Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Confess, Fletch (2022) a (almost right on time!) review

The character of I. M. Fletcher, ie “Fletch” first appeared in the 1974 novel by Gregory MacDonald of the same name and was sucessful enough to span plenty of novel sequels and prequels (you can read more about the books here). In 1985 Chevy Chase appeared in a film version of the first novel, also titled Fletch…

The movie did well enough that a sequel, Fletch Lives, also starring Chevy Chase, was released in 1989. While many hold the original film in high esteem, there was, IMHO, a pretty big drop off in quality with Fletch Lives, which I felt was a far sillier film than the first.

Anyway and regardless, people have fond memories of the books and/or the movies and for years I kept reading here and there that another Fletch film would be made. For a while, it was Kevin Smith (Clerks) who was tied to such a film and, if memory serves, Ben Affleck taking the role in a new movie was talked about.

It never materialized.

However, this year I was surprised to see the release of Confess, Fletch, featuring Jon Hamm in the titular role and directed by Greg Mottola (Adventureland, Superbad)…

Seeing as we’re still in the process of emerging from the COVID pandemic, movies releases are still scattershot, with some films simultaneously appearing in theaters and streaming/VOD at the same time and, in the case of Confess, Fletch, it appeared the same happened. I caught the film using the VOD system for VUDU because I heard good things about it and was a fan of that original Chevy Chase film and thought the idea of Jon Hamm taking on the titular role might prove good.

So… was it?

Here’s the thing: There are films that are good. There are films that are bad. There are also films that are perfectly fine yet don’t necessarily blow you over.

I’d place Confess, Fletch squarely in that category.

There is nothing at all wrong with the film. It’s well acted, has some good laughs, and the mystery is decent if not on the level of, say, an Agatha Christie.

However, it is also a film that seems to reach a certain level of quality and remains there throughout the runtime. There are no big shocks or surprises and, perhaps the film’s biggest “sin”, there is no really spectacular climax.

I mention this in particular because I feel the most successful films have that going for them: They start at zero and gradually -or perhaps not so gradually!- move up and up. The climax of the best films should be where the suspense or horror or comedy should be at its highest and the resolution should leave audiences pleased to have spent their time watching the film.

Alas, Confess, Fletch never quite reaches that point. Again, the film is perfectly fine through its runtime. I very much recommend it!

But I can’t come out and say the film was spectacular or a “must see”. It unfortunately never hits that second or third gear in its climax, instead flowing at a regular pace through its end.

Jon Hamm makes for a good but very different from Chevy Chase version of Fletch. He’s not quite as comedic as Chevy Chase’s version and there’s less of a sense that we’re watching a comedic movie. Further to that, an effort is made to “modernize” the character into this day and era where journalism isn’t quite what it used to be. It is also my understanding Jon Hamm used some of his salary for this role to pay to complete the film and I think that’s incredibly admirable.

Again, the bottom line is that I would recommend the film but caution people to not expect incredible fireworks here. The film is a pleasant time killer and enjoyable as is, but not necessarily a film of the ages… then again, how many are?

Recommended with that caveat!

Movies

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) a (abracadabra… mildly belated you are!) review

Been flying around and this film was available to be seen on my way back home. I’m a fan of director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, Army of Darkness, Darkman, etc.) though of late not such a huge fan of the MCU films out there (a shame, truly… while I wouldn’t say the films are “bad”, I find the scripts/storylines tend to blur into each other and carry fewer and fewer surprises. Still, I wish I could like them like others!).

Anyway, with Raimi involved, I was curious as to how this film would turn out.

…so…

It wasn’t bad at all!

Having said that, it felt like it could’a been so much more. Here’s the movie’s trailer though for those who haven’t seen the film and know nothing about it, it might be better not to see it and I’ll explain why in a second:

My general burnout toward the Marvel films goes back to the one-two punch release of Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Dr. Strange film, both of which I felt were lacking story-wise (in the case of GoTG, I genuinely don’t understand what others saw in that film… I really didn’t like it at all!).

As with all film, though, I tried to wipe any preconceptions from my mind and sat back and watched the film and, as I said, I generally enjoyed it.

The story focuses on America Chavez, a young latina who has the ability to move through the “multi-verse”. As the movie opens, she and an alternate universe Dr. Strange are running for their lives from someone/something that wants to take America’s power from her.

The end result of this chase has America appear in “our” Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) universe, where he is dealing with romantic heartbreak (his superheroics cause him to lose his love to another).

