Too Late (I) (2015) User Reviews

Engaging if a bit overly ambitious

[otaking241 · 8/10 · 18 June 2015]

Decided to see this at the LA Film Fest for a chance at seeing John Hawkes in action. I was not familiar with writer/director Dennis Hauck but will keep an eye out for him in the future--I think he shows a lot of promise.

"Too Late" is an ambitious contemporary film noir in five non-sequential acts, each of which is shot in a single take. As far as directorial "tricks" go this is one of my favorites, and Haucks executes it very well, without sacrificing movement or dynamism in the scenes. One unexpected result is that you are aware of the camera more than in most films, especially where the varied lighting, extremely long zooms and tough focal situations really make you feel the mechanical limitations of the camera and 35mm film. Whether this is intentional or not it's a nice nod to what is becoming a dying format.

The plot itself is fairly well represented in the genre: a beautiful woman (self-referenced as a "stripper with a heart of gold") calls for help from a private eye (Hawkes) and is subsequently murdered. This film spares us the investigative aspect of the ensuing drama and instead focuses on the emotional response of the characters. The following acts show us the aftermath, fill out the backstory, and finally provide some closure by revealing a plot twist that, while not entirely unpredictable, reframes the entire film in a very fresh and interesting way. Kudos to Haucks for the excellent ending, which is a trick that many miss but goes a long way towards creating a positive feeling about the film.

The acting is generally excellent, led by Hawkes who fill the grizzled gumshoe role admirably. He's a very self-effacing actor who follows the "less is more" philosophy, and delivers his character convincingly even when it's clear the dialogue is getting a bit carried away. Also notable is Dichen Lachman, who has continued to up her game and is becoming an actor worth following.

If I have any complaint about the film it's that Haucks seems to be emulating Tarantino a bit too closely, especially in the writing department. I think it's a fine idea to do a Pulp Fiction-style take on the noir genre, but I could do with less of the long-winded, dense, occasionally incomprehensible dialogue that's packed with more external references than a Joyce novel. A few too many eye-roll-inducing lines take a bit of the shine of what is an otherwise very enjoyable film, but it is well worth seeing nonetheless.

Too Late gets swallowed by its impressive gimmick

[JimD73 · 6/10 · 11 December 2016]

Too Late is halfway decent noir story anchored by a more than decent lead, but it lets itself get swallowed by its gimmicks. The movie is presented as a series of five twenty-odd minute one-take shots, with mixed results. The opening segment has some neat tricks behind it, including getting star John Hawkes from one end of town to another while maintaining action at a fixed point, and the reveals in the last are effective. But not all of the actors are up to the task, and the reliance on the one-take structure don't do them any favours; many of the scenes in the second section, in particular, have a student-play vibe to them, despite the presence of known names like Robert Forster and Jeff Fahey (Dichen Lachman, however, acquits herself well as a twist on the no-nonsense stripper trope). The nonlinear structure also feels like an afterthought to add some unnecessary extra novelty. The sidebars the movie somehow finds time for don't always work, such as a pair of minor drug dealers with no real purpose other than to pad out the takes and the film's annoying insistence on using film itself as a source of dialogue far too often. If it lost its gimmicks and shed a bit of fat, Too Late has the bones of a good gumshoe flick, albeit one a bit too reliant on stuffing women in refrigerators.

Everything is too late

[muraisachiko · 8/10 · 1 October 2018]

Once of best films in recent years. Sensitive. Great acting of John Hawkes.

Neo-Noir, Neo-Bogey, Nice.

[JohnDeSando · 22 April 2016]

"I didn't know I was doing film noir, I thought they were detective stories with low lighting!" Marie Windsor

I have a neo-noir you can't refuse: Too Late. For a title vibrating with despair like that of The Big Sleep, In a Lonely Place, The Long Goodbye, and A Touch of Evil, Too Late reeks of a dark, desperate, disorienting world where a soulful and soulless private detective named Mel Sampson (John Hawkes) searches for meaning among L. A.'s damned passengers. Many of those souls are dames, femme fatals if you will, beautiful in a cheap way but deeper emotionally than you'd expect and fraught with danger for anyone who cares about them.

