Detective 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.

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.

A modern noir hinted with flavors of classical cinema. The visuals are predominantly stunning and a necessary focal point in comparison to the long-winded plot which struggled to provide a narrative worth following. The cast is compiled of incredible past talent that struggle to develop chemistry with one another. Liam Neeson finds himself in another experience-based role and one that feels completely disconnected from the others in tone, personality, and energy. In a film that has the ingredients to fluctuate a viewer's emotions in a variety of ways, the story produced a mundane structure that made it difficult to attach myself to. If you enjoy the makeup of early 1900s films then this may appeal to you more than it did to me.

Marlowe attempts to pay homage to the classic detective tales of Raymond Chandler but ultimately falls short of its promise, lacking the originality and creativity needed to truly captivate. The movie centres around Philip Marlowe, a private investigator hired by a mysterious woman to locate her missing husband. Throughout his journey, Marlowe becomes entangled in a web of corruption, murder, and betrayal, prompting introspection into his moral compass and identity.

Though the film boasts a few commendable elements, such as its stylish cinematography that effectively captures the dark and gritty atmosphere of 1940s Los Angeles and a score that aptly conveys the genre's mood, these aspects alone are insufficient to redeem it from its numerous weaknesses.

The primary issue with Marlowe lies in its lack of originality and innovation. Rather than introducing fresh perspectives or intriguing ideas to the genre, the movie heavily borrows from the existing source material and other noir films without contributing new or interesting concepts. The plot falls victim to predictability and clichés, offering twists and turns that are either glaringly obvious or illogical. The dialogue, too, is uninspiring, burdened by excessive exposition and cheesy one-liners. The characters remain one-dimensional and stereotypical, devoid of depth or meaningful development. The performances range from mediocre to exaggerated or wooden, failing to elicit genuine emotion or connection.

Another major shortcoming of the film lies in its portrayal of Philip Marlowe. Marlowe is one of the most iconic and intricately crafted characters in literature, yet the movie reduces him to a generic and unremarkable hero. It neglects the wit, charm, and moral ambiguity that made him so compelling. The film misses opportunities to delve into Marlowe's psychology, motivations, and worldview, robbing the character of any meaningful exploration or growth. As a result, Marlowe becomes a mere action figure, merely transitioning from one scene to the next without leaving an emotional impact or resonance.

Marlowe is disappointing; it will fade into obscurity, never having done justice to its source material or the noir genre. It squanders the chance to breathe new life into and reinvent the tradition of noir and fails to provide a memorable and engaging cinematic experience. I would recommend enthusiasts of noir or detective stories or those seeking more profound and substantial contributions from the world of cinema to stay away! Marlowe is shallow and superficial, and you'll forget it as soon as you leave the cinema.

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.