Madigan

source: Madigan

I saw Madigan when it came out, some 40 years ago. Revisited it again recently on DVD. Wow, what a disappointment! As others have pointed out, above, they just didn't know what they wanted to do with the film. The story is absolutely atrocious, full of loopholes and lack of exposition. The notes on the DVD said that Henry Fonda's Commissioner character was supposed to be the lead - and why he took the part. Then they changed it to Widmark's Madigan character. They had to force the two to have some relationship to make any sense of the story, but it was thin, very thin. A quick note about the music. It was, indeed, awful and inappropriate. But at least it was jarring enough that it woke you up during the numerous dull parts! What you can see here is the struggle to make the transition from the heroic cop/detectives of the previous decades (though clearly not the film noir types)to what became Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. This "struggle" in Madigan was painful to watch. It was never clear why Madigan was considered such a rogue. (Can you say that about Harry Callahan? NO!) Just an offhand remark that he had an incident or two in the past, quickly countered by James Whitmore's character saying "He's a good cop." And the opening scene where Inhat's (SP?) character gets the best of Widmark and Guardino made absolutely no sense. Why was the villain so bad? Why all the scorn for Widmark and Guardino when they were just "doing Brooklyn a favor" by picking up this guy? And never explained why the villain was so heinous other than that he shot some guy. They had to have him shoot two cops later to make you think, "Ooooooooooooh, he is very bad." Come on! And inserting all of the women into each of the character's lives, then giving them the most shallow of development and no explanation of, say, Sheree North's character, inserted into one scene so you know Madigan once had a mistress but now "loves his wife." On and on. Absolutely terrible writing. A high school level. Fonda (59) and Widmark (54) were too old for their roles. But again, it was a transition time in Hollywood. Still trying to use the older stars until the next generation - and a very different style of detective films - came along. Ugh!

This is a film you can watch over and over again, and simply because the actors are all veterans and great film Stars! Richard Widmark,(Detective, Daniel Madigan),"Bear Island",'79, played the role as a detective who did things his own way and thought nothing of staying over night with one of his ex gals and just simply slept on the couch. Madigan was married to Ingar Stevens,(Julia Madigan)," Hang'Em High",'68, who argued all the time because she wanted him to become a police chief and be able to obtain more money and have lots of extra time to spend with her at home. Henry Fonda,(Commissioner Anthony X Russell),"On Golden Pond",'81, gave an outstanding performance as Police Commissioner and gave Madigan and his boss a hard time. If you liked Richard Widmark and enjoyed Ingar Stevens films, who had a very untimely death due to suicide, this is the film for YOU!

Considering all the talent involved why is the film as disappointing as it is. Start with a script that can't decide whether it's third-rate soap opera or second-rate police drama, with enough trite sub-plots and dialogue to border on self-parody. Fleshing out the private lives behind the badges may be a workable idea, but here the many subplots detract rather than add to the overall effect. Then there are the performances. Widmark's aging Madigan appears not so much a burned-out case as an expressionless cypher, whose presence leaves the audience with nothing much to root for, and a long way from Widmark's usual intensity. Then too, whose idea was it to have the street tough Madigan go through an embarrassingly bad comedy scene with Henry Fonda that should have stayed on the cutting room floor. There's also Fonda's turn as police commissioner, a role that must have required him to swallow an ice cube first and a lemon second, because throughout, he appears too frozen to unbend and too sour to smile, a combination that results in a grimly overdone portrait of moral rectitude. (Just the thought of his character coupling with Susan Clarke is about as plausible as pairing Cher with Jerry Fallwell.) In fact, the entire cast apart from the poignant Inger Stevens, appears to be doing their scenes by the numbers, which is technically the fault of director Don Siegel. Except Siegel is a Hollywood master, who ordinarily directs with style and verve, and specializes in police-action dramas; yet here, with the exception of the shoot-out, there's none of the usual snap or polish. My guess is he took one look at the script and went for the payday, as did everyone else. I suspect too -- as another reviewer points out -- that the film's basic problem lies with the studio, Universal, which only recently had specialized in Doris Day comedy fluff. Here however it's 1966-67 -- city ghettos are on fire, change is in the air, and Hollywood is trying to play catch up. Though praised at the time, Madigan is now little more than proof of how painful the process was.

While I was watching this quite brilliant film I was constantly thinking about the greatly written passages that can be heard throughout. In addition to that, Siegel's direction is never less than gripping and helps the story with flashes of genius. The acting benefits from a perfect casting in which no one seems out of place. I enjoyed Richard Widmark and Henry Fonda, of course, but also James Whitmore who around 25 years later also excelled in Frank Darabont's "The Shawshank Redemption". A fine film such as "Madigan" must have a powerful ending and that's the case here. The last 10 minutes show Siegel's mastery at his best. The final shooting comes unexpectedly and smartly gets to the point. Cop movies can be good or bad, but should always be truthful. I recommend "Madigan" just for that.