Shot in 35 mm Techniscope or 2-perf with five 20-minute uncut chapters, Too Late is bound to be a classic take on the detective genre memorable for such hard-boiled shamuses as Philip Marlowe and Sam Spade. References to directors like Alan Rudolph and Robert Altman, not to mention Quentin Tarantino, certify first-time feature writer and director Dennis Hauck's goal to participate in the pleasantly depressive genre.

Tired detective Sampson searches for a pretty young stripper, Dorothy (Crystal Reed). And eventually her murderer, now and then showing his long hair and strength but just as vulnerable as his biblical name suggests. As for her, well, dare I speculate she was searching for some rainbow's end? She was witty and vulnerable, "lost" in Elysian Park's Radio Hill of Los Angeles while encountering two drug-dealing thugs (Dash Mihok, Rider Strong) and a garrulous park ranger (Brett Jacobsen), all of whom could have as easily played in Pulp Fiction given their penchant for witty talk laced with cinematic references.

Just as memorable and just as noir-naughty are Robert Forster's wealthy strip-club owner, Gordy Lyons; his dangerously desperate wife, Janet (Vail Bloom); and Dorothy's former stripper grandmother, played by Joanna Cassidy, who appeared in the cult classic Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, referenced here no doubt to geeks' glee.

Although I've not mentioned much plot in this review, you get the idea that various fringey L. A. lost-soul types are the interest in this noir homage, at least to my nostalgic, crime-porned, cinema-drenched sensibility.

"One difference between film noir and more straightforward crime pictures is that noir is more open to human flaws and likes to embed them in twisty plot lines." Roger Ebert.

An excellent piece of cinema art work.

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 10 April 2016]

It was an amazing experience.

It's a narrative told in a very nonlinear style. The first thing I thought of was Tarantino, but it's very not Tarantino, as it's not heavy on Trivial dialog, it's very to the point and counts on the emotion of these well designed characters.

characters well done that come alive with great actors. Lead by John Hawkes the actors all had amazing chemistry with each other. I was surprised by how many actors I actually knew on this small film. Like Rider Strong from Boy meets World and Robert Forester, to name just two.

It's really worth it to catch it on a screen showing it in 35mm. The camera work and the cinematography add so much to the personality of the film.

Pure enjoyment, highly recommended.

Interesting for those who like films

[simonwallis · 7/10 · 5 October 2018]

Low budget indie films are something of a treasure,and this one is most definitely worth a watch. Moving from one time frame to another isn't a new trick but it's done rather well here. There's a reveal very near the end which explains a lot. John Hawkes will probably never be a Hollywood A lister,but what he always gives is an A list performance.. the dialogue during the scenes can seem a little forced at times,maybe with the reveal at end it makes more sense. The final scene shot is not the end of the story,with the switching back and forth over a 3 year period(tho most happens over 3-4 days) you can lose track,which again clicks into place at the end. Quite a clever indie film,I enjoyed it

Hidden Gem

[dabigpuma · 9/10 · 10 December 2018]

Wow,I really enjoyed this movie!! How has this gone virtually unnoticed? The dialogue is great and funny. So much style! Long takes make for real world feal. Crazy gritty flawed characters. Plenty of shocking twists. Soundtrack is very good and adds meaning to the scenes. This is the best movie i have seen in quite a while.

The Ugly Duckling Becomes a Swan

[biowonk · 7/10 · 18 October 2020]

This movie is shown as five episodes out of sequence, with a stunning twist at the end. Its style is an homage to the old fashioned crime noir genre, and while tiresome in spots, is well done overall. The characters and action seen at the beginning can give the impression that this is a marginal, unimportant piece, but it is really a work of art that must be seen from beginning to end.

