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.
134 Reviews
Easily forgotten
dmansel22 February 2023
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.
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.
Bland dull, even-paced plodding mystery that just isn't 'noir'
danieljfarthing14 March 2023
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.
Another wasted Neeson performance.
benjaminskylerhill15 February 2023
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.
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.
Not Liam's best, but by no means his worst
darkreignn18 February 2023
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.
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.
Not good film, and not Raymond Chandler
robert-temple-11 July 2023
MARLOWE (2022)
Not a good film, and not Raymond Chandler
This is a really bad film which gives the impression of being based on the work of Raymond Chandler because it uses the character Philip Marlowe, detective. But otherwise it has nothing to do with Chandler, and is based on a novel by John Banville, writing under the name of Benjamin Black, entitled THE BLACK-EYED BLONDE. The story is bad, the script is bad, the direction is bad, the cinematography is terrible, and some of the actors are very bad. What is good is the art direction. An excellent job of has been done of creating sets which truly evoke late 1930s Los Angeles. The best performance in the film is by Colm Meaney as a policeman named Bernie. He is entirely authentic for period and type. Liam Neeson is miscast as Philip Marlowe. He seems to have had little direction and even less motivation. He ambles through the film with insufficient dialogue of his own. People talk around him. But he has little opportunity to become anyone, and is just a cipher moved from scene to scene in a terrible script. The cinematography is indescribably awful, as many scenes are so dark it is nearly impossible to see the actors. Someone thought making everything dark might make the film mysterious and atmospheric: big mistake! The painful truth is that the film has no atmosphere whatever, despite the excellent sets and props. Neil Jordan directed this flop, and co-wrote the script. Neil, pull yourself together, man! OK, so I got the line about Marlowe having served in the Irish Rifles during the First World War. You got your Irish plug in. Yes you were born in Sligo. The sound fails sometimes in the film, not helped by Liam's habit of speaking too softly. Diane Kruger and Jessica Lange both seemed uncomfortable in their roles. Danny Huston was effective as an arrogant villain, and he pulled that off. The story concerns a complex array of criminals, with drugs and murder and sadism thrown in according to some imagined formula which simply did not work. So a guy faked his death. So a gal wants him found. So several baddies want what he has, whatever it is. Liam beats up a couple of guys. He gets beat up. Come on. Show some originality. Raymond Chandler could do all this and make it work. But this team could not.
Not a good film, and not Raymond Chandler
This is a really bad film which gives the impression of being based on the work of Raymond Chandler because it uses the character Philip Marlowe, detective. But otherwise it has nothing to do with Chandler, and is based on a novel by John Banville, writing under the name of Benjamin Black, entitled THE BLACK-EYED BLONDE. The story is bad, the script is bad, the direction is bad, the cinematography is terrible, and some of the actors are very bad. What is good is the art direction. An excellent job of has been done of creating sets which truly evoke late 1930s Los Angeles. The best performance in the film is by Colm Meaney as a policeman named Bernie. He is entirely authentic for period and type. Liam Neeson is miscast as Philip Marlowe. He seems to have had little direction and even less motivation. He ambles through the film with insufficient dialogue of his own. People talk around him. But he has little opportunity to become anyone, and is just a cipher moved from scene to scene in a terrible script. The cinematography is indescribably awful, as many scenes are so dark it is nearly impossible to see the actors. Someone thought making everything dark might make the film mysterious and atmospheric: big mistake! The painful truth is that the film has no atmosphere whatever, despite the excellent sets and props. Neil Jordan directed this flop, and co-wrote the script. Neil, pull yourself together, man! OK, so I got the line about Marlowe having served in the Irish Rifles during the First World War. You got your Irish plug in. Yes you were born in Sligo. The sound fails sometimes in the film, not helped by Liam's habit of speaking too softly. Diane Kruger and Jessica Lange both seemed uncomfortable in their roles. Danny Huston was effective as an arrogant villain, and he pulled that off. The story concerns a complex array of criminals, with drugs and murder and sadism thrown in according to some imagined formula which simply did not work. So a guy faked his death. So a gal wants him found. So several baddies want what he has, whatever it is. Liam beats up a couple of guys. He gets beat up. Come on. Show some originality. Raymond Chandler could do all this and make it work. But this team could not.
