User reviews

A superior movie, except that the ending is completely contrived and unbelievable. Morgan Freeman generally gets the palm for his performance in "Street Smart" and deserves it for turning in a masterful performance. Called in to straighten out some difficulty between one of his girls and her trick, he calms everyone down, the soul of reason, until the trick is distracted, then Freeman kicks him in the family jewels and does a number of his face too. It's a shocking burst of violence. And his rattlesnake-like ability to strike quickly isn't limited to important economic confrontations either. During a basketball game, one of his shots is blocked. He shoves his opponent to the pavement, suggests that he'd look particularly good dead, then notices that everyone is standing around agape, smiles reassuringly, pats the guy on the shoulder and hands him a good deal of money to buy and bring back -- "Some chicken, ribs, stuff like that." He calls out, "Keep the change," to the grateful survivor of this encounter. All of Freeman's violence comes as a surprise, particularly when Chris Reeves tries to cool him down and Freeman whips around and holds a broken bottle before Reeves' face, with the steady, sure hand of a surgeon. Almost invariably, these episodes are followed by big friendly grins, pats on the back, assurances that things are back to normal, generous offers of food, drink, or money. The change takes place in less than a second.

Freeman is smarter than anyone else in the movie too. The main figure in a celebrated journalistic effort, he and his girl are invited to the publisher's party where everyone showers them with attention while they chat about "the Hamptons." Afterward, Punchy exults over the attention but Freeman sees through it all. He knows condescension when he sees it, and he is filled with resentment. Trying to put something over on Freeman is like trying to slip sunrise past a rooster.

But Kathy Baker as the used Punchy deserves credit as well, although her part isn't nearly as showy and dramatic as Freeman's. She's just beyond the bloom of youth, rather used looking and heavily made up, and her figure, while ripely pleasant wouldn't draw stares in a supermarket. She's very appealing indeed in her vulnerability and aloneness.

Chris Reeve is usually ignored in reviews. I don't know why. He's rarely anything but bland, but this is by far his best performance, and he invests his character with ambition, confusion, fear, and compassion -- not an easy role. The scene in the hotel bedroom with Kathy Baker, in which she seduces him knowing that behind that facade of journalistic objectivity lies a man who would just love to get it on with her, whether or not he realizes it. She demonstrates how she made it with her first john and makes Reeve play the partner. The silly made-up dialog fades and is replaced by "Natural Woman" on the sound track. The two have a relaxed, enjoyable-looking, mutually appreciative little love scene.

It's a pretty good movie and involves us emotionally in several different ways. Alas, as I say, the end is almost an embarrassment. The bumbling Reeve character turns into a genius, and other characters into the fools they never were. Don't let that stop you from watching this.

Jerry Schatzberg (Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park) can be an attentive director to the mundane and the types of people in urban environments left by the wayside, but he needs something of a really powerful script to work with. For some of its powerful and intriguing and sometimes oddly funny scenes, Street Smart doesn't have a great script. It is mostly conventional, in fact, tailored for Christopher Reeve's pet project (apparently he got to star in this thanks, and/or no thanks, to Superman 4), and it is also tailored for what Reeve can do as a somewhat limited actor. He's a great star in the sense of his presence and charm on camera, but can only be taken so far as to how he can work with other actors, or what he has to work with which is usually not very much. Thankfully, there's one actor that shoots to the moon and outshines everybody by a mile, particularly for this kind of project.

(Reeve's) character Jonathan in Street Smart is a journalist who's down on his luck with stories until he comes up with a sure-fire bet to spring him back: the day in the life of a pimp for New York magazine (yes, New York has done and still does these kind of profiles). At first, he just makes it up with a person named 'Tyrone'. But it turns out his story, which includes details of a murder, fits relatively (or a lot) with Fast Black (Morgan Freeman), a take-no-prisoners thug in the guise of a man of the streets who is a force of evil, but a devilishly charming one at that, turning on a dime from street-savvy pimp to ruthless abuser and, as it turns out, killer. Jonathan thinks it'll be alright despite what was or wasn't in the written piece, and meets with and follows along Fast Black for a day. It soon starts to go further down from here.