If anything, this shows that a well-directed, well-scripted movie can even use low-life characters who are grade-school dropouts, who go through life pretending their inconsequential lives have meaning and importance, to produce a good film. The script elevates the usual stereotypes and trite conversation above the morass of every-day life, although some moments admittedly last too long.

Unless you see the film from beginning to end, even through the long annoying parts, you will not be able to fully appreciate how beautifully crafted this movie really is.

Witty, Smart, and Excellent Acting

[twelve-house-books · 10/10 · 16 February 2019]

This is the L. A. I remember. This is also Raymond Chandler updated for the 21st Century. This is salvation for the stripper, and powerful women, and good-hearted people in a world full of sin. Don't miss this one if you like crime and/or Neo-Noir.

A fun throwback

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 7 April 2016]

Greetings again from the darkness. The first feature film from writer/director Dennis Hauck has a number of elements that are appealing to movie lovers on the lookout for something a bit outside the box. It's the type of film that would be a festival favorite, as it provides no shortage of "talking points" for discussion afterwards.

Of course, casting John Hawkes is always a good start. Here he plays a Private Investigator named Sampson. The story is presented in 5 segments – each filmed in one extended shot. Oh, and it's not presented in sequential order, so some assembly is required. The real end to the story is not the same as the ending of the movie, and the beginning of the story is actually in the middle of the movie. Confused yet? Well a loss of equilibrium is what makes this one so much fun to watch. Characters and story lines are intertwined - some accidentally, some secretly, and some surprisingly.

Hawkes appears in each of the five segments, and sprinkled throughout you will find such recognizable faces as Robert Forster, Jeff Fahey, Natalie Zea, Joanna Cassidy, Crystal Reed, Dash Mihok, Rider Strong, Vail Bloom, Sydney Tamilia Poitier and singer Sally Jaye. A strip club, the Hollywood hills, a Park Ranger, a suicide, and multiple murders all are key pieces to the puzzle … and none are presented exactly as we would expect.

With an unpolished 1970's look and feel, the film offers a touch of Tarantino (including some of the actors who have worked with him), but mostly the vibe is refreshingly throwback. Even the music … Joe Tex, Cowboy Junkies, etc … is a bit offbeat, and of course, any movie that references Genevieve Bujold and Choose Me deserves a special place in my heart. It may not be the typically structured PI murder mystery that we have come to expect, but an unusual approach and the performance of Hawkes, makes this one to see.

Gumshoe genre jigsaw in sumptuous filmstock conceit = for cinephiles only?

[Bofsensai · 5/10 · 24 October 2016]

Since so few reviews on this, and I had been fortunate to get the chance to see it shown, thought I should add another: as I understand that the director, Dennis Hauk having made it in now becoming so rare 'celluloid' filmstock (at 35 mm, too), also 'directed' it should only be released and shown in circumstances that would do it justice i.e. only at theatres that can still project film, and not appear in any digital - homes' use DVD etc – format: so for that alone, for any cinephile, cinema fan, it should be sought out.

And indeed, by which to savour a rapidly becoming bygone experience, that of the rich colours and softer visual tones that original filmstock undoubtedly allows for – close up, big screen skin tones, especially – beauty, as of 'main' (?) actress, Crystal Reed, but plus including all their imperfections too, viz grizzled Robert Forster: .. and not only that, but delivered through another cinematic speciality, in that it unfolds in five continuous standard reel lengths (c.20 minutes) each (as like Hitchcock's famous attempt in 'Rope'); these all self contained vignettes of a whole, which you must slot together in the right order to get the plot line: but perhaps it is for these technicalities alone that is all this film really has to offer, to stand out worth a watch: in that being not, I would argue as others have (carelessly?) assessed, a film noir (which, come on, just has to be in even older traditional black and white? - whereas this is sumptuous colour) but is actually, of the 'gumshoe' genre. In which respect, lead player John Hawks turns in a superb suitably shabby performance.