Pretty Decent Gum Shoe LA background Film Noire
bostonct18 February 2023
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.
Like paint on a wall....a flat finish.
LordCommandar9 March 2023
This movie was dull. No spark whatsoever and like paint on a wall, it's a flat finish. Casting was ok, although I'm not sure what is going on with Liam Neesom as of late. His last few films have been absolute duds putting him into the eshelon of the used to be A list actor in good films and now in it just for paycheck like Nic Cage, Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson. A run of the mill private eye hired for a missing person's case was meh at best. No highlights, no take off of any kind, just a simple straight to the point you found the missing person with no grand finale or reveal. Watch once, enough said.
Ignore the deadbeats and nay-sayers, this isn't at all bad
pfgpowell-111 March 2023
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.
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.
Disappointing and forgettable
steveinadelaide31 May 2023
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.
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.
Not great, but it will do.
cfh-4906117 February 2023
I saw "Marlowe" last night, and while not bowled over, the film was an inventive update of the main character Philip Marlowe by Irishman Neil Jordan ("The Crying Game, "In Dreams"). It certainly deserves a more favorable response that what we've seen so far from critics and wannabe critics. While a few notches below the gold standard of latter-day film noir -- think of "L. A. Confidential," "Sin City," and "Nightmare Alley" -- overall the storyline holds up; the cinematography is excellent; and fellow Irishmen Liam Neeson is convincing as a lead. Yes, I know. The principal photography was shot in Dublin and Barcelona; this isn't Los Angeles, now or then. And this isn't the first time the Philip Marlow character has made the large screen. Overall, however, this is an enjoyable, middleweight crime drama.
Much to like, but the ending was too predictable
steiner-sam18 February 2023
It's a neo-noir detective drama set in 1939 in Bay City (Santa Monica), California. It follows detective Philip Marlowe as he tries to find a man who had supposedly been killed in a hit-and-run accident.
Philip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is a World War I vet who worked briefly for the Los Angeles Police as a detective but now is a private detective. Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger), a married young blonde, asks Marlowe to find Nico Peterson (François Arnaud), her lover who worked at a film studio owned by her very wealthy mother and former film star, Dorothy Quincannon (Jessica Lange).
Marlowe soon learns that Peterson died outside an exclusive private club in a hit-and-run accident. However, it soon appears that Peterson is not dead, and a wide variety of potential villains are looking for him, including the manager of the private club, Floyd Hanson (Danny Huston), and a local gangster, Lou Hendricks (Alan Cumming). Marlowe pursues other sources of information, but each comes to an unfortunate end. By the film's end, Marlowe solves the mystery with the help of the police, with who he remains on good terms, and an African American hood, Cedric (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ), who serves as muscle for Lou Hendricks.
There is much to like in "Marlowe" that fits the neo-noir style of clipped conversation, a world-weary detective unafraid to use his fists, and glamourous but suspicious female leads. However, the ending was too predictable, and numerous characters begged for more context and development. It's not in the same ballpark with "Chinatown."
Philip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is a World War I vet who worked briefly for the Los Angeles Police as a detective but now is a private detective. Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger), a married young blonde, asks Marlowe to find Nico Peterson (François Arnaud), her lover who worked at a film studio owned by her very wealthy mother and former film star, Dorothy Quincannon (Jessica Lange).
Marlowe soon learns that Peterson died outside an exclusive private club in a hit-and-run accident. However, it soon appears that Peterson is not dead, and a wide variety of potential villains are looking for him, including the manager of the private club, Floyd Hanson (Danny Huston), and a local gangster, Lou Hendricks (Alan Cumming). Marlowe pursues other sources of information, but each comes to an unfortunate end. By the film's end, Marlowe solves the mystery with the help of the police, with who he remains on good terms, and an African American hood, Cedric (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ), who serves as muscle for Lou Hendricks.
