Chandler (1971) User Reviews

"C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R...Chandler, as in Raymond."

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 15 August 2009]

Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from ****

Missed the Plot But Couldn't Have Cared

[mpescajeda · 3/10 · 3 July 2013]

TCM did recently show this movie on a typically lazy summer afternoon before the 4th, and from the start, I was looking for some type of story line in which to sink my interest in, but things turned out murky. Its big draw was that it starred the much under-appreciated Warren Oates as some kind of detective who starts asking the big redeeming questions after he can't bring himself to carry out the job of tailing a mysterious woman for a corporate interest. When that plot line eventually became evident, I had the misfortune of falling asleep for just a few moments, and upon awakening, became even less involved as Oates wandered from scene to scene with the intent of discovering why the woman (the capable Leslie Caron) was on everyone's mind. My fault, sure, for nodding off, but unless the viewer is into speculation, this idea is never really revealed which leads to one guessing why her character is so central to the film's plot. Also disconcerting is how effortlessly the scenes wander between Carmel, Calif. and Los Angeles. The film's geography apparently has the two locales next door to one another, but they're not. The action moves too conveniently between them. And when Oakes and Caron end up with an inoperable vehicle yards from the Pacific Ocean under Big Sur's famed Bixby Creek Bridge after appearing to only have pulled off a main highway and onto a dirt road the night before, it appeared as if the producers wanted to get some grand photogenic shot near the end of this floundering mess. For whatever reason, too little too late. Nitpicking, yes, but I'm trying to find something worthy to write about what could have been a very good flick with just a little more pertinent exposition, and if I could, I would have had another joyous detective movie from the glorious '70s to chew on and enjoy.

Not to be confused with the works of Raymond Chandler

[sol1218 · 4/10 · 4 July 2013]

***SPOILERS*** Despite the movies high production values, wide-screen and location filming as well as off color language, "Chandler" comes across as a badly made for TV movie on a non major network TV station at 4:00 o'clock in the morning. First there's private detective Chandler, no first name necessary, himself. A boozing and at times helpless drunk who can't hold down a job to save his life being given the assignment by some shadowy contracted US government figures, no wonder the country is in such a mess, to see to it that Katherine Creighton is kept alive long enough in order to testify against her former lover mob boss John Melchior. Chaldner who's supposed to be undercover and unnoticed in his assigned task is all over the place in blowing his cover to the very annoyance of the person whom he's supposed to be protecting Katherine Creihton. Still she for reasons known only to herself and the movie screen writer not only puts up with the bumbling idiot but falls madly in love with the guy!

It seems that the US Government want's to get the goods on Melchior and replace him with their secret inside man Chuck Kincaid to run the Melchior's crime syndicate. And the way to rid Melchior is to get Katherine to testify against him in court about what she knows of his criminal activities; So far so good. But what absolutely makes no sense at all is why did the government hired a buffoon, who couldn't even hold down a job as a night watchman, like Chandler to do this very sensitive and secretive job for it! Despite his very unprofessional efforts Chandler does seem to get the job done and even gets the girl,Katherine, who he was out to protect from the mob. But by the time the movie finally ended no one, even the mob who had a hit out on her, seemed to care if she either lived or died.

P.S As for the actress who played Katherine Creighton the lovely Leslie Caron she, after seeing the final cut of the movie, sued the studio to get her name off the credits. The same goes for the co-writer and director of this turkey Paul Magwood who was just as unsuccessful. As for actor Warren Oates who played Chandler in the film film his film career wasn't at all damaged in being in the movie since as he expected, Oates must have known just how bad it was, almost no one saw the movie "Chandler" anyway to even know that he was in it.

" If you can forgive my abruptness, I can forgive your lack of Interest "

[thinker1691 · 2/10 · 27 October 2009]

In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **

Once I was decisive, maybe

[tieman64 · 22 March 2013]

Before "Chinatown" (1974) and Robert Altman's "The Long Goodbye" (1973) was Paul Magwood's "Chandler" (1971), also a neo-noir which pines for an age long gone.