But these conceits in effect restrict the format so much so that it soon becomes clearly - stiltedly so in some dialogue exchanges, and despite, admittedly impressive fluid camera movements - so theatrical in parts, since although the camera can move about within its 20 minute (2000 feet) of film allowance, still the actors have to deliver their lines correctly to ensure the take is not ruined of course, which results in the theatrical staid like (no second take) delivery in certain segments: yet, that should be the advantage of film over theatre: that the plot and lines unfolding can so be cut and edited up to more replicate a real life style.

In this respect, then some is just a little too obviously staged: e.g. the 'I'll just sit down and impromptu strum the guitar and sing' scene, where even a background violin player just happens to similarly impromptu accompany, are really only for the effect of 'wow didn't they choreograph that well?', I feel. On the other hand, another of these uninterrupted unspooling vignettes ends in an impressive shock scene (although you can see the set up telegraphed coming, half way through its 'reel') and another centred around a fast, if not already gone, disappearing into history drive in, showing a homage to film itself, in just incidentally involving how the huge horizontal reels used to be operated, is pleasing to see utilised.

Otherwise, to be honest, the conceit soon becomes too contrived, so much so to begin to (irritatingly?) distract you from what should be the engrossing story, not constantly being sidelined by intrusive clever cinematic camera direction, because you are in on the way it has been made. (Big kudos though to those steadicam operators!)

Then, as for the 'essential to the plot' reason dishabille of Vail Bloom portrayed, is (if undoubtedly insouciantly sexy) surely simply quite gratuitous! And for all the one continuous take bally ho, there is at the close, an obvious cut / edits – almost as though they had run out of time, manoeuvring to get across to the audience how it all fits together ..

Clever – very clever (and film stock soft attractive) – but ultimately, unarresting.

A hidden gem

[amarillis · 10/10 · 8 September 2020]

You know how you can tell you've watched an exceptional movie? You don't discuss it right after watching it, but the next day you and your partner are talking over each other as you describe scenes, characters, direction.

"Too Late" is such a film. A tightly-scripted work of character-driven passion, it's one you'll want to watch over again. The settings are LA-typical -- but the conversations therein are crafted with precision. The casting is perfect, the actors fearless and beautifully collaborative. It has heart without any sap, violence without hormones.

Pay attention. You'll actually remember this movie.

Too weak

[pablovete · 6/10 · 4 June 2020]

Good attempt. The idea os sequences of 5 histories could be a great idea if the plot makes sense, but it doesn't Also a few actors made not a very good Job .:.. those stupid lines of the drug-dealers tryin' to make some kind of Tarantino's first works are just stupid

Could have worked... but it doesn't... even enjoyable and you can spend a good time watchin' but don't Forget " pop corns and chews"

Too Late has Too Much self-conscious photography, plot & dialogue

[Miles-10 · 5/10 · 25 November 2016]

This is a bad imitation of Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" complete with almost backward story order (something like scenes #2,#5,#1,#3,#6,#4), and it is weighed down by unlikely dialogue with too many self-references to cinematic conventions.

I was expecting more because so many people liked this movie, but the very things that some liked or that only slightly bruised the product for others, are major peeves for me. I did not care for the self- consciousness of the dialogue, plot or camera work.

The P.I. who learned his trade from a book is an annoying gimmick, as is the surveilling detective as a metaphor for guys stalking women.

I can only say in its favor that this movie has several good performances and gave work to some of my favorites including Robert Forster ("Jackie Brown") in cameo roles.

Labyrinth

[GManfred · 7 April 2016]

I really like Film Noir and "Too Late" tries to be one but falls short. I appreciate indie films because they avoid the usual Hollywood mainstream stuff and I cut them a lot of slack, but this picture doesn't help you out. It is disjointed and not well written but I think director Dennis Hauck is on to something.