There is much to like in "Marlowe" that fits the neo-noir style of clipped conversation, a world-weary detective unafraid to use his fists, and glamourous but suspicious female leads. However, the ending was too predictable, and numerous characters begged for more context and development. It's not in the same ballpark with "Chinatown."
In the first 11 mins of this movie i got so sad that i couldn't fall asleep (because i had such movie-disappointment-rage). it's like AI wrote it backwards
Neptune1653 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The main problem was not that the film was boring, but rather that it was not clear what it was talking about, or what was the point. The traditional Marlowe might be hardboiled, but he still followed basic rules or principles. In the film, everybody was betraying or lying to everybody, and I am not sure why the viewer should care. In the film, most of those killed might be bad guys, but Marlowe and the black dude seemed to be shooting at people indiscriminately without second thought or justification. Marlowe was paid to find Peterson, and he did. Peterson was then betrayed by Cavendish who shot him and then burned up the drug record. Regardless of Peterson's motive, what was so wrong about his collecting evidence of drug record? At the end, Marlowe did not care about Cavendish killing Peterson and she apparently got away, and he even recommended the black dude as her security chief? Where was the logic?
This was a lifeless and disappointing movie
gerrgrady-8630718 February 2023
We were disappointed from the beginning of the film. The dialog was stilted and awkward. As the movie progressed, the plot was murky and the characters undeveloped. The best part for me was the arrival of Colm Meaney's character - he absolutely brought life and color to an otherwise dull and lifeless film. A total waste of an excellent cast. Withint the first ten minutes, we considered leaving but decided to stick with it. I fell asleep after 20 minutes and woke up in time to enjoy Meaney's performance. Also, the actor playing Cedric did a great job and I look forward to seeing more of him in the future. I recommend that if you're looking for a movie to watch, give this one a pass. Not the Marlowe that I was looking for.
Slow And Boring
stevendbeard19 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I saw Marlowe, starring Liam Neeson-the Taken movies, Batman Begins; Diane Kruger-The 355, National Treasure; Jessica Lange-American Horror Story_tv, Tootsie and Francois Arnaud-Blindspot_tv, The Borgias_tv.
This is a Philip Marlowe movie based on the famous private detective character created by Raymond Chandler. This movie is not based on one of his original books, but instead on a book called, The Black Eyed Blonde by Benjamin Black, aka John Banville. There have been lots of other actors that have portrayed Philip Marlowe-one of my favorites being the 1969 version with James Garner & Bruce Lee. This one is set in 1939 with Liam as the famous gum shoe that is hired by Diane to find her missing boyfriend, Francois. Jessica plays Diane's rich mother, who also has agendas of her own. There are the usual detective trappings going on; people unexpectedly turning up dead, different people looking for a certain object, people that you may or may not trust...etc. I must say, I was a little disappointed. I like the noir genre and the actors here are adequate in their roles but the only problem here is that it's a little slow and a little boring.
It's rated R for violence, language, drug use, smoking and sexual content-no nudity-and has a running time of 1 hour & 49 minutes.
It's not one that I would buy on DVD. If you are a fan, you might want to stream it.
This is a Philip Marlowe movie based on the famous private detective character created by Raymond Chandler. This movie is not based on one of his original books, but instead on a book called, The Black Eyed Blonde by Benjamin Black, aka John Banville. There have been lots of other actors that have portrayed Philip Marlowe-one of my favorites being the 1969 version with James Garner & Bruce Lee. This one is set in 1939 with Liam as the famous gum shoe that is hired by Diane to find her missing boyfriend, Francois. Jessica plays Diane's rich mother, who also has agendas of her own. There are the usual detective trappings going on; people unexpectedly turning up dead, different people looking for a certain object, people that you may or may not trust...etc. I must say, I was a little disappointed. I like the noir genre and the actors here are adequate in their roles but the only problem here is that it's a little slow and a little boring.
It's rated R for violence, language, drug use, smoking and sexual content-no nudity-and has a running time of 1 hour & 49 minutes.
