Marlowe

source: Marlowe

In this rather dull mystery movie, James Garner does...something. Hell I only watched this movie for the bruce Lee part! Yes this film has the legendary Bruce Lee in it and he shows off in what I think is his greatest film performance. Though he may be in the film for only about 10 mins at least, he leaves his mark and it shows. Although his exit from the film is quite harsh, it'll make you laugh or yell at the tv screen no less. After which, unless your a fan of Garner, you should turn off the movie. After all that's what I did (hey what's a movie where Lee's exit is really uncalled for?) Lee's performance 10 out of 10. Marlowe in it's self, 5 out of 10.

Shifting Chandler's private eye to the '60s seems to work fairly well, although I still miss the film noir look of the gritty '40s melodramas with either Humphrey Bogart or George Montgomery as Marlowe. In addition, filming this one in color to take advantage of some Los Angeles locations, was not necessarily the best idea. JAMES GARNER works well as Marlowe, although I still prefer the dry delivery of Humphrey Bogart and his one-liners in THE BIG SLEEP. But Garner is at his physical peak and makes a persuasive private detective on the trail of someone's missing brother. Along the way, he gets involved with the usual assortment of disreputable characters who occupy seedy hotel rooms and the shady side of town. With a supporting cast that includes CARROLL O'CONNOR, JACKIE COOGAN and RITA MORENO (as a *), it's a stylish updating of Chandler's novel, "The Little Sister". And let's not forget BRUCE LEE who does a Karate job on Garner's office wall and furniture. Too many of the early scenes drag and it's an hour into the story before the plot gets any livelier. In short, the plot remains rather flat and devoid of any real urgent suspense in spite of the fact that it deals with ice pick murders. Summing up: Despite the okay performance from Garner, it remains a flabby exercise in suspense, lacking the terse quality of Chandler's stories and doesn't really perk up until the last ten minutes.

This is a mish-mash where the original cynical Marlowe of the late 40s meets the laid-back and careworn private detective of the 60s. We move from all those shadows that dominated the noir films to the bright lights of the swinging 60s. And it doesn't really work; nor should it. To me, it comes over more as a satire on the originals with plenty of good one-liners and a surreal couple of scenes with Bruce Lee. The storyline is too complex to set out here and I suspect there will be many differing versions of just what the story actually is. Not that that matters too much as I think it may be better simply to see it as a satire or, perhaps, a parody. Gayle Hunnicutt was out of place although Rita Moreno maybe makes up for that. Garner is, well, Garner. See it as a curiosity rather than as something that is important or significant in the history of film.

A great little movie that was part of a brief, late 1960s renaissance of private eye flicks. Jim Garner does a nice turn as a modern-day Marlowe who find himself trapped in a game a lot more complicated than he thought. Garner plays it funny, smart and light--kind of a Jim Rockford five years before the fact. The movie has a few goodies though. There is great dialogue, an ice-picking, a pretty good beat-down, drug laced cigarettes and an unforgettable strip tease by Rita Moreno. A PBS station--of all places--aired this gem in the early 1990s and fortunately it is available on video.

