avallyee That's the intent of this movie. It was clothed in an amalgam of New York humor types, Marx Brothers chaos, and Hollywood sentimentality. Still, it had a unique flavor. Funny how many people have commented on the 80's categorization of this movie. I wonder how many of these self-declared cinematic scholars were even alive at that time. Yet they presume to claim knowledge of the era's style(s) and motivations.I am a first hand witness of that time and the release of this film. I can tell you two things: One, it was far more successful at the time than Wikipedia, IMDb, or the Razzies seem to want to report. Two, it resonated with many who were alive at that time - and still does.This is not a complex film. No deep philosophical message. No vitriol. Maybe that's why current reviewed can't "relate: to it.In fact, it's quite a superficial piece. Still, I'd place it's flawed middling dialog against most movies produced since. Especially the critically-acclaimed ones.Some have denounced its unlikely plot. I agree with that assessment. This is no suspense piece or thriller. I felt the story is a scaffolding for eclectic comedy mixed with homage to people who are too often dismissed as silly or frivolous. So many people have talent which is never realized or appreciated. These are the people of Terry and Jimmy Lynch's life. And yes, NY is and always been home to many of these folks. I believe they used to be called non-conformists. Sociologists categorized them that way for decades. Not sure if anyone even bothers with that term anymore.I'm sure the sage cinematic critics understand that film, like all art forms, continuously blend reality and unreality. So there will be unlikely scenarios like the one Terry Lynch put himself into concerning his off-duty fire rescue. I'm sure many actual fire fighters dismissed that plot device. I know I found myself agreeing with the mayor when Jimmy shouts his fragmented account of Terry's situation. I'd say Terry totally mishandled his presence at that fire. So I had some failing in the suspension of disbelief while my viewings. But I also know that sometimes there's more than a single incident. The Lynch family back story helped a little. Ultimately, I allowed the film to tell me what it wanted to say. I didn't agree with some of its premises - including the romanticization of Jimmy's destruction of property. Still, it was fun. A guilty pleasure - fanticization of one person's battle against a perceived cruel, cold, de-humanizing institution. This was unique to the 80's ?Arguably, there's more pseudo-history now than ever. One tweet can be taken as fact by millions of "followers" - how I loathe that use of the term. Way way too much "following" - far too little originality. Once upon a time - originality was the goal of expression. Now anything that is not exactly as deemed "sweet" is summarily rejected.If this films represents the 80's, so be it. At least there was some courage to protect a single person's right to differ.There are still those who value individuality and will defend it. Snide, spoiled kiddies be damned.I'd take Turk 182 as champion over any of the cheesy, faint "literary" heroes or heroines of today.