It's not one that I would buy on DVD. If you are a fan, you might want to stream it.
Damn, not again
nscoby9328 February 2023
Well I really wanted this film to be good, especially considering Liam Neeson's recent films have all been terrible. This one actually looked like it would be different.
Unfortunately its another painfully stale outing for Liam. Boring, dull, and just sad are the words I would use to describe Marlowe. Bland writing, terrible and at times cringe worthy dialogue. Just made me think why on earth is Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger in this film, they are soo much better than this crap.
The only thing that got me through this film is the fact that one, this film did have a good cast. Two, I love the 1930s aesthetic, and neo-noir atmosphere is awesome. Three, Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger are great actors but even they couldn't save this film from being unbearably boring.
If you're a fan of Neeson then maybe if you're desperate enough you could possibly derive some enjoyment from this but I doubt it, huge skip. Probably would've done better as a straight to streaming movie.
IMDb: 2/10 Letterboxd: 2/5
Watched in Theaters.
Unfortunately its another painfully stale outing for Liam. Boring, dull, and just sad are the words I would use to describe Marlowe. Bland writing, terrible and at times cringe worthy dialogue. Just made me think why on earth is Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger in this film, they are soo much better than this crap.
The only thing that got me through this film is the fact that one, this film did have a good cast. Two, I love the 1930s aesthetic, and neo-noir atmosphere is awesome. Three, Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger are great actors but even they couldn't save this film from being unbearably boring.
If you're a fan of Neeson then maybe if you're desperate enough you could possibly derive some enjoyment from this but I doubt it, huge skip. Probably would've done better as a straight to streaming movie.
IMDb: 2/10 Letterboxd: 2/5
Watched in Theaters.
Drugs and private detective
AvionPrince1617 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I found the movie pretty interesting anyway. Before saying anything about the movie, i need to say that i dont know Marlowe and i cant compare to any other adventure of that inspector and obviously cant tell if they were honest about the characters and plots. But i really found the movie interesting. To know more about Nico peterson Clare and Dorothy Cavendish was really a pleasure and i need to say that we had some pretty interesting revelations, surprises and mysteries about Nico. And scenes after scenes we will know more about him and the Cavendish and the conspiracy. But i really need to say also that the dialogues sometimes confused me and really have difficulties to follow sometimes but Marlowe resume events and that make it easier to follow. What else to say? It was an interesting case where we tried to know what happened to Nico (supposed to be death, we learn that he is alive and hide some documents of transactions, we learn also the real intentions of Clare and Dorothy and that was pretty unexpected to be honest.) I enjoyed also the talks about sex, money, drugs and the references to Hitchcock. I enjoyed the case and the investigations of the movie to be honest.
A modern noir with classical flavors
spencermcook15 February 2023
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.
Not the best Marlowe, but a decent mystery
jellyneckr4 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A new Liam Neeson movie in January or February is pretty much a staple of a new year. For roughly the past decade so, a new Liam Neeson thriller has premiered in theaters during the first few weeks of the year often to box office success. Marlowe is a bit different than all those films in Neeson's recent filmography, both in terms of is tone and critical/box office reception. It's an uneasy cross between the Liam Neeson action audiences have come to expect with the traditional film noir the character Marlowe is known for with mixed results.
Set in 1930s California, Marlowe is a slow-moving period piece that likely will put those who loved the Taken trilogy to sleep, though likely to interest those who enjoy the classic film noir of the 1930s and 1940s. The slow pace is alternatively both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Initially it's refreshing and interesting to see a Hollywood mystery take its time developing the story, similar to something like Chinatown or The Two Jakes. Neeson seems an unconventional, though inspired choice to take over the role of Marlowe, and he is a joy to watch as always. The supporting cast from Diane Kruger as the traditional femme fatale to Alan Cumming as one of the story's many antagonists, are intriguing and fun in their respective roles. And, most importantly, the mystery itself is fairly interesting, at least early on. But, eventually, the slowness of the mystery becomes at odds with the obligatory scenes of Neeson having to punch someone in the face or shoot a gun.