Schatzberg does best in capturing this now (thankfully) wiped-away street life and porno district along Times Square and in other parts of New York, going along at times casually- too casually perhaps- in getting this mood down. He also neglects certain things in the story, like the importance of Jonathan's own flaws and fooling around with a prostitute, and some details about him as a TV news reporter. And yet, even with faults in the writing, Schatzberg got one thing incredibly right: casting Freeman as Fast Black. This is a part that could have been played up, maybe even as an exploitation flick, but Freeman takes hold of it and creates his breakthrough film performance (it was shortly after this he got Lean on Me and Driving Miss Daisy). It would be one thing if he hammed it up, but somehow he doesn't; his Fast Black is a lucid, hot-headed, vicious but somehow human villain in Street Smart, and he ends up bringing out the best in Reeve and Kathy Baker and his other co-stars like his prostitutes, including one terrifying scene where one asks to quit.

Years from now, when Freeman likely will get some AFI tribute or something or lifetime achievement on TV, Street Smart might be neglected among his most famous parts but shouldn't be. It's a case of an actor raising material, which is neither spectacular or mediocre but just about alright 80s material, higher than it deserves to be, which is both a credit to him and to Schatzberg for reeling him along just right.

Pretty good movie with an early Morgan Freeman as a pimp. Most of the characters that Freeman plays (especially of late) are good hearted, good natured and easy going that make him a likable character, viewers come to expect that type of character but this one reminds me of the one Denzel Washington played in Training Day. Hard, mean, and ruthless; totally opposite from what we're used to seeing from either actor, but a refreshing change. The fact that it's the complete opposite from their usual rolls give them that much more impact.

And while movie ad excerpt quotes praising performances are almost always the sign of a stinker (damning with faint praise), in this case, I think Morgan Freeman's performance is worth this movie alone. It's nuanced, and a perfect study of a sociopathic personality. Freeman plays a total predator, who will brutalize without conscience, but will pour on immense charm in the next second as a way of manipulating others. No one had ever heard of Morgan Freeman before this movie...but he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance. He should have won it! The energy level on screen goes down infinitely when Freeman is not present. Kathy Baker also does a decent job as one of Fast Black's prostitutes. All in all, the movie was enjoyable, had a good story-line and is a must-see for Morgan Freeman fans and Christopher Reeve fans.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

This film brought Morgan Freeman to my attention for the first time. After, I became a devoted fan. The "scissor scene" between he and Kathy Baker was absolutely chilling and a tribute to both actors. I was mesmerized. The love scene between Christopher Reeves and Baker was sensuality personified.

"Street Smart" is a movie not a lot of people appear to remember from the 1980's. What attracted me to the movie was the fact that Morgan Freeman received his first ever Academy Award nomination for his role as a pimp in this film. Freeman hasn't played a role like this before or since, and his best known roles to come after this (including Oscar nominated roles) have consisted of more positive characters with effective leadership skills. Although Freeman doesn't play the type of positive African-American role model here that he is now best known for playing,he gives the character of Leo Smalls, Jr., a.k.a. "Fast Black", a three-dimensional performance that few other actors, black or white, would have been able to pull off. He's not just an intimidating presence, or a guy who wears flashy clothes. In fact, the scenes where he goes back to his apartment, and a poster of Martin Luther King, Jr. can be seen in the background, says volumes about his character.

Without a doubt, Freeman's performance is the best thing about this movie. The rest of the movie is indeed intriguing, but has a few weaknesses which makes it feel a little half-baked. With a running time of 94 minutes, at least 20 minutes of footage could have been added to account for these skimmed-over plot details without throwing off the pace of the film.