And so a stone-faced Warren Oates stars as Chandler, a private detective modelled on Raymond Chandler's iconic gum-shoe, Philip Marlowe. But like Altman's incarnation of Marlowe, Chandler is a man perpetually caught out of his own time. A relic of the inter-war years, he finds himself trapped in the late 1960s and constantly bemoaned for his supposed incompetence, outdated values, attachments, old cars and old suits. His case? Protect a woman played by Leslie Caron. The problem? Various bad guys have other plans.

"Chandler" is a poor film whenever it's trying to tell a story. The film does contain, however, a number very good, languid scenes in which Oates and Caron simply share space, share regrets and wistfully long for simpler times. These scenes equal similar scenes in Altman's film. The rest of "Chandler", however, is inept, complete with generic plot and cartoon villains.

Upon release, Paul Magwood took out a newspaper advertisement apologising for the film. "Chandler", he says, was re-cut behind his back, producers and studio chiefs finding his original film far too confusing. Some say the film was ahead of its time, ironic, considering Oates' Chandler is always behind the times.

7/10 – Worth one viewing.

To paraphrase Warren himself: "This won't do"

[askmonroville · 1/10 · 2 September 2015]

I recently watched this during TCM's celebration of Warren Oates and I can't say I cared for it. Now according to the trivia, the movie was re-edited to make it easier for the audiences to follow.. and if that is the case, it shows.

Warren Oates plays a security guard bored with his profession, and takes no time to punch himself off the clock. Lucky for him, he has some higher up call upon him to track down a woman and keep an eye on her (and lucky for us, the bad guys of the piece spell out the plot for the audience beforehand).

The movie has two problems: the story itself is still pretty muddled for something so straightforward, and the technical aspects are pretty horrible.

Story wise, all Chandler (Oates) has to do is keep an eye on Katherine (Leslie Caron), which doesn't take much effort at all. Now rather than just being honest with her (I'm being payed to protect you) or finding some clever way of ingratiating himself with her, he just kind of creeps around her until she just breaks down and allows him to tag along. I know I'm supposed to believe she's falling for the lunk, but it's only because the script says so, not because there is any plausibility in it. Add a villain (if you can even call him that) that is only in a third of the movie, as well as some equally ambivalent "good" guys (who really aren't)... and you have a movie where Scatman Crothers has all of 2 scenes that have no importance to the plot, and the wonderful Mitchell Ryan who doesn't have much to do other than be punched around and shot at when required. When you finally reach the end where the "climax" happens, you have to wonder why the bad guys just didn't do what they do at the beginning of the movie, as all of the stuff with Chandler had no pertinence to what they do.

Technically, the movie is a mess. The editing is alright, in that you can basically tell what is happening (as opposed to some of the Avid fart high jinks of Michael Bay), but the editing is terrible when it comes to how the story is crafted. For example: Chandler and one of the government goons is having a conversation at a bar right after Katherine leaves their table to go to the restroom. One of the incompetent mob goons tries to pull Kat out (as the government goon mentions it while seeing it, and Chandler says "she can take care of herself", despite having rescued her from the same guy just 10 minutes earlier in this movie's idea of an "exciting car chase") and she knees him in the groin. While Chandler and the goon are still discussing, Mitchell Ryan finally shows up and leaves with her. Edit to Chandler in bed, and Kat coming in through the door in a silk dress/negligee. Did they sleep together? Where did she come from? Wasn't she with Mitchell? How did she know where he was? Next thing you know she's talking about someone being dead.. takes him to the house where the body "was", as it is no longer there... and I am thinking "What in the hell is going on?" Who is dead and why should I care? Add onto that the most inappropriate 70's horn selected soundtrack that tries to turn the mere act of walking into a dramatic action scene (that teeters on making the scene ludicrous like THE BLUES BROTHERS) and.. well... there is a reason this movie was forgotten.