The action scenes themselves are well shot and Neeson is still a thoroughly convincing tough guy at 75-years-old. The problem is that these scenes seem like the results of studio-mandated notes awkwardly shoe-horned into the story for the benefit of having action beats in the theatrical trailer. Director Neil Jordan himself seems somewhat uninterested in delivering these action beats, as they are generally super short and, in some instances, awkwardly cut away from just when the real action seems to get going. In the end, Jordan seems to be stuck with a conundrum. His film probably could have worked (and made much more money) as a more traditional Neeson action vehicle with more fighting and gunfire, but then it would have worked a lot less as a Marlowe movie. However, by mostly sticking with being a film noir mystery with action awkwardly thrown in, the whole thing becomes a bit of an uneven mess at times.
Despite the overall uneven tone, there's still enough good material to recommend Marlowe to both Neeson fans and Marlowe fans. There's enough entertainment value, enough mystery, and enough humorous film noir one-liners delivered by Neeson to keep the uneven nature from ultimately sinking the production. Ultimately, general audiences didn't seem to think this new iteration of Marlowe was worth their time, as it flopped at the box office and is definitely considered a dud. Maybe in time, Marlowe will develop a cult following amongst Raymond Chandler devotees. For now, though, it's one of the most largely ignored releases of 2023. It may not be the best Marlowe movie ever made, but it's still a decent mystery. 6/10.
Set in 1930s California, Marlowe is a slow-moving period piece that likely will put those who loved the Taken trilogy to sleep, though likely to interest those who enjoy the classic film noir of the 1930s and 1940s. The slow pace is alternatively both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Initially it's refreshing and interesting to see a Hollywood mystery take its time developing the story, similar to something like Chinatown or The Two Jakes. Neeson seems an unconventional, though inspired choice to take over the role of Marlowe, and he is a joy to watch as always. The supporting cast from Diane Kruger as the traditional femme fatale to Alan Cumming as one of the story's many antagonists, are intriguing and fun in their respective roles. And, most importantly, the mystery itself is fairly interesting, at least early on. But, eventually, the slowness of the mystery becomes at odds with the obligatory scenes of Neeson having to punch someone in the face or shoot a gun.
The action scenes themselves are well shot and Neeson is still a thoroughly convincing tough guy at 75-years-old. The problem is that these scenes seem like the results of studio-mandated notes awkwardly shoe-horned into the story for the benefit of having action beats in the theatrical trailer. Director Neil Jordan himself seems somewhat uninterested in delivering these action beats, as they are generally super short and, in some instances, awkwardly cut away from just when the real action seems to get going. In the end, Jordan seems to be stuck with a conundrum. His film probably could have worked (and made much more money) as a more traditional Neeson action vehicle with more fighting and gunfire, but then it would have worked a lot less as a Marlowe movie. However, by mostly sticking with being a film noir mystery with action awkwardly thrown in, the whole thing becomes a bit of an uneven mess at times.
Despite the overall uneven tone, there's still enough good material to recommend Marlowe to both Neeson fans and Marlowe fans. There's enough entertainment value, enough mystery, and enough humorous film noir one-liners delivered by Neeson to keep the uneven nature from ultimately sinking the production. Ultimately, general audiences didn't seem to think this new iteration of Marlowe was worth their time, as it flopped at the box office and is definitely considered a dud. Maybe in time, Marlowe will develop a cult following amongst Raymond Chandler devotees. For now, though, it's one of the most largely ignored releases of 2023. It may not be the best Marlowe movie ever made, but it's still a decent mystery. 6/10.
I REALLY wanted to like this...
buckybowen040968-114 March 2023
I am a big fan of the novels (read them all), and as another reviewer points out... Marlowe is NOT an action hero. You do not see the rough and tumble that you get with the Spillane novels - Mike Hammer. I was expecting a nice slower paced story like we got with another Neeson movie -A Walk Among The Tombstones-, which was fantastic. I love period pieces, the scenes and costuming were great, the actors were great... I just expected something more from Neeson. I did not really buy into him as Marlowe. The story was a bit flat for me... not sure if it was Neeson or just a case of a poor story and directing.
