I enjoyed Sidney Poitier's performance in "In the Heat of the Night". But this sequel/spin-off was unsettling and uncalled for at best. The story editing was extremely weak and at times I found it hard to take any care for the characters, even the great Virgil Tibbs himself. The plot was absolutely pitiful it's like an extended version of a bad episode of the TV series "The Streets of San Francisco", and yet that was a good show with hit or miss episodes.
The character flaws provided by Virgil Tibbs have no connection to the ones in "In the Heat of the Night". In the previous film, he was a veteran cop from Philadelphia, not married, had no offspring, nada! We turn to 1970, he's now living in San Francisco, married with three teenage kids and claims he's been a S.F.P.D. for the past twelve years. What gives?
Also we see African Americans and White Americans coexisting like there never was a Civil Rights Movement. I'll accept if it's just a ploy for people to get over it and forget about the past. But it still existed and not every American at the time was had adjusted to it. I also feel bad for Ed Asner who had a thankless role was a suspect running from a crime, not the one in the main story, but for committing a philandering act on his wife. The car chase depicted here was absolutely abysmal.
Tibbs is often in dragging scenes with his mannequin partner who remains mute and smokes like a chimney. In fact with the exception of Tibbs, all the other cops are just paper dolls. The killer in the movie's reason for killing the hooker has no sense of purpose and his personality doesn't connect well either.
Also Tibbs' catchphrase is never once uttered in this movie at all. Poitier doesn't have the drive that his iconic character portrayed when he co-starred with Rod Steiger. In the previous film, Poitier was the most electrifying character in that movie. But in this movie spin-off, he is a shell of his former character. Sidney let me ask you, why did you agree to do this movie? If it was for the money, then I answered my own question.
The character flaws provided by Virgil Tibbs have no connection to the ones in "In the Heat of the Night". In the previous film, he was a veteran cop from Philadelphia, not married, had no offspring, nada! We turn to 1970, he's now living in San Francisco, married with three teenage kids and claims he's been a S.F.P.D. for the past twelve years. What gives?
Also we see African Americans and White Americans coexisting like there never was a Civil Rights Movement. I'll accept if it's just a ploy for people to get over it and forget about the past. But it still existed and not every American at the time was had adjusted to it. I also feel bad for Ed Asner who had a thankless role was a suspect running from a crime, not the one in the main story, but for committing a philandering act on his wife. The car chase depicted here was absolutely abysmal.
Tibbs is often in dragging scenes with his mannequin partner who remains mute and smokes like a chimney. In fact with the exception of Tibbs, all the other cops are just paper dolls. The killer in the movie's reason for killing the hooker has no sense of purpose and his personality doesn't connect well either.
Also Tibbs' catchphrase is never once uttered in this movie at all. Poitier doesn't have the drive that his iconic character portrayed when he co-starred with Rod Steiger. In the previous film, Poitier was the most electrifying character in that movie. But in this movie spin-off, he is a shell of his former character. Sidney let me ask you, why did you agree to do this movie? If it was for the money, then I answered my own question.