I don't know.. maybe if you go into this watching it as a parody of hard boiled detective movies you might get a chuckle or two out of it.

Philip Marlowe it ain't

[SnoopyStyle · 2/10 · 25 August 2015]

Raymond Chandler (Warren Oates) quits his security job. Corrupt government official Ross J. Carmady is looking to take control of gangleader John Melchior. Bernie Oakman offers old acquaintance Chandler as a patsy and hires him to protect government witness Katherine Creighton from Melchior without telling her. He befriends her and rescues her from kidnappers.

The name seems to be there to confuse fans of Raymond Chandler who created hard-boiled private eye Philip Marlowe. Chandler is world-wearied but sadly he's lifeless. The movie has nothing. The directions are stiff and without style. It's a sad tired effort. Everybody seems to be moving at half speed. Its production problems are the least of the deficiencies. Carmady's plans are not explained well. The shooting style is horribly stiff. Warren Oates looks uncomfortably small. The story is slower than molasses. Even the car chase is badly done. This is amateur hour.

Interesting total failure

[sensofwndr · 2/10 · 15 December 2009]

The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."

It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.

I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[jonjmcurry · 1/10 · 9 August 2009]

I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.

Well-Cast Seventies Neo-Noir Has Its Moments, But Not Enough

[dtb · 6/10 · 13 September 2009]

"That's Chandler, C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R, as in Raymond," Warren Oates snaps in the title role, as if to make sure less detective-fiction-savvy viewers don't miss the literary connection. Since MGM released CHANDLER in 1971 when youth-oriented films were raking in big bucks at the box office, I guess they wanted to make sure the kids could dig it. :-)

However, the ever-capable Oates isn't playing hard-boiled mystery writer Raymond Chandler in this brooding neo-noir. This Chandler's the laconic type, likely to reply with a terse "Sure" or, in a tender moment, "You'll do." When we meet him, he's a department store security guard with a surly puss and another guard dressing him down a la ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE (which featured CHANDLER'S Mitchell Ryan among the cast, BTW). You don't have to be Philip Marlowe to figure out our protagonist can't be square-pegged into a rent-a-cop gig. I cheered when he walked out in the middle of his dreary shift and drove away in his 1940s landboat.

At first, CHANDLER shows promise with our back-in-business hero hobnobbing with fine character actors and stars from the golden age of film noir. Gravel-voiced Charles McGraw, so memorable in tough-guy roles in THE NARROW MARGIN and others, has an assignment for Chandler (with my fave bit of CHANDLER dialogue: "Chandler! You're alive! I got a job for ya."). As the main villain, Alex Dreier does a creditable Sydney Greenstreet update. Leslie Caron, still gorgeous at 40 (and why shouldn't she be?), plays Katherine Creighton, the wary, mysterious witness Chandler's been assigned to protect. (During a car chase, Caron shows off her fabulous legs as she launches herself out of a bad guy's speeding cab.) In an early scene, Gloria Grahame, still gorgeous at 48 (and why shouldn't she be?), only has maybe five minutes of screen time but, to borrow a line from Spencer Tracy, what's there is "cherce."

Directed by first-timer Paul Magwood and written by Magwood and John Sacret Young, CHANDLER was clearly conceived with its world-weary heart in the right place. Between the movie's dull bits, it shows glimmers of neo-noir promise as Chandler refuses to let Katherine become a victim or himself become the villains' fall guy, struggling against a world that's passing him by. There are several nice scenes and brushstrokes along the way where the filmmakers' true gritty yet noble ambitions shine through. The juxtaposition of then-modern surroundings and 1940s cars gives CHANDLER -- both the film and the character -- an intriguing unstuck-in-time feel and a bittersweet air. L.A.'s more retro-looking locations set the tone well, especially coastal Monterey, Olvera Street, and Union Station, including a train with an observation car so lovely it made my mouth water.