The late Christopher Reeve is Jonathan Fisher, a Harvard educated print journalist who is under pressure to write a magazine article in a weekend. He submits an idea to his publisher, seemingly off the top of his head, about 24 hours in the life of a pimp. The story is supposed to be true, but Fisher, feeling intense encumbrance to get a story to his editor, fabricates one instead. To his surprise, the story makes the front page, Fisher becomes a celebrity overnight, and moves up to his own TV news segment.

The trouble comes in when some readers believe the article is about one particular real pimp (Freeman) who happens to be on trial for murder. Among those wary readers is the leading prosecutor for that case. Although the fictional article depicts no murder of any kind, Fisher is still ordered to give the court his notes in the trial, or be subject to a jail sentence.

With the trouble comes a story that keeps the viewers' interests high for what comes next, but plot holes that accompany the story remain unexplained throughout. For instance, we have some of an idea what Reeve's character wrote in the article, but no idea what in the article would be considered circumstantial evidence in a murder trial. Having a series of imaginary montages with Reeve's idea of a pimp as he's writing the story would have cleared that unexplained plot point up easily. Plus, although Reeve's character is Harvard educated, that's all we know about his character. How did he come up with the idea to write about a pimp in the first place? Since we never see him in the inner city until after he submitted the story proposal, that occurrence remains unexplained also. Reeve did a great job playing a guy who tries to maintain control of his life and career, only to have both be in jeopardy as his situation goes over his head. It would have been more helpful to establish some real roots for his character, though, not to mention a moral compass of some kind.

There were some other times where the story felt shaky, but the film had other great qualities. For instance, the inner city in the film looked far more real than other "gritty urban dramas" I've seen over the last few years where the movie sets looked like movie sets and the houses looked too polished. Overall though, the film is worth checking out for Freeman's performance, and probably should be remembered better in Reeve's career than "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace". If anything, this movie showed that Reeve can play a character who has everything under control (Superman) just as well as one who does not.

If It wasn't by the performances of Morgan Freeman and Kathy Baker, I would have given 5 stars to "Street Smart", but such performances elevate the category of a modest movie.

I didn't like the plot of the movie, but at least this movie doesn't bore you and keep you entertained, this movie is similar to the police movies made for TV, and I liked the shots of different parts of NY.

The plot of the movie is about a journalist who invent a story about the life of a fictitious pimp called Tyron that is published in the magazine where he writes. The law confuses this factitious pimp Tyron with real life pimp "fast black" (Morgan Freeman) who is being accused for murder, so the law ask the journalist to deliver all his notes and tapes about his interview with the pimp to arrest Fast Black.

There are 2 great scenes in the movie, in one scene the journalist is seduced by Punchy, who is one of the girls of Fast Black", where Kathy Baker who plays Plunchy looks really sexy (10 stars for her in this scene). And the other scene which is the best in the movie from an acting point of view involves the characters of Morgan Freman and Kathy Baker, you will know what scene I mean when you see it.

In short you have to watch this B movie for the performances of Morgan Freman and Kathy Baker

Freeman gives his most powerful performance here. I've seen almost all of Morgan's films but I think this is his most outstanding performance. Fast Black is one juicy character and Morgan brings life into it. Christopher Reeve, god bless his sole, is a pretty bad actor. I only seen him in his Superman roles, which I wasn't much a fan of. But here his character gets a lot of screen time and Reeve just can't live up to it. He makes the movie boring. Kathy Baker excels in her role. Mimi Rogers does her part well. The film has an amazing storyline here, but screenplay is 50/50. If Morgan had more scenes the movie would have been way better. Yes there are some really strong scenes, but all of them involved Freeman. The direction wasn't great, if this movie was handled by a better director it would of been memorable. Many people probably don't even know about this movie and that's a shame because Freeman's performance must be watched. Freeman's outburst scene where he puts a bottle up to Reeve's face and gives him a 20 second stare is WOW. And not to forget the scissor scene where he threatens to poke Kathy's eye out...MARVELLOUS. What disappoints me the most, regardless of the many flaws in direction, is that Freeman didn't have a last scene in the climax. In a movie where Morgan kept everyone in their seats, the director/screenwriter didn't hook him up with a proper climax scene. I was expecting something huge, but instead the ending was the same old same old. Overall, the movie is OK, but Freeman's performance is great.