This effort, however, tends to lose the viewer with time frame juxtaposition which is too clever by half. I had to work at it to sort out the sequence of events and I think I nearly caught up by the end of the picture. Add to this the scenario which often lapses into the surreal and some overwritten dialogue (Dashiel Hammett is safe), and the cake falls.

John Hawkes was good as the detective but has an emaciated look. He is a stretch to be a hard-boiled 'noir' hero, which is a minor objection, but I hope Hauck perseveres and refines his ideas. There is a need to counteract the current trend toward the populist dreck that shows up in the multiplexes nowadays.

Unnecessary nudity. Why was she not wearing pants?

[soelir · 6/10 · 30 November 2019]

I'm disappointed that this wasn't better. Perhaps if they hadn't faffed about with the long sequences and just filmed it regularly, it would have been. There was also absolutely no reason for one woman to be made to walk around with no pants on for ages. It added nothing to the story. That said, her story was brilliant. It would have been just as good if she had been wearing clothes, if not better. Maybe I'll appreciate this more on my second viewing and will come back to change the rating. It was good, the story was good, the main actor is excellent. I liked the colours and some of the shots were awesome. It was just a bit nauseating in parts with the camera moving about so much. And pants, man, women are allowed to wear pants!

A Real Hidden Gem.

[johnarmitage-97978 · 10/10 · 2 May 2020]

I'd heard about this film a few years ago. It had been compared to the early works of Tarantino. Whilst this is a compliment to the film, which is very, very good by the way, it has many other clear influences, especially in its characterisations. These are given time to fully form. Even those with the shortest screen time still make impact. This is one of those films that deserves more success, in terms of more people seeing it. You will not be disappointed.

Highly original tale with real characters

[prberg2 · 9/10 · 24 March 2016]

Hats off to this film and the team. Really an interesting tale and told in an unconventional way. Always nice to see movies which break the mold and challenge the audience. Hawkes is great and the rest of the cast is really strong. You can feel the flaws in these characters as they try to sort out the connections between them.

The film has an unique style which does aid in the storytelling and keeps the audience wanting more. Great chemistry between the actors and they really do tie the whole film together with their layered characters.

Enjoyed the texture of the 35mm film. While not the perfect digital imagery which has become commonplace... it's flaws give the gritty story an authenticity which matches it perfectly.

Really enjoyed it... highly recommended.

When new ideas don't work

[jaimegonzales210 · 3/10 · 29 May 2018]

I get that people like movies that are "different" or "artsy" but this is just different. And not the good kind. It is artsy the way a globe welded to a swan shaped piece of metal is artsy. That only means something to people who can find meaning in a globe welded to a swan shaped piece of metal. When I think of art I think of the Mona Lisa.

Memento was different and good. This isn't Memento, or anything like it. But it tries, so I guess nowadays it gets a trophy. The running dialogues are just weird, like watching reruns of NYPD Blue. People don't talk like that in real life, to each other or themselves.

Hint: You have to wait until the end of the movie to find out "things" that are not really explained. Except not, because it has different "endings" or maybe they are different parallel universes. Or maybe the guy is superhuman and survives each time he gets murdered. Or maybe he is crazy and is imagining everything.

Guess what? Who cares. No one. No one who watched this movie to the end cares because it made no sense and ended dumb. Ramen noodle soup cooling off is more entertaining and provides a return on the time investment.

I only watched it because some of the previous reviewers said it was good. As bad as it is it will never achieve the status of The Room. Now that was art, an unintentional concoction of things intended but never delivered.

Remarkiably effective effort from Someone To Watch (Dennis Hauck)

[UncleTantra · 8/10 · 30 December 2016]

I freely admit to having watched this film primarily because of Dichen Lachmann and Natalie Zea (who I'll see in anything), but it had a great deal more to offer than I was expecting.

Yes, Hauck steals freely from Quentin Tarantino when it comes to mixed-up timelines, and steals even more from the genre of L.A. Noir, but it has its own charms. It also has some really ballsy experiments, such as shooting each of the five acts in one single take (on 35mm film, which must have been a real bitch to pull off given the changing lighting conditions).