I loved one scene near the end in which Chandler and Katherine find themselves lost at night in the fog after ditching the bad guys. They allow themselves to enjoy this quiet moment, and it almost gives Katherine the air of a storybook heroine, with Chandler as her devoted hero. As a screen couple, Oates and Caron may not make viewers forget Bogart and Bacall, but as CHANDLER goes along, they develop a poignant kind of chemistry, as if they've realized -- maybe too late -- that for all their differences, somehow they're kindred spirits.

The film has the occasional bit of wry humor, like when the case brings Chandler face to face with a prim administrative assistant (Marianne McAndrew). "What can I do for you, angel?" Chandler says, like any good classic private eye. She looks surprised. "How did you know my name is Angel? Angel Carter." I also liked the bit where a jittery Katherine pulls a gun on Chandler, thinking he's the assassin after her. Unfazed, he responds, "Oh. Guns," faking a big yawn and getting a laugh out of Katherine in spite of herself.

Unfortunately, you may find yourself yawning for real as the film's pace drags. Its weaknesses all too often overpower its strengths, not unlike Chandler himself. The actors' attempts to sound hard-boiled sometimes make them sound simply cranky or weary (and I don't mean world-weary). In some scenes, the dialogue is nearly drowned out by background noise. The plot makes increasingly less sense as the flick goes along. I couldn't even tell for sure whether or not Chandler had survived the climactic beach showdown! Perhaps because of sloppy post-production editing, CHANDLER stops making sense as the continuity goes nuts, like in a forest scene where our hero and heroine find themselves in a rainstorm that stops as mysteriously as it started; in fact, at one point it actually seems to be raining on one side of the screen but not the other!

I kept getting the feeling the movie had been tampered with, and I was right; MGM senior executive James Aubrey, Jr. sensed trouble and had the film recut, leaving scenes with Royal Dano and James Sikking on the cutting room floor (their names still appear in the credits, though). The film's score was going to have a 1940s sound, but was changed at the last minute to a score by George Romanis that wouldn't have been out of place in a TV crime drama. (As if to make up for it, every so often the recurring theme sounds pleasantly bluesy.) For more details, check out the CHANDLER article on the TCM Web site. Fun Fact: According to the IMDb, Caron had been married at various times to Magwood and to the film's producer Michael S. Laughlin -- such a vixen! :-) Also, a pre-STAR WARS Gary Kurtz is credited as the film's associate producer. Anyway, if you're interested in checking out CHANDLER for yourself and deciding whether or not it's really an underrated gem, it'll be on TCM again on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 9:30 P.M. during their month-long tribute to Leslie Caron. I'd say it's worth at least one look for neo-noir completists.

A Wretched Movie

[ccbc · 1/10 · 1 September 2015]

There is nothing to recommend this turkey. I like Warren Oates but even he can't enliven the terrible dialogue, rotten script, stupid editing, and the horrid, horrid soundtrack. Plot? Oh, something about somebody wanting to kidnap Leslie Caron, or kill her, or something. But it's all a ruse to set up another guy who works for the organized crime syndicate that's run by the government. Something like that. Stay away. Especially if you like Warren Oates; you don't want to remember him this way. One thing that's of interest: listening for Gordon Pinsent's Newfoundland accent. But you don't want to remember Pinsent this way, either.

Oates is great

[quincey-2 · 8/10 · 6 October 1999]

Warren Oates was one of the most valuable character actors of >his day and is always a pleasure to watch. In "Chandler" he >plays a private detective who is not quite clever enough for the >predicament he finds himself in. The plot is clever and the >relationship between Oates and Caron is off-b

Picture a chess set in which a couple of the pawns . . .