The Man Who Knew Dick (Bong)
southdavid24 March 2023
Another night in, another awful movie that Sky purchased for their own distribution needs. I've seen some shockers through this system and whilst not quite as bad as "Anon", this adaptation, using the famous Raymond Chandler character, is pretty bad.
Private Detective Phillip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is hired by Heiress Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger) to look into the disappearance of her lover, Nico Peterson (Francois Amaud). Marlowe quickly discovers that Peterson was killed outside of a country club but when he presents the findings, Cavendish tells him that she has seen him since the purported death date, down in Tijuana. Marlowe continues to investigate, and tries to get his friend, Police Detective Joe Green (Ian Hart) to reopen the case.
I'm don't normally read the other reviews here until I've written mine but for whatever reason I did this time and I have to say that I'm baffled to see the ones that said that the actors in this were let down by the script and story. For me, that is entirely the opposite of the truth and it's hard to bring to mind any recent roles as spectacularly miscast as Liam Neeson is here. He is maybe twenty years older than the character needed to be and, handsome man as though he is, it's baffling to see Diane Kruger and some of the other characters flirt with him. Incidentally, he has zero chemistry with Kruger at all, and their scenes together, which should be witty, flirty banter are some of the most awkward and witless I've seen.
The story is actually OK, though it's not exactly fun and features repeated visits to the same locations over and over, presumably to save the budget. It's actually based on a book by John Banville, rather than a Chandler story itself and adapted by William Monahan, who has an Oscar for "The Departed" but has never quite recaptured that level of quality in any of his subsequent films. I do feel like the snappy dialogue is there in the script though, but again it's delivered with a lifeless monotony by Neeson that kills the films potential charm.
Just a waste of time.
Private Detective Phillip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is hired by Heiress Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger) to look into the disappearance of her lover, Nico Peterson (Francois Amaud). Marlowe quickly discovers that Peterson was killed outside of a country club but when he presents the findings, Cavendish tells him that she has seen him since the purported death date, down in Tijuana. Marlowe continues to investigate, and tries to get his friend, Police Detective Joe Green (Ian Hart) to reopen the case.
I'm don't normally read the other reviews here until I've written mine but for whatever reason I did this time and I have to say that I'm baffled to see the ones that said that the actors in this were let down by the script and story. For me, that is entirely the opposite of the truth and it's hard to bring to mind any recent roles as spectacularly miscast as Liam Neeson is here. He is maybe twenty years older than the character needed to be and, handsome man as though he is, it's baffling to see Diane Kruger and some of the other characters flirt with him. Incidentally, he has zero chemistry with Kruger at all, and their scenes together, which should be witty, flirty banter are some of the most awkward and witless I've seen.
The story is actually OK, though it's not exactly fun and features repeated visits to the same locations over and over, presumably to save the budget. It's actually based on a book by John Banville, rather than a Chandler story itself and adapted by William Monahan, who has an Oscar for "The Departed" but has never quite recaptured that level of quality in any of his subsequent films. I do feel like the snappy dialogue is there in the script though, but again it's delivered with a lifeless monotony by Neeson that kills the films potential charm.
Just a waste of time.
Clever script, beautifully shot
1scottgale19 February 2023
As a huge fan of Chinatown and LA Confidential my wife and I loved Neil Jordan's take on the noir detective genre. Frankly so did everyone else in the theater with us.
The scenery is compelling and beautifully shot. The dialogue is deliberate with subtle jabs at modern issues. Marlowe takes you cleverly through the story with each distinctive character adding something unexpected to the mix. Too many reviews complaining about it being slow or having too much action are misguided. I expect over time that people will come to appreciate this well written, well executed project that is Liam Neeson's 100th film!!
Marlowe really is to be savored.
The scenery is compelling and beautifully shot. The dialogue is deliberate with subtle jabs at modern issues. Marlowe takes you cleverly through the story with each distinctive character adding something unexpected to the mix. Too many reviews complaining about it being slow or having too much action are misguided. I expect over time that people will come to appreciate this well written, well executed project that is Liam Neeson's 100th film!!