Christopher Reeve plays a magazine journalist who fakes a story that winds up on the front page. When his sources are questioned, he has to go into overdrive to get the actual legwork done and produce results. This means falling in with the streetwalking side of New York.

For years, the only thing I knew about this movie was that Reeve had to do "Superman IV" to get it made. That's about it. And "Street Smart" feels at home with Cannon Films because of its sleazy vibe; y'know, from the same people that brought you "52 Pickup".

It's not a *great* movie, but it does have noteworthy performances. Its star, for one, plus Kathy Baker as a seasoned sex worker, but also (and most importantly) Morgan Freeman. The man is electrifying here, playing a pimp that moodswings from charming to outright vicious.

At one point in the film, he has Baker against a wall, threatening her with scissors, and even I had to look away.

... In 2023.

It is a brutal scene, and the acting from both of them is phenomenal here.

That's "Street Smart" in a nutshell. On paper, it's mediocre, but credit to the actors for putting in some great work.

The production team of Golan-Globus didn't turn out many theatrical features which set awards season on fire, but "Street Smart" garnered great acclaim for Morgan Freeman as a tough New York pimp who takes exception to a seamy journalistic expose by writer Christopher Reeve which seems to be based on the pimp's operation; unfortunately (in the long run) for Reeve, he has made the entire story up. Unattractively foul-mouthed, and filmed in brackish color, the movie does manage to give Freeman a chance at exploring a dark, dangerous side that he rarely returned to again. Kathy Baker as a prostitute is also quite good, but Reeve (open-mouthed and vacuous) never loosens up. Not especially well-directed by Jerry Schatzberg, as Freeman looks like he can take care of himself. *1/2 from ****

Morgan Freeman's performance is the only reason to see this movie. Any life the movie has is supplied by him, and quite frankly, its really boring when he's not on the screen.

Chris Reeve has a story published about a pimp who is a little too close in description to Freeman, so the D.A. wants all his notes about the interviews. Trouble is, Reeve made up the whole thing. He has no access to the man. But he gets close to him anyway, thanks to Kathy Baker's hooker with social skills.

So the D.A. and the courts do not leave Reeve alone, and he soon regrets his own imagination. Freeman commits crimes that put Reeve in jail, because now he has obstructed justice.

Mimi Rogers is seen briefly as Reeve's white bread counterpart. There is a stupid scene between her and the late Rick Aviles in a bar that does not seem to serve any purpose.

Very little happens of significance. I appreciate this movie if it gave Morgan a chance to be in other movies, and of course his Oscar nomination didn't hurt, I am sure.

Movie is beneath him now, though. And me, too. 4/10.

