Marlowe

I lot of people have compared this to the original Marlowe character and series and it is not the case. Maybe that's why people have trashed this movie as it's being judged on an existing franchise. To begin, Liam is not Marlowe but more a lower level PI. He hasn't been at it that long. If you want to compare, I would say this was more Ezekiel Rawlins in The Devil in a Blue Dress. Easy has street connects, Marlowe has cop connections. Overall, the entire supporting cast was steady and complemented the story line well. No Oscar performances but OK for the film. I'm a bit biased as I do enjoy the LA police, Hollywood and the rich-and-powerful subculture of the '40's and 50's and the banter that comes with it. The storyline itself was a bit thin but passable. In short, if you can judge this movie on its own merits and forget the "Marlowe" connect, this is a pretty good movie night out.

Liam Neeson is a strongly capable actor whose committed performances are nearly always wasted on incomprehensible messes of films, and this latest one is no exception.

In fact, Marlowe wastes its entire talented cast AND a skilled production design crew on a woefully by-the-numbers crime story that is frustratingly clumsy in how it delivers information to the audience.

Most of the story consists of exposition-heavy, dialogue-driven scenes that are slapped together with editing that leaves it unclear how and why characters get from one place to the next. Much of the information we receive from the dialogue ends up being meaningless to the story anyway, and it just winds up being a confusing mess that left me feeling nothing.

Not a single moment is really dedicated to letting us know who the characters are, or even what their needs and goals are. It's over 100 minutes of meandering from one scene to the next without ever knowing why we're here or where we're trying to go.

Confusing, bloated, corny, emotionally bereft, and pointless. Just like most other Neeson flicks of the past decade.

Overall Marlowe gets a 5.6 rating here on IMdB, and I for one wonder why. Admittedly, a mathematical 5 (as in 'out of 10) is 'average' - not good, not bad - yet broadly a 5.6 indicates for most that a film 'is not that good' and for them 6 would indicate it is 'average'. Fine, although that doesn't quite make sense, but if that's how it works, that's how it works. And that is unfair to Neil Jordan's Marlowe. It isn't at all 'bad' or even 'average'.

Yes, it does has its flaws, but then which film doesn't? At 70 Neeson is - some might argue - a tad old to portray Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe, that is just the Marlowe of film convention: who says he has to be in his mid-30s or perhaps early 40s?

He is, after all, a fictional character, and if we can accept a woman playing Hamlet - and we can - Marlowe can be a tad older. We also don't object to 'Sir' Mick Jagger, as I write six months short of his 80th birthday, still prancing around on stage like some demented fawn, so let's keep it real, shall we?

Furthermore, Neeson might not be the sprightly chap he no doubt fondly remembers being but nor is he, and certainly not in Marlowe, and embarrassing old crock. More to the point he does convey 'Marlowe, the shrewd operator' rather well.

Jordan's Marlowe is not based on a Chandler story but one by the Irish novelist John Banville, in his 'crime writer' persona slumming it as 'Benjamin Black', and he does neatly come up with the entertaining convolutions in the Chandler originals. In other respects, too, Jordan's Marlowe is very much up to snuff.

It is not a Hollywood production, but an Irish one and Barcelona impersonated Marlowe's Los Angeles (or Bay City - couldn't find it on Google maps). Apart from Neeson, several other non-American actors - Ian Hart, Colm Meaney, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Seána Kerslake and Alan Cumming - are involved.

I am not a Yank and I'm prepared to stand corrected, but all of them (and whatever other 'foreigners' were involved) do themselves proud. My one gripe would be that Cummings role is a tad thin, but Cummings can't be blamed for that.

Oh, and Colm Meaney's cop (there are two in the film, the other is Ian Hart) is so obliquely introduced, for several minutes I wondered where the hell he turned up from. Finally, I assumed he and Hart were City/county police, though which was which I'm not too sure.

