The_Movie_Cat As the film that marked his initial retirement from acting, then this isn't a bad film for Sidney Poitier to bow out on. He even gets to teach a class of unruly kids and educate them on discipline and self-respect, almost like it was a decade earlier.Although this is regarded as part of the Cosby-Poitier comedy trilogy, A Piece of the Action is more like a comedy thriller than an overt humour vehicle. Most of the laughs - if, indeed, you agree there are any - arise naturally out of the piece, rather than Poitier's friends coming on and doing hammed up "turns" as was the case in Uptown Saturday Night. The film has a lot to say on the human condition, and, while heavy- handed in the way it says it, does so well. Poitier - now fully ensconced in making black cinema, seemingly as a reaction to the sexless perfect black men he'd played to a white audience for so long - even gets to defy that he's anyone's "boy" in this movie. And until one of his comeback roles gave us an "MF" (1992's Sneakers) then this is the only place you'll hear him say something like "titty sucker".Seeing these films through the eyes of Harry Belafonte is perhaps most rewarding, as he was scathing of the original script to Uptown Saturday Night in his 2011 autobiography. The star, friend, and sometimes rival of Sidney revealed that he found the comedy to be predictable and trite, and advised Poitier to stay one step ahead of the audience by bringing in a sea of names, one after the other, to do unconnected skits... himself contributing a Godfather parody. Belafonte had no interest in minor roles for the two sort-of sequels, and, having thought they'd got away with it once, had no desire to chance it again.Another comment of Harry's was that Poitier had first stepped into the director's chair to replace a director who was removed from 1972's Buck and the Preacher. Belafonte noted that, while serviceable, everyone knew that Poitier wasn't Martin Scorcese, including himself. It's a fair assessment, and a reasonable profile of a man who was just interested in getting movies made without undue artistic flair. Sidney Poitier wasn't in the same league as many of the men that had guided him before a lens, no Stanley Kramer, or no Norman Jewison. But then he was capable of delivering a diverting package that was easy for anyone to enjoy, and no one ever rated Stir Crazy on its mise-en-scène.

notlobg68 This film is the third and final installment of the fine collaboration between Poitier and Cosby. Unfourtuately,it suffers from the first two films being great comedies of their time, so comparison is inevitable. The movie fails because they've taken our two players out of their working class element and portrays one as a sophisticatated con man and the other as a high class thief. It also never explains how Police detective James Earl Jones'discovers them as either.Where the film works is with Poitier's interaction with the troubled youth in the classroom sequences. Some good young actors are on display here and Poitier seems right at home reminiscent of "to sir with love".But once again then the film regresses back to the caper portion of the film which is as bland as bleach. And Cosby, who was the comic catalyst in the previous films was nothing more than a shell of his former form. The films message is mostly positive, but it terms of big laughs. It falls short.

vchimpanzee I had a hard time figuring this movie out. Eventually all the pieces were put together and explained. I thought James Earl Jones did a great job as the retired detective who had big plans for Manny and Dave. Bill Cosby was funny as usual as Dave, and Sidney Poitier did a capable job as Manny, though this sort of movie isn't typical of his talent. If anything, Jones was playing the role that Poitier should have, because Poitier is such a brilliant actor. But so is Jones.At times this resembled 'To Sir, With Love' (which I have never seen in its entirety but hope to), since Manny ended up playing a similar role. Manny and Dave were so funny trying to figure out a way out of their predicament or at least make the best of it if they couldn't. The kids were good in a 'Welcome Back, Kotter' sort of way.The real problem with this movie was that it got too confusing. A simple story about the detective conning the guys into helping the less fortunate city kids might have been better. But then the other set of crooks made the story complicated, though still funny.I always enjoy Bill Cosby, anyway, and James Earl Jones plays such good characters. Sidney Poitier adds quality to whatever he does.

grendelkhan The third, and more serious, of the 1970's Bill Cosby/Sidney Poitier films. This time, Cosby is a thief and Poitier a con artist who are blackmailed into helping a community center. They have three weeks to take a group of scared and angry kids and place them in jobs, and help them find the confidence to keep them. Meanwhile, they try to find the identity of their blackmailer.Cosby and Poitier are first rate, as are the supporting cast. Denise Nicolas is back as the administrator of the community center and James Earl Jones joins in the fun, as well. The young actors are good and many would go on to careers in television and movies.There are plenty of laughs, but this is a bit more serious. The kids are all from poor neighborhoods and are frightened about entering the job market. They also carry deep seated anger over the conditions of their lives. They use hostility and cynicism to protect themselves. Poitier spends his time trying to build confidence in the kids and show them how work with people to improve their lives, if only to feed their families, without help from the government or charities. Slowly. the kids respond to his tough message and begin to grow.Cosby tries to leave behind his past as a ladies man and build a relationship with Nicholas. He also snoops around to find their blackmailer.This is a film with a message, but it doesn't hit you over the head with it. The comedy and drama work hand-in-hand. Definitely worth a look.