Film

Stick

Name: Stick
Genre: Action, Drama, Crime
Released: 1985
Cast: Burt Reynolds, Candice Bergen, George Segal, Charles Durning, José Pérez

Other titles called Stick: the 2025 series (Apple TV).

Crime

A scrappy 1985 crime thriller where Burt Reynolds plays an ex-con chauffeur dodging mobsters while romancing his boss's consultant. It's a lean, propulsive B-movie with genuine chemistry between its leads and a director (John Badham) who knows how to stage a car chase. Built for audiences who want their action movies grounded and their heroes charmingly compromised.

TMDb rating

2.7

If you liked this

Beverly Hills Cop1984

Eddie Murphy's irreverent cop loose in LA, same propulsive 80s energy, similar balance of action and comedy. Slick direction, a perfect cast chemistry, and a story that keeps moving without getting bogged down.

But The buddy-cop dynamic is gentler and sunnier than Stick's crime-world grittiness. If you want something darker, this will feel lighter.

48 Hrs.1982

Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte's volatile partnership, crime-world stakes, and 80s texture. Both films understand that a charismatic lead can carry a modest plot, and both nail the tonal balance between action and character moments.

But More of a buddy film than a solo-hero piece. The focus splits between two leads, whereas Stick keeps Reynolds as its gravitational centre.

Best Seller1987

James Woods and Brian Dennehy in a crime thriller about unlikely partners and betrayal. Sharp, tense, and interested in the texture of its underworld. Released just after Stick with similar lean plotting and two-hander chemistry.

But Darker in register and less focused on action spectacle. If you want more muscle and fewer moral ambiguities, you'll find this frustrating.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from Stick

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

The Long Good Friday1980

Both centre on a charismatic protagonist trapped between criminal factions, using intelligence and charm as weapons when muscle fails.

Bob Hoskins as a London crime boss watching his empire collapse in twenty-four hours. Explosive, operatic, and genuinely shocking. The connection: both are about men trying to survive in worlds that have decided they're expendable, and both make their lead's charm and quick thinking the only currency that matters.

But Grimy and brutish in a way Stick isn't. The London underworld is harsh and ugly, and the film doesn't soften it. Also much darker in its resolution.

Racing with the Moon1984

Sean Penn and Nicolas Cage as small-time hustlers in the 1940s. Intimate, character-driven, built on the chemistry between two charismatic leads. Less explosive than Stick but shares its interest in charm as a survival tool.

But It's a quieter film entirely. There's no car chases or shootouts—just two young men figuring out their lives. Slow if you need action.

Body Heat1981

William Hurt and Kathleen Turner's erotic tension in a crime thriller. Stylish, steamy, and genuinely inventive plotting. Shares Stick's interest in a protagonist drawn into danger by attraction and circumstance.

But More sexually explicit and morally murky. The protagonist here is truly compromised in ways that might feel uncomfortable. Also much slower-paced.

Thief1981

James Caan as a master jewel thief negotiating loyalty, retirement, and the underworld. Michael Mann's directorial debut is sleek and intelligent. Both Stick and Thief care about men trying to escape their circumstances through one last job.

But More meditative about its character's interiority. If you want forward momentum and lighter tone, Mann's deliberate pace will feel glacial.

Hard Target1993

John Woo's American debut with Lance Henriksen hunting Jean-Claude Van Damme in New Orleans. Propulsive action filmmaking with real style. Similar premise of a hunted man using his wits and physicality to survive in a crime-world setting.

But Much more violent and explicitly stylized. The body count is high and the cartoonish action may feel at odds with Stick's more grounded tone.

The Outfit1973

Robert Duvall as a small-time criminal trying to navigate between organized crime factions. Taut 70s crime thriller with a similar premise: a reluctant protagonist caught between dangerous worlds. Crackling dialogue and real tension.

But It's dated 1970s down to its bones—a slower film entirely. The pacing is deliberate rather than propulsive, which might feel tedious if you want modern-tempo action.

Charley Varrick1973

Walter Matthau as a small-time bank robber forced to outwit both criminals and cops. Clever, economic storytelling with a charismatic lead using his wits to survive. The DNA of Stick's scrappy underdog ethos is all here.

But Even leaner and less romantic than Stick. No real love interest and a very austere approach to its action. If you want emotion, you won't find much.

Manhunter1986

Both feature protagonists trying to build a new legitimate life after crime, only to be pulled back in by forces beyond their control.

Michael Mann's adaptation of Red Dragon, a serial-killer thriller with William Petersen as an FBI profiler drawn back into a dangerous obsession. Sleek, tense, and visually extraordinary. The connection: both Reynolds and Petersen play men trying to escape their pasts by taking legitimate jobs, only to find the underworld has other plans.

But Deeply unsettling and graphic in ways Stick never is. The violence is psychological and intimate, not action-movie cartoonish. Also extremely bleak.

Branded to Kill1967

Both explore the impossible tension between a criminal's professional identity and his capacity for love, suggesting these two things cannot coexist.

Seijun Suzuki's delirious 1967 Japanese yakuza film about a hitman falling in love and falling apart. Visually wild, structurally unconventional, and utterly unconcerned with American action-film conventions. The connection: beneath Stick's Hollywood surface lies the same engine—a professional man trying to separate his survival skills from his desire for genuine human connection, and catastrophically failing.

But It's bizarre and elliptical in ways that will alienate you if you want linear storytelling. The visual language is 1960s avant-garde Japan, not 1980s Hollywood. Subtitled, and strange.