Good performances from a wide range of actors clearly pitching in and having a good time with a small Indie film in between better-paying gigs. Plus, there are some genuinely touching moments, the kind that make you (or at least made me) go back and re-watch a couple of early scenes at the end to see them at the end, after the context of them has been to some extent explained.

I like that the song "Down With Mary" has been short-listed for the Original Song Oscar this year. That shows that this film got more attention than might be expected for a supposed low-budget Indie flick. I look forward to Hauck's next effort.

an embarrassingly poor film

[agn-00764 · 2/10 · 27 May 2018]

Existing reviews have at least one thing right: the camera work is impressive: very long takes with no cuts. But in just about every other respect this movie is amateurish, treats women as in a cheap 1960s porn movie and features cringe-worthy writing. Amateurish to the hilt. A few very good actors cannot save the adolescent, self-conscious dialog. The bad actors don't help either. The estimable John Hawkes is a round peg in the square hole of this movie. We stopped watching after 40 minutes.

Appreciated best by fans of noir

[bdctunes · 8/10 · 6 August 2017]

Any movie about a PI that looks decent will be on my radar. I not particularly a fans a special effects and action either. Gratuitous dialog coming off the wall from unlikely quirky characters is Noir to the bone! There is even some comments about classic noir in the script, which is clearly a homage. My favorite Tarrantino is the dialog heavy early stuff, and I don't have any use for "Kill Bill" and some of his other forays. I love "True romance","Jackie Brown", and "Reservoir dogs". The fact that the dialog is unlikely coming from characters in such circumstances, makes things interesting and less predictable to me. The movie also has some impacting plot twists, which caught me by complete surprise. If you want action, this won't be your thing. If you're into noir, good chance you'll like this flick.

Beautifully directed

[patc-5 · 9/10 · 7 December 2016]

Definitely a modern film noir. John Hawkes is wonderfully gritty but there are 2 things that make this movie a real pleasure to watch. 1. The women. So many beautiful women. Crystal Reed is hauntingly beautiful but all the women are lovely. As a movie buff I have become aware of how much a director can influence the on screen presence of a women. Dennis Hauck is a master. All of the women even in very rough scenes are incredibly enticing. This is about understanding the natural beauty of the women and then working with makeup, lighting and angles to make scenes where the camera 'loves' the women. 2. The pure artistry of the camera work. Watch the angles. The colors . This is the director and the DP creating art.

Watch and enjoy.

The glowing reviews are truly baffling

[jake_fantom · 2/10 · 21 May 2018]

I love film noir and I like indie films, but I found very little to like in this one. For starters, the film is shot in chapters, and each 15-minute chapter (they seem much longer than that, trust me) is a single unbroken hand-held shot. Why? you ask. Absolutely no idea. But the result of this gratuitous construct is that each conversation (and the movie is mostly endless conversation) involves the handheld camera panning from one speaker to the next speaker and back again, over and over and over again. This contributes to a growing sense of vertigo in the viewer as the film progresses. And in the unlikely event that you can get past that, then you've got the script to deal with - an absolutely preposterous and nonsensical hodge-podge of secret identities and hidden relationships that makes not one iota of sense. Mr. Hawkes seems to have cut out a career for himself playing essentially sleaze-bag end-of-the-line private investigators: he recently reprised almost the identical role in another awful film called Small Town Crime. He and some of the other actors are competent, but there is simply nothing to be done with a script this inept.

All the right stuff in the right amounts! Surprising indie film!

[musicmeanu · 9/10 · 3 March 2019]

From the opening lines I knew I was going to like this movie. I thought the dialogue was on point with a good blend of wry humor and dead seriousness. Although the film was obviously an indie, low budget, the quality was never a factor. The script, acting, sequence, and visuals flowed well from beginning to end. This is a hidden gem that is great the first time and better if you watch it again! I feel for the people who gave up on this one!