It's great when an actor gives such an electric and worthy performance in a not so great film or one of small stature. I'm not saying this movie's bad. It's just not as good as what of could of been, if a bit more care and meat went into the plotting of story, which to say I really liked, putting a spin on these kind of journalist drama's. Near it's climax especially, is where the story wasn't handled well, where that part was is over too quickly, despite an climactic moment, an unforeseen fate for one, that did make sense, from the other party that wrapped the film up. I really thought that section was weak, and there are a couple of other forgettably weak moments, that don't spark. Many actors playing pimps, put on the macho "what have you" act. With Frreman, it was vet natural, and much more realistic, I really wanted to know more about, as he's not your usual pimp, but boy, he radiates some real menace. Supposedly based on a true article (well you know) journalist Reeve, average here, pressed for a deadline, resorts to making up a story of a pimp, as researching parties aren't that cooperative, and Reeve doesn't want to be out of a job, either. When his faux article on a fictional pimp, conflicts with another pimp being charged for manslaughter, (I mean, what are the chances really?) Reeve finds himself in hot water, playing hardball, with prosecutors, all so ready to take pimp, Leo Small, aka: Fast Eddy (Freeman) down. There's a great dilemma/situation of story here as in Reeve's impasse, which intensifies some. Manslaughter is a son of bitch, where an early scene has Freeman, trying to stop a perverted sicko, beating up on a ho, where one swift kick, puts the old's guys ticker out, so really Eddy has copped a bad serve. But manslaughter is manslaughter, and like the rough, dangerously and manipulative pimp with a charming facade, Eddy is, he's as that prosecutor describes, "better off the street and behind bars". In short, he's menace. Reeve in his own mind, eventually comes around to that analysis as well. I kind of had the feeling the story was losing it's way or a bit too vague in it's telling of this tale, as though not enough discipline was given to it. Again though, as it has done many times before, I really found it hard to believe the chances of this coincidence happening as it just rides on too thin ice. Besides Freeman, Kathy Baker as the hot battered prostitute was a notable standout too, where Mimi Rodgers an actress in demand a lot, and always delivers, was very strong as Reeve's girlfriend. It was a pity, Reeve couldn't of carried his weight as well. Though in it's B grade offering, Street Smart is quite absorbing in it's story and on it's first watch, without Freeman and Bates, turning in great performances, giving life to a kind of flat running film, this would of sunk bad.

If only Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Jon Voight, or maybe Pater Falk or Robert Blake, or even Robert Redford played that part, it would have been much better. Reeve was weak, and did not deliver what was needed. AND it needed a good soundtrack, something like shaft. There is also some bad editing and direction. What is amazing is the locations. New York has changed so much and so fast, it's really great to see the street scenes I forgot, especially when SOHO was still somewhat not overcrowded. And many interior shots of the run down buildings are just great. What they missed was fitting in a few landmarks, and the fulton fish market, of course. Still, Reeve was good for the comic strip Superman portrayal, but I have never seen him do anything worthy of praise. He had looks, and was well rewarded for that.

I just finished watching this film and I'm stunned...stunned. Morgan Freeman's performance was the best acting I have seen in a long time. The passion he put into his character was raw and powerful. It had me going "Wow." The movie was interesting- moments of tension. I did not think Christopher Reeve did a great job of his character- mediocre for cinema. He pulled it off well enough to get me into his character. Maybe his mediocre performance was who the character really was. There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. It could be either, or. Everyone you meet in the real world and in fantasy is not a dramatic, stunning personality. There wouldn't be any room for people's egos! Who says his performance was not true of the character. The character was who Reeve was.

The message of this film is very true. Don't lie. If you do make a mistake, if you lie, admit up front that you have. Otherwise, it's likely your lie will come back times 3. This is a lesson we should all have to learn one day. I hoped this review pleased someone. Take care and have a joyous and peaceful life. Good bye, Chauncey

Street Smart (1987) is a movie that I recently watched on Tubi. The storyline follows a journalist who has promised his paper a unique story of the life of a pimp. He writes the story and it becomes more popular than he could have ever dreamed of, so popular he's pulled into a court case against a local pimp. The pimp's muscle and the law come down on the reporter. How can he get out of this mess?

This movie is directed by Jerry Schatzberg (Scarecrow) and stars Christopher Reeve (Superman), Kathy Baker (Cold Mountain), Morgan Freeman (Se7en), Mimi Rogers (Ginger Snaps), Anna Maria Horsford (Friday) and Erik King (Dexter).

The storyline for this picture is fairly unique with entertaining characters, circumstances and conversations. Morgan Freeman delivers a tremendous performance where he's grimy, intense and funny. His first scene in the hotel room was great, as was every scene he had to put one of his "girls" in place. Reeves played a character over his head to perfection. It felt like "Clark Kent" the movie at times. The ending has a great buildup but was a bit of a let down.

Overall, if you're looking for something different this may be a perfect pick. I would score this a 7/10 and recommend seeing it once.