[oscaralbert · 6/10 · 18 February 2021]

. . . fall in love, and decide to go their own way--no matter how much the middle men such as knights, bishops and rooks protest. As crazy as that sounds, it's the actual plot of CHANDLER. The title character is one of the pawns in question, a disillusioned working stiff ready to drop out of the checkerboard rat race even before bumping into another jaded pawn to whom he takes a shine. After the unseen kings and queens shove these malcontent.ed "Little People" together, the rogue pawns spend the rest of the game flaunting the rules, moving hither and yon every which way, whether on the board or off. Several pieces are lost in attrition, while the pawns are enjoying their last laugh or gasp.

Paralyzing and Feeble

[LeonLouisRicci · 3/10 · 4 July 2013]

Of all the 1970's attempts at reviving Film-Noir this is by far the worst. The other Neo-Noirs are far superior and each have an appeal that goes far beyond a gallant effort. This one had rumblings of Studio meddling and was disowned by its Creators.

But that seems to be an attempt at apologizing for their own failures. Because it is doubtful that anything shot assembled in any order and no matter what Score was used, this is a giant misstep of the first order.

The incoherent Plot and the paralyzing dull Dialog are unforgiving. There are feeble tries at some Pulp Fiction one liners and cynical sayings but it is just uninspired and unwelcome. it is ironically a cross-era example of a style out of time. The Gumshoe icon of the Forties and Fifties seems unable to make the time transfer when it is up to mediocre Writers and Filmmakers.

There are other more worthy successes like The Long Goodbye (1973), Farewell My Lovely (1975), Chinatown (1974) and others that prove that the retro resurrection can work and it is those Films that made it possible for the Neo-Noir Genre to flourish to this day.

Good ain't the word

[siggemannen-374-783473 · 2/10 · 7 August 2022]

This movie is seldom mentioned when people talk about neo noirs of the 70s, and it's not hard to understand why. Despite having a certain femme fatale icon from the 40-50s, nothing good that can be said about "Chandler".

The main problem i have with this movie is that it's just too bland. The dialog isn't even clichéd, it's worse, something out of a townhouse conversation with your wife on a saturday afternoon.

The actors bumble around, probably aware of the turkey they had the luck to sign up for, the action peaces are alright but nothing you haven't seen anywhere else, and the twist, well, there is none.

Also, it's hard to understand what exactly the movie was aiming at, it's not a parody, nor some sort of intellectual analysis of the noirs or a political statement of the 70s America, it's definitely not an action flick either.

Perhaps that's the movie's big problem. Most other noirs are either send-off, parodies or deconstructions of their predecessors, while this one is a "NOIR" just filmed in the 70s. It makes the viewer judge the movie on it's own merits, and lacking any, it sinks, just like the Packard in The Big Sleep.

2/10 for two things, Gloria Grahame and the fact that probably someone was watching this and thought, hey, I could do better, and did.

Roaring 70's

[searchanddestroy-1 · 2 July 2023]

This private eye film is purely in the seventies mood, maybe more than KLUTE or THE LONG GOODBYE, produced the very same year. This one is really gloomy, slow paced, a pure product of this period. And Warren Oates contributes more than anything else in this atmosphere, because he was also the most iconic actor of this period, between late sixties and 1975, thanks mostly to Sam Peckinpah. He plays a terrific loser here, as he was in BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. The intrigue is worthless in terms of understanding, as any gumshoe plots, only spirit, atmosphere counts. A definitely underrated movie, the only one from this director.

Is this The Narrower Margin?

[david_weinstock · 4/10 · 26 November 2023]

The cast here is special but the story is less so. Charles Mc Graw just has a small bit here, but he was a principal in the first version, protecting a witness from the bad guys. Warren Oates, Walter Burke, Scotland Crothers, Richard Loo, and others add panache to the story. But, like in so many crime thrillers, they present a picture of an all powerful mob that controls just about everything they see, but their large organization can't get it together to prevent a washed up ex cop from Running Circles around them. Locating the story in Carmel is great for scenery hounds but the story was more compelling on the train.

