Sunset - Dämmerung in Hollywood

For me, it's the supporting actors that make this interesting . Emmet walsh was so good in what's up doc, and joe dallesandro has his own history in warhol films. Mcdowell was probably best known for clockwork orange. In the story, tom mix and wyatt earp meet up in hollywood, on a movie set. When a moidah takes place, they decide to work together to solve it. Fun info in the trivia and goofs sections. While the story is mostly fictional, it does have some elements of truth scattered throughout. Mix and earp really did know each other. And parts of the story itself seem similar to the alleged shooting incident aboard hearst's yacht in 1924. The story is so serious... it's more of a dramatic murder mystery than a comedy. But it seems to want to be both, which would be a typical blake edwards film. Like victor victoria. Which also starred james garner. With a similar song and dance number at the center. According to wikipedia, even siskel and ebert had trouble describing the film. Keep an eye out for jennifer edwards, daughter of the director, as victoria. This felt like an odd role for willis. He also did "die hard" in 1988, and that seemed a better match. Clearly, the best way to get nominated for an oscar is to make a film about the oscars! This was nominated for best costumes. A couple razzies too... hemingway was nominated worst supporting, and blake edwards "won" for worst director! TCM doesn't seem to show this one. It's entertaining, but a little disjointed. Kind of banks on the friendship betwen mix and earp as the glue holding everything together.

Caught this for the first time late night Sept., 2006. It was a very cool, foggy San Francisco night. I loved it! The critics missed the point altogether on this one. An older Ebert probably would have given it more than two stars. Garner was great, as usual, in his cool understated character. One critic said Bruce Willis was not movie star material. WRONG! The porn star Joe Dallesandro as "Dutch" was one of several funny, kinky sidebars. Yes, Chandler could have written it and drank to its health. Oh oh! scolded for less than ten lines---so, the cold, impersonal wind swept down trashy Market Street where the very rich and the very poor rubbed shoulders nonchalantly. Ah! the irony of it all.

I appreciate Sunset the film because it gave the man who I consider the best big screen Wyatt Earp, James Garner, a chance to reprise the role.

Garner played Earp back in the mid sixties in John Sturges's Hour of the Gun. That film took the unusual plot line of beginning with the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral and showing the aftermath from that event. It was a pretty grim western, and Garner was not playing his usual likable con artist.

It took twenty years from Hour of the Gun to Sunset, but it was over 40 years in real life from the OK Corral fight until the events of Sunset that take place in Hollywood in and around the first Academy Award dinner in 1928. Wyatt Earp was in fact in Hollywood and did in fact know Tom Mix. Earp died in 1929 at the age 80 and Garner is one of the liveliest 80 year olds ever on screen.

Blake Edwards must have hated Charles Chaplin because Malcolm McDowell as Alfie Alperin, the Happy Hobo and villain of the film is one loathsome creep. No doubt Chaplin's character is used as the basis for McDowell's. The famous Thomas Ince shooting on board a yacht is also worked into the plot. Topping all that the first Academy Award dinner had a triple homicide in the lobby.

Bruce Willis as Tom Mix stars as Wyatt Earp in a film about the OK Corral and of course with Wyatt still being alive, Garner is brought in as a technical adviser. The two of them get involved in a lovely web of intrigue during end of the silent era that starts with the murder of a bordello madam who had a lot of blackmail information concerning the mighty of Tinseltown. Wyatt Earp discovers a few personal facts about himself he didn't know also.

Patricia Hodge is McDowell's long suffering wife and Jennifer Edwards is his equally loathsome sister. Another pair that Willis and Garner have to deal with are Richard Bradford as a corrupt LA detective and M. Emmet Walsh as the studio cop who do a lot of McDowell's dirty work.

Sunset is entertaining enough, not a great film for either Willis or Garner. And it does capture the ambiance of old Hollywood, give or take a lie or two.

Blake Edwards' "Sunset" has the misfortune of following a series of films that are among his all time best: "10", "S.O.B.", "Trail of the Pink Panther" (a surprisingly cohesive film considering the circumstances; see my review for more details), "Victor/Victoria", "The Man Who Loved Women" (an underrated film), "Micki and Maude", "A Fine Mess" and the remarkable "That's Life!" By comparison, "Sunset" is a weak film.

But it is a good Blake Edwards film and good Edwards ("Blind Date", "Curse of the Pink Panther") is much better than horrible Edwards ("Switch", "Bring Your Smile Along", "Justin Case"). "Sunset" is Edwards' attempt at a risky genre, film noir, which if handled wrong, gives us films such as "Palmetto". When handled right, the results can be very entertaining.

"Sunset" is indeed very entertaining. It has laughs, but they're not important here. The atmosphere is what's important here and Edwards drenches us in it. And his casting of James Garner and Bruce Willis is inspired and right. They work wonderfully together and it is a testament to Garner and Willis as actors that they are so utterly believable as Wyatt Earp and Tom Mix, respectively. The bigger surprise here is Willis, who has a fresh faced charm that he doesn't show all that much anymore. I had forgotten what a solid actor he really is beneath that cliched "ACTION STAR" persona.

What prevents "Sunset" from approaching greatness is that Edwards is weighed down by the plot. He wants to create a complex mystery and he achieves that. But after getting to know such rich and likable characters, I really wish he had just forgotten about the plot and focus on them. All of his very best films are about character. Look at the list in the beginning. Each and every one of those films has characters we care about and he wisely forgets about resolving the plot. He observes and that's how he gets our attention (and laughs where appropriate). I only wished he had remembered. Luckily, his next film "Skin Deep" remembered that.

I still recommend "Sunset", if only for the charm of Willis and Garner and that wonderful atmosphere. This isn't a great film, but you just can't resist smiling at the end.

*** out of 4 stars

I saw Sunset, recently, during a middle-of-the-night channel surf that ended up on a cable channel running the film at about 4:00am. I had never seen the film before, but had always been interested because of the two leads, and the era in which the film is set (the late 1920s).

I enjoyed the film, quite a bit, actually. I thought the story was very good, and well written, and Garner and Willis made a great team. I especially enjoyed Willis' characterization of Tom Mix. He brought just the right amount of cowboy style to the silen movie hero. And, of course, Garner is always good. But he really excelled as Wyatt Earp.

I thought the premise was very original, and that the whole film was a lot of fun.

With one exception.

Why is the villain of this piece so obviously supposed to remind us of Charley Chaplin ? Alvy Alperin ? Formerly known as The Happy Hobo ? A clear reference to Chaplin, and his little tramp. And yet the character is an abuseive rapist, and murderer who beats his own wife to death.

Why Edwards chose to virtually villify one of the most talented and entertaining comedians of the silent era, who was also a fairly nice bloke in real life, if a bit of a womanizer, I do not know.

The other original characters in the film- that is character who are fictional, rather than historical, like Earp, and Mix, are very well-crafted, believable, and completely original. No single character seems to be a rip on any single individual in Hollywood at the time, except for Malcolm McDowall's Alperin.

As a fan of Chaplin, Normand, Arbuckle, and the great silent clowns I found this to be a strong defect in the overall film. I can definitely believe Tom Mix as a hero. But I simply cannot reconcile even a thinly renamed Chaplin with a bully and a rapist.

I wonder why Edwards didn't go the extra mile to make the Alperin character more original.

Aside from this point, which is a big one, really, the film is a lot of fun for fans of the period, and the leads.