This is a very "late '60s" detective drama, and if you're in the mood, it will hit the spot. What struck me, and it has not been picked up by other posters, is the very visible difference between the majority of the scenes, shot on authentic NYC locations, and a few scenes straight from the Universal backlot, on urbanistically nonsensical streets with no gutters. The studio shot scenes (and the school-of-Lalo-Shifrin score) increase the impression that you are watching a first class TV movie. It all makes you hungry for a dinner in a foil tray. Definitely entertaining, in a period way.

A decent exploration of the maverick detective theme that Siegal would examine more successfully in "Dirty Harry." Richard Widmark is terrific in the title role, and the cinematography, along with some of the dialogue, is top notch. The film runs into problems, however, with the subplot involving police commissioner Henry Fonda, as well as Madigan's difficulties on the homefront with wife Inger Stevens. Had the emphasis remained on the manhunt conducted by Madigan and his partner (Harry Guardino), it could have been a classic. Instead, too much time is devoted to talk, and as any Siegal enthusiast knows, action is what he did best. The later TV series, again starring Widmark, is superior.

In the late Sixties there has been a tendency towards rough cops who are up against the system – whatever that is – yet who win through despite all odds… Richard Widmark was one of them In "Madigan" he is a solid, touchy New York detective who, like Quinn in "Across 110th Street," knows the people on his patch and knows how to handle them Unlike the Quinn character, however, he is honest to the nth degree… He will kill, beat and cheat to destroy the big villains, yet retains a curious affection for the little crooks that cross his path… One feels that if Madigan took a bribe, it would be secretly witnessed and the evidence produced in court to the ruination of some baddie

Detective Daniel Madigan (Richard Widmark) and Detective Rocco Bonaro (Harry Guardino) enter a squalid Manhattan apartment building to pick up Barney Benesch (Steve Ihnat), who is wanted for questioning on a case in Brooklyn. When Benesch manages to take Madigan and Bonaro's guns away and escape, Police Commissioner Anthony X Russell (Henry Fonda) tells them that they have 72 hours to get Benesch back, or else. Out of all of the Don Siegel-directed films I've seen to date, this was the biggest disappointment. The film begins and ends with fantastic action sequences--well directed, well shot, with a nice, gritty feel, but in between the film felt overlong, overly complex, and far too soap-opera-like for my tastes. It could be due to Madigan being adapted from a novel, but Abraham Polonsky and Howard Rodman's ("Henri Simoun" here) script includes so many different threads, most of them inconsequential to the outcome of the film, that it almost begins to lose coherence in the middle. It's a bad sign when the major arc of the story is completed, but characters still have to engage in a number of "But what about so and so?" verbal tags at the end of the film to try to satisfy the audience. It feels almost as if Madigan is made for two entirely different crowds--one, fans of gritty crime action films, and the other, fans of realist dramas * soap operas. I can't imagine the former caring about most of the material in the middle (unless it had a pay off towards their genre), and I can't imagine the latter being interested in the action scenes. Most of the material in the middle, although it has some more than admirable dialogue and decent performances, hinges on a complex web of personal and professional relationships--various romantic affairs, questionable relations between the police and citizens, and so on. It all comes to naught in the end. Also not helping is Henry Fonda's odd aloofness. Again, it might work if it had some other payoff, but it doesn't. Still, the positive aspects were good enough to not bring my score below a 6. The film might also play better on a second viewing, where you better know how to adjust your expectations as it goes along. On a first, uninformed viewing, the beginning is likely to gear you up for a great, suspenseful and witty ride, leaving you disappointed in the middle, until you finally adjust and then you're awakened again with action at the end.

Detective Daniel Madigan (the excellent Richard Widmark) is very efficient and experienced, but also has no ethics. His partner, Detective Rocco Bonaro (Harry Guardino), and him go to a hotel room for the simple arrest of the small-time bandit Barney Benesch (Steve Ihnat). Madigan is reckless and in a lack of attention on Benesch, he reacts, takes the guns of the detectives and escapes. When back to the precinct, they receive the information that Benesch is a killer. Commissioner Anthony X.Russel (Henry Fonda), a very rigid and moralist man, gives a schedule of three days maximum for the detectives to arrest Benesch. Yesterday it was the first time that I watched this excellent police-drama movie. In the present days, this movie is politically incorrect: Madigan has no ethics, most of the characters have affair with lovers, smoking is `in', the interrogation is rough without human rights, and this is one of the greatest points of this film, since it is very real. Further, Don Siegel does not need car chases, explosions and other special effects to hook the attention of the viewer. The direction, screenplay and performance of the actors and actresses are more than enough to satisfy the viewer. The characters are very well developed and the scenes are very realistic. Again, an excellent police-drama movie recommended for those who like police story. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): ` Os Impiedosos' (`The Unmerciful')