elshikh4 My first title was "I love the 1980s, but not to this extent!". On second thought I found that this is a bit harsh and mean to this movie.It got a fine ground for: a funny revenge story, the kid who beats the monster (or the playful resistant who beats the unjust sheriff), and the suppressed objections against a reign when go off by a hero to overthrow it. However the dealing wasn't as fine.All the time you're asking yourself : where this plot is going to ?! It's nothing but one practical joke after another. I thought that the lead will go and investigate the corruption of the mayor deeply with a game of many disguises, exposing more evidences every step ahead. But sorry. All what we had was just exposing for (Zimmerman Flew and Tyler Knew) and for endless times ! The enemy/the mayor looked so nice and helpless more than menacing or tough which weakened the conflict very. His men were talking more than doing, seeming old and defeated without anything to fight with; so more weakness for the conflict. Actually all of that turned the movie into the lamest, most boring, Robin Hood story ever!Moreover an annoying question : How the young lead could pull off all of these tricks, to sneak into highly guarded places many times without anybody seeing him ?! We didn't have the chance to watch him carefully while doing that. Seriously that could have made some thrilling scenes instead of a torpid sequence of photos! Then the matter of the climax. The mayor was finished anyway so what this last move was going to add ? It looks perfectly goofy. And what's the motive to kill Turk AND opposite to hundreds of witnesses, let alone all of these TV cameras as well??? And after the end, sure that Turk will be prosecuted for deforming the city, so how about bringing back his brother's lost rights ?So by now, it'll be cruel already to talk about things like the role of the heroine and how it was so empty, doing nothing but smooching with the lead, to sound eventually like a supernumerary. For example why she wasn't the mayor's daughter for god's sake?. Or at least a girl from his staff who believes in him then gets sympathetic with Turk's case?!! Anyway, I won't do this scriptwriter's work for him! Simply there had to be a love interest anyway, and they did it…anyway! Generally this script wanted a lot, but truly what it wanted the most was some reformation !The second killer element was the lead himself. (Timothy Hutton) ranged between blank, bland and idiot all the time, missing the charisma and the credibility. He was throwing his good lines badly, acting so uninterestingly like he's in a cold rehearsal. This is a Razzie worthy material folks (to a degree where I suspected it was deliberate !).In totally painful irony, the supporting role of the brother went to the one who got the charisma, the talent and the cuteness (Robert Urich)! This man assured here that he was undoubtedly good actor, and one of the unluckiest too. True that he'll be saved by being cast as the lead role in the TV hit series, and one of my favorites, (Spenser for Hire) in the same year, but to tell you the truth, still (Turk 183!) is his better work as an actor I have ever seen, if not the best, in spite of the fact that his cinematic career was dead and gone after it! It kills me even more when he got nominated for the Razzie of the worst supporting actor for his super performance in here ??, while in the same year (Jon Voight) got nominated for the Oscar of the best actor for his disastrous performance in (Runaway Train) !!!!! This is a mystery for me. A real provocative one !Technically speaking, it's only the editing at the last sequence which celebrated the lead to an exaggerated extent that bothered me, because aside from that the directing was so intense and attractive. The image looked bright and sharp. And there was a sweet lovable spirit all over the movie. Nevertheless, director Bob Clark's name was related to some of the most infamous movies like (Rhinestone – 1984), (Loose Cannons – 1990), and (Baby Geniuses – 1999)??. Well, sometimes the director's taste for not-so-good scripts, while leading his actors clearly bad, can destroy him!Although it got a well-meaning goal, but it isn't well made, having a not well appointed lead. Plus it doesn't stand a chance in front of its competitors in the same year : Back to the Future, Brazil, Mask, Rambo: First Blood Part II, White Nights, The Goonies, and even Summer Rental. But it's still watchable and nice compared to the year's horrible pieces : Rocky IV, Legend, Death Wish 3, and yes.. Runaway Train ! The most interesting thing about this movie is that it was made. In the 1980s there was a room for little goofy and childish movies such as this one. The executives were having the carriage to make a product with no-star, no-nudity, and no-explosion. It is a feel good movie from the 1980s with its marked innocent entertainment. Now, you've got to feel real good about that apart.

ozthegreatat42330 Director Bob Clark ("Porkys," "Murder By Decree," "A Christmas Story") films one of his best ever here. When an off duty fireman (Robert Urich)attempts to save a child from a burning building, he is injured. But due to the fact he had been at a local bar at the time of the fire, the city of New York deny's him his earned and justified Pension. When his younger brother (Timothy Hutton) tries to get some justice for his brother he is rebuffed by everyone including an arrogant Mayor (Robert Culp)of New York. After his brother is blamed and arrested by the police for a minor bit of mischief that he is responsible for, Jimmy Lynch fights back, using a plan that will literally drive the politico nuts. Also stars Peter Boyle as an over the edge cop, and Daren McGavin as a police detective. Kim Catrall is a social worker that wants to help Jimmy in the end. This film is one of those feel good movies, with a lot of good moments and a fine understated moral. With this one Bob Clark is a modern day Aesop.Most definitely worth a watch.

bemanning Though the cast is first rate, this turkey is painful to watch. Since the entire premise is based on the older brother (Urich) being wronged, one can not help but notice that the evil city had a good point. When Urich's character was performing the act that would lead to his troubles, I kept thinking about how many regulations and common sense this character was defying. The David and Goliath scenerio is meant to be the underpinnings of this flick, but was David the real bully?