing going on. Gene Hackman was a 900 pound elephant by the time the producers started developing this picture - what he wanted, he got. I would be willing to bet that he wanted the addiction/withdrawal sequence to be lengthy and detailed ("Hey, I can really ACT here and get me some AWARDS"). The sequence ends up being show-offy after 15 minutes. (I will say, the way Hackman says "Dandy little southpaw" is gorgeous.) The score is mediocre (a sharp contrast to the razor-sharp, minimalist scoring of the original, even though they're written by the same guy). The photography is average (again a sharp contrast).Re the fish-gutting sequence at the beginning of the film - this would work much better if we were informed from the outset that they're looking for drugs, then we'd find their work funny and intriguing rather than weird. Re the cultural/language gulf between a New York Irish cop and Marseille - this is moderately amusing for a while but gets played-up too much. Re the red truck in the heroin lab - it's parked a good 60 feet from where it logically should be; this is Amateur Hour filmmaking, done merely to create a little bit extra shoot-'em-up excitement. Re the inside of the heroin lab with all the test tubes and lab technicians - this is interesting stuff - much more could have been done with it.

alexanderdavies-99382 It is no surprise that a sequel to the masterpiece "The French Connection" was commissioned. After all, the 1971 film helped to define a much more realistic kind of Hollywood movie and is in a league of its own. Gene Hackman brought so much depth to the tough cop, Popeye Doyle. In the hands of a lesser actor, the character would have become one-dimensional. Released in 1975, "French Connection 2," is actually very good on its own terms. Naturally, Gene Hackman was brought back and so was Fernando Rey as the drug dealer who eluded capture in the previous film. Aside from actor Ed Lauter, every cast member in this sequel is French apart from Hackman. It made sense to have this 1975 film, seeing as there were a few loose ends from before. Being set and filmed in Marseilles, we see a more vulnerable side to Popeye Doyle. He doesn't know any area of France, he has never been to that particular country before, so his being on alien territory makes him a target in more ways than one. There are some good action scenes which keep the viewer interested but the film suffers from overlength. If the running time had been trimmed by about 15 minutes, then the narrative would have been stronger. This is no fault of the director, John Frankenheimer. He certainly deserves more recognition as he made some very good films. The drug addiction reference makes for rather uncomfortable viewing as we see first hand, Doyle's graphic and disturbing withdrawal symptoms. I can understand why this was included in "French Connection 2," as Fernando Rey is determined to rid himself of this cop who has been a thorn in his side from day 1. He will employ any means necessary to rid himself of his adversary. However, the drug addiction took up too much screen time. Regardless, it is testament to how tough Doyle is as his fighting spirit is still there. Surviving his ordeal, only makes him that more determined to catch his man. The French police with whom Doyle works, view him with a certain degree of suspicion and concern. After all, Doyle's reputation precedes him....... There isn't so much of the humour or camaraderie that is so evident in the previous film but one scene that is quite droll is as follows: when Gene Hackman goes to a bar and he can't make himself understood very well as his French is limited and the barmans English is even worse! Then after a few drinks together, they merrily walk the streets of Marseilles after the bar is closed. That was a good scene. This isn't a classic but worth viewing all the same. There were plans by "20th Century Fox" to produce a third "French Connection" film with Gene Hackman being paired with Richard Pryor as his new partner. It was scheduled for production for about 1979. That sounds interesting, a shame it didn't bear fruition.

gavin6942 Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) travels to Marseilles to find Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey), the drug smuggler who eluded him in New York.Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film two and a half out of four stars and said that "if Frankenheimer and his screenplay don't do justice to the character (of Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle), they at least do justice to the genre, and this is better than most of the many cop movies that followed." Is this the classic the original was? Of course not. But you have to give them credit for trying, and not just passing it off as a weak sequel. They kept Hackman, they brought in a big director like Frankenheimer. This was not something just to make a few bucks. And while it may not be the same level of "classic", it still has what most viewers want: some action, some chase scenes... and a devious subplot of a drug cop getting hooked on heroin!

Katerina Robertovla I rated this as a 4 because the acting and the actors were very good. However, the script was preposterous, improbable and totally laughable. I watched his via Netflix tonight and was glad that I had the option to fast forward over the middle section of the film where Charnier captures Popeye Doyle , etc. I cannot believe or conceive that someone would sit down to a typewriter or a computer and write such dreck. This mid section caused the whole film to go off kilter and became a sort of us sinking, sinking ship. Which is apropos to it being set in Marseille-- a very big port city with lots of boats and ships. Yes, that's what I would call this film... a sinking ship in the port of Marseille. Finally, the ending made me just shake my head and say what a rip off. Whoever wrote the script must really hate movie lovers.