Marlowe

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.

Set in the 1930s during the rise of the Hollywood studio system, Phillip Marlowe, a private investigator, is hired to find Nico Peterson, the ex lover of Claire Cavendish, the daughter of a former Hollywood icon. As Marlowe digs deeper into the case, he unravels more threads that lead to a bigger organization operating under the noses of everyone in Tinseltown.

Marlowe could've been a great movie. Long gone are the conventional, time-honored noir films that dominated the 1940s and 50s. A genre populated with cynical, down-on-their-luck rumpled detectives, beautiful but deadly women, double and triple crosses, and a case far further reaching than the detective initially conceived of, the noir made use of all these elements to create mysteries and whodunits that have stood the test of time. All of that is present here in Marlowe and yet somehow almost none of it works. Adapted from the 2014 novel The Black-Eyed Blonde, Marlowe took all the best bits of the genre and found a way to ensure that little of it made sense. Claire Cavendish is stunningly beautiful. Marlowe looks tired and untrustworthy of almost everyone throughout. Cigarette smoke hangs in the air just right, playing across the character's faces. It's all there and none of it is worth anything because the story itself doesn't make a lick of sense. A film that blows past convoluted and catapults into absurd, both the plot and the screenplay feel like a high schooler read a few Raymond Chandler novels, recognized what made them cool, and regurgitated it into their own thing, forgetting that all these pieces only work when paired up with a genuine mystery that will keep audiences engaged and guessing. Marlowe unfortunately doesn't and with its sometimes cringeworthy lines mixed with story beats that feel like darts thrown at a board, the real mystery is how this script got greenlit in the first place.

Thankfully starring Liam Neeson in something other than a washed-out action role, Marlowe sees the veteran actor in a noir setting for the first time. Surprisingly, Neeson is good in the role of Phillip Marlowe, portraying an aging private investigator attempting (and failing) to stay a step ahead of as many people as possible. Neeson's world weary countenance conveys the look of a man who's tired of dealing with the nonsense he encounters on a daily basis. While his scenes with Diane Kruger are excellent at capturing the tones of a traditional noir, it's his scenes with Jessica Lange that stand out. For his part, Neeson does his best to carry the anemic story and were he to return to the role with a stronger writer, another chance would be merited.

Diane Kruger as Claire Cavendish fills the second necessary component of a classic noir story: the femme fatale. Kruger is great in the role as both the character who kicks off the events of the story and as the character you don't know if you can fully trust. Kruger plays to that strength, as both timid and helpless at times while confidently holding all the cards at others. Radiantly beautiful, she's a modern model for the fatale trope, and thanks in large part to the costuming department, Kruger wears her role well.

Jessica Lange is having a ball in this film. Regardless of the hokey lines or clunky exposition scenes, Lange is there to remind audiences she hasn't gone anywhere and still has plenty of gas left in the tank. Her screen time with Neeson is delightful, delivering her lines with the most cheeky and mischievous of manners with many a wink and nod and twinkle in the eye. While appearing infrequently throughout the movie, she's a joy every time she's on screen, whether its supplying Marlowe with information or fanning the flames of confusion. Either way, Lange's Dorothy Cavendish is the film's MVP.

Neil Jordan did the best he could with Marlowe. The man who directed classics such as The Crying Game and Interview with the Vampire (back to back bangers) retains his eye for style and flair as he and cinematographer Xavi Giménez attempt different ways to retain the audience's confusion. At 109 minutes, the movie is paced wonderfully, with answers that only reveal more questions sprinkled throughout the course of the story. As nonsensical, anticlimactic, or just downright absurd as those answers may be falls to screenwriter William Monahan. Responsible for the screenplay behind the hallowed Kingdom of Heaven and the Scorsese classic The Departed, every decision Monahan takes in the plotting of Marlowe is truly baffling. It's surprising that with as much literature is discussed or referenced in the film (Alice in Wonderland, Elements of Style, references to writer James Joyce), the literature of the script falls so short of the mark.

Overall, Marlowe will be a film that's easily forgotten by the beginning of March. A convoluted story, presented to the audience in such a confoundingly bad manner, is only minimally saved by Neil Jordan's direction and the production design. Neeson, Kruger, and Lange do the best they can with the milquetoast screenplay, but thanks in large part to William Monahan what could've been a sumptuous feast of a story ends up being little more than cold broth. A poor excuse for a neo noir, most of the usual trappings are present without a framework to make effective use of them.

The iconic titular character of "Marlowe" epitomises noir, but in resurrecting him veteran director / co-writer (with William Monahan) Neil Jordan waters the noir style down to nothing, leaving only a dull, even-paced mystery that fails to engage. Liam Neeson's the aforementioned '30s LA gum-shoe here, hired by wealthy 'femme fatale' Diane Kruger (daughter of 'femme fatale' Jessica Lange (good)) to find presumed dead lover François Arnaud who's wrapped in some kinda drug-running plot with the likes of Danny Huston & Alan Cumming, under the noses of cops like Joe Green & Colm Meaney. It's bland, plodding fare, and is just not noir. Poor.

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.