This is no major studio production, and it definitely has the appearance of being low-budget. The opening scene, a minor action sequence, struggles with basic authenticity; I suppose it's fair to say that one produces "effects" by whatever means is available to them, but I can't help but wonder if the "lightning" we see a few minutes later was created by physically making jagged cuts into the film footage with an X-Acto knife. With the relatively few credits that John G. Thomas has under his belt in the industry, his comparative inexperience does come across here with direction that seems, shall we say, soft. It's also noteworthy that this seems to be the only credit for writer Daniel M. Colmerauer, and it very much shines through that he, too, came into this with no prior experience. Dialogue and scene writing is astondingly thin, as is the narrative - we can predict within minutes who the killer is going to turn out to be. We're treated to further excruciatingly blunt beats and plot development, like the moment that Kapinski and Andrews respond to a radio call relative to a location that's directly across the street from where they already are. Pair such unsubtle, flimsy writing with Thomas' mostly meager direction, and it's safe to say that 'Arizona Heat' is well short of a must-see blockbuster.
This isn't to say that the feature never had a chance to worthwhile. Elsewhere in the picture some of the action and stunts are kind of fun; there are scant instances of cleverness scattered about. Let's suppose for a moment that Thomas and Colmerauer just wanted to take a stab at the genre on their own terms and have fun with it, whatever that might mean. Even at that, though, to be frank it's at best a very baseline level of entertainment on hand. If we take the plot at face value the situation doesn't improve, for here we have the classic trope of a loudmouth, unlikable cop, with a reputation for recklessness on the job, assigned a partner who is theoretically his perfect foil and is supposed to rein him in. With all this firmly in mind - the plot, the writing at large, the direction - the cast only have so much to work with. Stars Michael Parks and Denise Crosby both have solid records; in this they are rather reduced to an unimpressive shade of what we've seen of them elsewhere. Other cast members in smaller parts faced even greater like difficulty.
All this is more than enough to shove 'Arizona Heat' into a small corner, no more than average and sadly not especially interesting. Unfortunately, that's not quite everything. Kapinski is a rotten person as written: crude, boorish, sexist, lacking empathy or seemingly any human decency. Like other supporting characters, though, he's also appallingly homophobic - a trait that is rather significant to this movie since, as any basic premise informs, new partner Andrews is a lesbian. In fairness, credit where it's due - the movie grants Andrews agency, hurling Kapinski's words back at him and pointedly countering the anti-gay nonsense that he spews, an echo of real-life bigotry. The screenplay puts clear effort into shutting down the myths, misinformation, and hostile verbiage with which queer folks are attacked, and this is certainly far better than I anticipated. Cynic that I am, I assumed the feature would double-down and broach awful 'Goldfinger' levels of homophobia; I'm pleased that it did not. On the other hand, the effort only goes so far. The flagrant abuse that the writing allows Kapinski to throw around is given disproportionate favor over Andrews' responses, the difference between a Labrador retriever and a house cat. I don't know what factors are behind that imbalance, or whether it's intentional or incidental, but the result is that even if it's not as ugly as one would fear, 'Arizona Heat' has a hard time escaping the vortex of the tired, antiquated "values" its worst characters are written with.
Once again to emphasize: this title actually is better than I thought it was going to be, if only in one specific way. Set this aside, and it's not abjectly terrible across the board; there is a modicum of enjoyment to be had, despite all its deficiencies and shortcomings. I can't imagine distinctly recommending it to anyone, but it possibly has the best chance at amusing diehard fans of Parks, Crosby, or others involved. Still, the fact remains that Thomas' direction and Colmerauer's writing are all too feeble, barely enough to even carry the movie forward; forget evincing meaningful excitement or thrills. If you happen to come across 'Arizona Heat,' well, one way or another it's an Experience. It's an Experience best reserved for the direly bored or extremely curious, however, and given the rancid behavior exhibited by one of its primary characters, a content warning may actually be appropriate. Watch if you like, but there are countless other works of cinema that are far more deserving of your time.