"Street Smart" is a mostly mediocre movie, (most Globus and Golan productions were mediocre movies), directed by Jerry Schatzberg, (I expected more from the man who made "Scarecrow" and "The Panic in Needle Park"), that still managed to pick up a slew of acting prizes thanks to Morgan Freeman and Kathy Baker, both excellent as a murderous pimp and one of the women who works for him. Between them, they just about redeem an extremely far-fetched story about a journalist, (Christopher Reeves, far from his best), who makes up a story about a New York pimp that is taken to be true by the Establishment and in particular by the courts. There is something rather unpleasant about the stereotyping in a movie that, I gather, is really about the dismantling of stereotypes. It's Reeves' character who comes up with name 'Street Smart' for the title of his article; Street Stupid would have been more approppriate.

I found this movie to be very entertaining and well done, with good performances across the board. I agree with previous reviewers that the late Chris Reeve's performances in other movies, and at times this one, could be seen as wooden. That being said, I think he played his role extremely well, because it was able to work with Morgan Freeman's outbursts and explosions. Because of the problems encountered by his fabricated story, Reeve's performance was handled well being outside of his environment as much as he was. He was unsure and understated, and being a reporter, being unemotional was in his well being. On the other end, Morgan Freeman was fantastic! Seeing him in a role like this makes you want to see him take on a role where he can be the loose cannon.

This movie can show what happens when you "create" a story and you do it TOO well. More people should see it and comment on it.

I'm so used to Morgan Freeman being the good guy in movies that I was blown away by him being the degenerate New York pimp. And he played it too well.

"Street Smart" is about a reporter for the New Yorker named Jonathan Fisher (Christopher Reeve) who wrote a fictitious magazine article about a pimp named Tyrone. It was just a means for him to get into his editor's good graces, but who knew that it would be understood as an article about a real pimp named Leo "Fast Black" Smalls (Morgan Freeman)?

Why did it matter that people believed the article was about a real pimp? Because the DA believed that Jonathan was glamorizing a known pimp and suspected murderer. Soon Jonathan found himself entangled in a messy web of a pimp, a hooker named Punchy (Kathy Baker), his ticked off girlfriend, a hungry DA, a gushing editor, and an unyielding judge. It was all the drama you could want and need.

The bad: the acting by Christopher Reeves (Superman, THE Superman) just does not convince. I keep thinking that Superman enters the room, everytime I see him. But let's be honest, the guy isnt a masterful actor. He is great at Superman, but not much else.

If you have never seen Superman (you should!) then you might enjoy this little movie, which fails to become really interesting though.

Not any good? Morgan Freeman is always a great actor. No different this time around.

Most viewers give their applause to Morgan Freeman for his performance as a Manhattan street pimp named "Fast Black". But the main note of interest to me in this film is the performance of Kathy Baker as a sympathetic hooker named "Punchy". The story is set entirely in Manhattan, and the main character is a magazine writer named Jonathan (Christopher Reeve). He unwittingly gets involved in a court case involving Fast Black, when he writes a fictional story that everyone assumes to be true.

Except for Punchy, none of the characters are particularly interesting. They seem two-dimensional and rather shallow. The plot's pace, by today's standards, is somewhat slow. Scenes involve long camera "takes", and the script is heavy on dialogue. Color cinematography is adequate.

With its grimy, dirty urban setting, its tawdry characters, and its slow pace, "Street Smart" reminds me a little of "The Panic In Needle Park" (1971), not really surprising since both films were directed by the same man, Jerry Schatzberg.

To its credit, the story in "Street Smart" does address a legal issue faced by contemporary writers. How does a writer convince a court that the writer's "notes" about an article don't exist, when in fact they don't? I guess the writer needs to be aware of all contingencies, especially a high-profile writer like Jonathan who invents characters and stories and then tries to pass them off as non-fiction.

While this film may be entertaining and/or informative to some viewers, it just doesn't work for me, aside from the performance of Kathy Baker, mostly because I just couldn't get interested in the film's characters or their tawdry drama.