I can't say strongly enough what a horrible disappointment this film was. I realize that books can't be translated to film with out some alterations, but this adaptation was pure butchery. The book was rich with character development. The characters actions were given context. It was a complicated plot, but it made sense. Hell, Demi Moore's 'The Scarlet Letter' was a better adaptation then this. This whole movie was a hodgepodge of scenes with little or no context or grace. The editing was choppy and the dialogue was not the smooth, off the cuff wit it should have been. Many of the changes they made were downright silly and useless. And what a waste of talent! James Garner is a wonderful actor. The way he handled the scene when he was drugged was masterful. Sharon Farrell's Orfamay had the perfect combination of innocent guile and ruthless cunning. Gayle Hunnicutt was a perfect Mavis. Whoever cast this movie did a fabulous job. But the utter crap these actors are given to work with makes me shudder. As beautiful as Rita Moreno is, and as wonderful as her dance was to watch, it was purely gratuitous. There was no basis for Dolores to be a * and no need for any of the scenes to take place in a burlesque palace. As cool as Bruce Lee's performance was, and it was cool, I can think of no reasonable basis for the screen writer to make so many changes to the original character. Bruce Lee did an admirable job of capturing the character's creepy calm and sinister suggestions. But once again, the character's action sequences were purely gratuitous. Besides Winslow never physically threatening Marlowe, the office was never trashed, he didn't die and he didn't work for Steelgrave. Also, the scandal in the book had nothing to do with sex. Did the screen writer really think that this was the only type of scandal movie goers would be able to understand? And why were there hippies? Was this supposed to be some sort of 60's short hand for seedy squalor? Part of what makes Noir so interesting is the way the characters start out seeming so normal and then are slowly revealed for the vile nasty bit of goods they really are. A remake of this would do well to set it back in 1947, as it is written in the book. Chandler gave the book good bones. A screen writer would do well to recognize that and stay within the frame work Chandler created.

Raymond Chandler's 1940s private investigator Philip Marlowe steps into actor James Garner's shoes, which should be a comfortable fit. But, it isn't. This film starts with someone doing an impression of James Bond, poolside, over a swingin' sixties credit sequence. Then, we find Mr. Garner wading through a group of presumably stoned and definitely slumbering hippies. As it turns out, he's looking for the brother of a client in this hippie hotel... Garner finds several ice-picks, usually in the back of bodies. Ice-picks were often used in the 1940s to pick ice. Karate expert Bruce Lee smashes Garner's office and Garner calls him "a little gay" because he's light on his feet. The climax occurs after about 90 minutes of muddling events, when Rita Moreno in a platinum wig does her main strip tease. She must be wearing more than it seems and she sure knows how to move. Then, it's over. *** Marlowe (9/19/69) Paul Bogart ~ James Garner, Gayle Hunnicutt, Carroll O'Connor, Rita Moreno

This really is god-awful. Chandler is a genius, was should I say, and deserves better than this this treatment of his work. A bizarre sense of colour that permeated the seventies wanders around this movie aimlessly. This (and I'm watching it on BBC now) is dreadful.

Following a typical Chandlerian plot involving lots of intrigue, sex, lies, booze, and violence, Garner makes a mildly charming, laid-back Marlowe, trading a fair share of witty one-liners with the policemen, toughs and many eager young women he encounters, as he tries to unravel a convoluted missing persons/blackmail/murder case. Gets an interesting edge from the sixties characters and attitudes (Marlowe's hairdresser neighbour providing light relief, the stoner hotel at the start) but staying very much in the world of sleazy hoods and wealthy stars associated with earlier Bogey takes on Chandler. Bruce Lee's performance as a toughie sent to threaten Marlowe with some spectacular chop-socky is a high-point but sadly brief, and Garner is no Bogey, and the director is no Howard Hawks. Good-ish stuff, but confused by too many personality-free characters (rather than by a complex web as in The Big Sleep), and lacking Bogart's ice-hard edge, Garner is a smooth, witty and fairly convincing Marlowe; likewise the film, fairly convincing, but no classic.

Raymond Chandler's private dick Philip Marlowe from the 1940s is plunked down rather unceremoniously in the swinging late-1960s, with lethargic results. Based on Chandler's book "The Little Sister", this bland detective yarn starring James Garner doesn't even have a visually interesting production to recommend it. Paul Bogart's direction is torpid, and the writing equally unexcitable (the filmmakers here don't have an appreciation for Marlowe's roots--he's a square straight-shooter who isn't updated for the new era, and the irony is lost on everybody). The dry deadpan humor perhaps set the stage for Garner's TV series "The Rockford Files"--but raked out over an entire film, the cheeky asides just seem smug. Bruce Lee steals the spotlight in a bit as a karate-kicking henchman; otherwise, pretty tired. *1/2 from ****