The cinematography is carried off with aplomb, the dialogue is neat (and avoids cliche well), the musical score is great (especially Jade Vincent's songs which might or might not be originals) and the whole feel of LA in 1939 is also convincing. So why all the carping? It's a tad puzzling.

For me this is a solid 6/10 but in view of the frankly nit-picking points made in other reviews, I shall try to redress the balance a little with a 7/10. That should indicate that not only is Marlowe not 'bad', it is, in its own way rather good. If you have not seen it and are looking through these reviews before deciding, go for it.

With seemingly scathing reviews from critics and audiences alike, you'd think that "Marlowe" is the worst thing since Judas' betrayal of Christ. "Sleep inducing," "dull," and "the worst movie I've seen all year," are just a few of the things that people have said about Liam Neeson's 100th feature film - and in fact, if you take a gander at some of the reviews on this very site, you will see many of those sentiments repeated. And while it's hard to argue against those opinions, I can't shake the feeling that, perhaps, people expected a traditional Neeson action film, when in reality "Marlowe" is anything but.

With about 60 seconds of total action in the entire movie, "Marlowe" is a noir drama through and through. Sure, you'll get a fist fight or two, and maybe a shootout here and there, but both the fist fights and the shootouts are the most pedestrian and bare bones action sequences you'd have seen since, well, the last Liam Neeson movie. And while that would typically be a major complaint of mine, I didn't have as much of a problem with it here. You see, "Marlowe" never pretends to be or portrays itself as an action film. Instead, from the very beginning the movie portrays itself as what it is: A dramatic noir mystery.

Steeped in the anachronisms of 1930s culture, barely a scene goes by where someone isn't enjoying an alcoholic beverage or having a smoke. And because I have an affinity for both of those things, I admittedly enjoyed watching people constantly puff on cigarettes and drink hard liquor. True to its time period, "Marlowe" also looks the part - the movie is gorgeous, with impeccable set and costume design; I was legitimately impressed with the movie's portrayal of Los Angeles in its golden age. And the music, too, was very fitting and appropriately moody, adding a certain "je ne sais quoi," if you will.

If a visual and auditory feast is what you're looking for, you'll leave "Marlowe" satiated. So what's the issue? Truth be told, there are a lot of faults here, and this is coming from someone who doesn't think this movie is as bad as people are saying. For one, the plot, while not necessarily convoluted, does play out in a pretty confusing manner. Liam Neeson's Marlowe will go from place to place and person to person with nary an establishing shot to be found, almost as if he was teleporting to various places and talking to people who just instantaneously appeared there. This lack of coherency does make the story hard to follow, especially when coupled with the bizarre dialogue. Characters say things and have conversations in a way that is so unnatural that I can't imagine anyone behaving like that in real life, even in 1930s Hollywood. Yes, there are a few memorable lines here and there, but you do have to sit through a large majority of unrealistic, uncanny dialogue.

All that said, I honestly didn't hate this movie as much as others seem to be. I found a lot to like in terms of the visuals alone, and Liam Neeson was enjoyable in a more dramatic performance. The main mystery is thought provoking enough, and everything wraps up in a satisfying way. "Marlowe" also is a lot of fun to look at, if you enjoy the time period and culture as much as I do. However, the bizarre formation of the plot runs the risk of confusing audiences, and the fact that the movie is 99% dialogue and 1% action also doesn't bode well for large box office returns. When all is said and done though, I liked this more than I thought I would, but I recognize it is by no means Liam Neeson's best.

Everyone has their interpretation of Philip Marlowe. As for the books that Raymond Chandler gave us, Marlowe is most often more interesting than the characters he encounters, and more interesting than the plot. He is a loner by nature, he's articulate and funny. He plays chess puzzles and reads. He is also tough. His character is what makes you want to come back for more. The movie is fair, but it would be much better if Marlowe were actually in it. This is the eleventh interpretation of this character and it would be such a novelty if at least one would give us the character as he was created by Raymond Chandler.