TURD-key

[alfredpr-69611 · 1/10 · 3 July 2019]

This movie sucked on all cylinders, it was a disjointed boring mess that went nowhere. The true crime was that it never realizes the potential it had; decent cast (sans Oates) interesting premise and great locations.

Warren Oates was miscast as the lead, he looks unkempt and unwashed, he reminds me of John C. Holmes in his final days here. Oates just mails it in as his performance is detached and languid, Leslie Caron looks very uncomfortable and disingenuous in her role as well. The lead should have gone to a more competent actor like Joe Don Baker, someone with presence that could convey feelings and was at home in these bleak outings.

I recorded this on my DVR from a TCM 3 a.m. showing, it was relegated to that slot because it is a horrid dry movie. I quickly erased this waste after one viewing.

"Oh Chandler, Chandler, Tough Guys Can Get So Monotonous"

[theognis-80821 · 3/10 · 10 December 2023]

Some excellent actors are the only reason to watch this slow, dull film noir-inspired yarn about a tough private eye on the skids, (Warren Oates) hired by "the government" to protect a witness (Leslie Caron) threatened by "the association." Naturally, the gumshoe falls for the twist, giving us a romantic angle. Chandler has an excellent scientific knowledge of pressure points on the human body that can immediately disable any opponent and an endless supply of battered antique cars to get himself around. Some scenic LA locales are visited and a fine score by George Romanis keeps this pot aboil.

flawed but of period interest

[dmmsj0 · 6/10 · 28 November 2016]

This film has attracted ratings of both 1s and 10s-- let's avoid the hyperbole and aim for the middle. No doubt, some scenes are poorly staged, and there are narrative holes galore. However, Warren Oates and Leslie Caron (currently appearing on TV in _Durrells in Corfu_, about the famous novelist Lawrence Durrell and his naturalist brother in childhood) give nice performances. This film evokes that early '70s washed out, depressing era-- exactly what the film's eponymous author Raymond (referenced in the film) accomplished for the 1930s. Robert Altman more successfully evoked this era in _The Long Goodbye_, the best modern era film noir. _Chandler_ has value for its evocation of its era if not for its success as a film per se. I betcha this is one of Q. Tarantino's favs (it's similar to another of his '70s film favs, the TV show _Then Came Bronson_).

Tough guys can get so monotonous.

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 31 May 2023]

So says Leslie Caron in her last big lead, back at MGM 20 years after "An American in Paris", playing the femme fatale, the subject of private detective Warren Oates' search. He's Chandler, who like Cher only has one name. No relation to Raymond, but certainly very similar in many ways. Chandler has been hired by the government to secretly protect Caron from organized crime leaders as she's a key witness in a trial against them. But when she ends up in the wrong hands, it's his job to get her back.

Alex Dreier and Mitchell Ryan are the bad guys determined to get their hands on Caron, suave and well dressed, but with murderous intentions. It doesn't help Oates that he falls in love with Caron, more because he's not the type to show emotion. There's also 1969's big newcomer, Marianne McAndrew ("Hello, Dolly's" Irene Malloy), certainly no ribbons down her back, and cameos by Gloria Grahame (pointless) and Scatman Crothers (providing background on Oates), plus nice Southern California location scenery from a fun train ride. The film easily got lost during the shuffle of MGM backlot drama and disappeared, but I enjoyed it for its noir elements and fun, fast action.

7, but, on the low end

[Delrvich · 7/10 · 11 December 2019]

It was a good plot but with bad dialogue (eg "so 'the government' wants to take over 'the racket!'" or lines like that), some bad acting, and, unrealistic fight scenes - someone actually does a hurricanrana on Warren Oates. Even though a Warren Oates fan, the 70s scenery, character named Angel, vintage fashion, and cars kept me just barely watching. 7 stars for almost good, but had flaw. 8 stars for good - very good, 9 stars for good, tragic, but, moral to the story. 10 stars for good, uplifting, and moral to the story.