Marlowe really is to be savored.
Marlowe
henry8-317 March 2023
Tough, loner private eye, Marlowe, Liam Neeson is hired by rich Diane Kruger to find her missing lover who Marlowe quickly finds out is dead - or is he.
There is a rich vein of great cinema that exists around private detectives, which is pretty much lead by the long serving Raymond Chandler Marlowe character and apart from Michael Winner's lamentable version of The Big Sleep, the films have been between good eg 'Marlowe' with James Garner to great eg Bogart in 'The Big Sleep'. This version by Neil Jordan who has made some great films and plenty of lousy ones is not a great one, but it is highly watchable. Neeson is fine as he tends to be, but it's the array of eccentric characters that he comes across uncovering clues that really help here eg Jessica Lange as the rich mother of Kruger and Danny Huston as a baddie. There are some good action sequences and despite a missed opportunity with the soundtrack and some rather frantic editing in the first half hour, this is light, enjoyable, undemanding fun.
There is a rich vein of great cinema that exists around private detectives, which is pretty much lead by the long serving Raymond Chandler Marlowe character and apart from Michael Winner's lamentable version of The Big Sleep, the films have been between good eg 'Marlowe' with James Garner to great eg Bogart in 'The Big Sleep'. This version by Neil Jordan who has made some great films and plenty of lousy ones is not a great one, but it is highly watchable. Neeson is fine as he tends to be, but it's the array of eccentric characters that he comes across uncovering clues that really help here eg Jessica Lange as the rich mother of Kruger and Danny Huston as a baddie. There are some good action sequences and despite a missed opportunity with the soundtrack and some rather frantic editing in the first half hour, this is light, enjoyable, undemanding fun.
going down a rabbit hole...
seanmeggesonrp21 January 2023
...more like going down a corn hole. A poorly interpreted Marlowe. Robert Mitchum was much better. This dialogue here was muddy and dull. The acting was okay but I really expected much much more given the iconic nature of the material and the legendary status of Raymond Chandler's novel and character. The writing should have been lighter and more vicious. I do think old Hollywood was better portrayed in films like Chinatown. Hard to compete with such classics but Hollywood really does like to eat itself for dinner and then feel satisfied that the fried chicken was too deeply fried in old and rank grease.
A waste of the great Liam Neeson.
Sleepin_Dragon22 June 2023
Phillip Marlowe is hired by beautiful blonde heiress Claire Cavendish to track down her missing former lover Nico Peterson.
Ouch, this movie sucked, this really sucked, and what made it so unforgivable, was that it wasted the talent of the amazing Liam Neeson, and managed to equally waste Jessica Lange's.
On that plus side it's a polished production, it actually looks pretty good, but there's an age old saying about being unable to polish something, that's very appropriate in this case.
So a good cast, nice visuals, but a drawn out, boring storyline, corny dialogue, and an overall feeling of a Sunday afternoon film from the Hallmark channel. This film is as interesting as reading the ingredient list in a supermarket salad.
I stuck at it for one reason, Liam Neeson, and you can't argue, he has something, he really does have something, but he's totally wasted, I'd argue this is a credit he'd be glad to see gone off his CV.
Ouch, 3/10.
Ouch, this movie sucked, this really sucked, and what made it so unforgivable, was that it wasted the talent of the amazing Liam Neeson, and managed to equally waste Jessica Lange's.
On that plus side it's a polished production, it actually looks pretty good, but there's an age old saying about being unable to polish something, that's very appropriate in this case.
So a good cast, nice visuals, but a drawn out, boring storyline, corny dialogue, and an overall feeling of a Sunday afternoon film from the Hallmark channel. This film is as interesting as reading the ingredient list in a supermarket salad.
I stuck at it for one reason, Liam Neeson, and you can't argue, he has something, he really does have something, but he's totally wasted, I'd argue this is a credit he'd be glad to see gone off his CV.
Ouch, 3/10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