Once America shows up, though, that is set aside and Dr. Strange fights off the creatures who are following America through the universes and trying to steal her power… which will result, of course, in her death.

Dr. Strange and Wong rebuff the attack and hide America away. Then, Dr. Strange sets out to find the source of this danger to the young girl, and finds it to be coming from a surprising character in the MCU.

The above trailer, unfortunately, hints strongly as to who the “villain” of this piece is and, going into the film, I kinda knew already as well and I’m sad that I did.

That should have been kept as a surprise!

Having said that, this is where the film both triumphs and, alas, fails a bit as well. As the movie went along, I couldn’t help but feel that Sam Raimi was being throttled down and held back in terms of what he wanted to show. I mean, this is the guy who went all out with the Evil Dead films and the thought of seeing him showing the vast, unvarnished darkness of the villain in this piece… it could have been something.

If he had been allowed to do so!

Still, the film is far from a disappointment. It worked for me much more than the previous Dr. Strange film and other Marvel works I’ve seen of late.

I can’t say it changed my opinion of the MCU films in general, though. They remain generally disposable entertainment, things you don’t think much of once you’ve seen them, though thankfully all the smarmy “jokey” dialogue was also held back quite a bit.

All in all, I recommend Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. It’s a fine time killer even if one can’t help but wonder what might have been… had Sam Raimi been given a more free hand!

Movies

Alien: The Director’s Cut (2003) a (chestbursting) review

Back in 2003 Fox Studios released on BluRay the Alien Quadrilogy, the four films (up to that point) in the Alien franchise. Included were Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), Alien 3 (1992), and Alien: Resurrection (1997).

However, to make the set truly a ”must buy” for fans, included were “Director’s” or ”Alternative” cuts of each of the four films. Thus, fans got to see David Fincher’s rough cut assembly of Alien 3 (his experience making the film was supposedly quite sour and he rejected the theatrical cut due to his many clashes with the studios. This rough cut assembly may be the closest we’ll have to Fincher’s original vision of the film) along with the version of Aliens which incorporates scenes cut from the Cameron film.

Perhaps the most curious extra feature was the ”Director’s Cut” of the original Alien…

Now, for those who read ”Director’s Cut” and think this is the preferred version of the film the Director (in this case, Ridley Scott) wanted, rid yourself of that notion right away.

The fact is the ”Director’s Cut” of Alien was purely made as a promo for the Alien Quadrilogy release. It boasts some alternate ”takes” of certain scenes but truly has the same story… only not as well told, IMHO, as it was in the theatrical cut.

In fact, Ridley Scott himself said the truest version of the film remains the theatrical cut and that this ”Director’s Cut” was an exercise/lark and nothing more.

In fact, I would go so far as to say there is really only one sequence worth checking out in this ”Director’s Cut” and that’s this one…

The scene is, IMHO, a potent one. We realize Dallas, the ship’s Captain, is not dead and, further to this, we get the whole mythology of the Alien creature spelled out. Specifically, how the creature procreates using “live” subjects.

So… why was the sequence cut from the theatrical version of Alien?

Timing, as it were.

The sequence occurs during the film’s climax, when (SPOILERS FOR THE VERY FEW WHO HAVEN’T SEEN THIS TERRIFIC FILM YET) Ripley is the last survivor and is running for her life. She’s quite literally set the ship on self-destruct and is running against the ticking time bomb.

Unfortunately, the cocoon sequence takes what is a thrilling, high tension sequence and quite literally slows it almost to a stop. We have Ripley walking slowly on, taking in the sight and processing what she’s seeing, then we realize we have Dallas still alive but obviously not well, then she kills him after he begs her to.

Again, great scene but it completely stopped the flow of the movie at that point and, IMHO, it was wise to remove it.

Is the “Director’s Cut” of Alien worth checking out?

I have to say, for the casual film goer I would stick with the theatrical cut and, if you’re curious, the bit I posted above. Watching the “Director’s Cut”, while intriguing, truthfully doesn’t add that much to the film’s experience. If anything, it shows Ridley Scott used the very best material he had and wisely chose to exclude what was a good scene because it simply didn’t work where it lay.

Therefore, recommended only to those who are fans of the film and want to see some more/alternate material.

Movies

The Batman (2022) a (almost right on Bat-time) review!

It’s something that was unthinkable only a few years ago: I’ve found myself getting tired of seeing all these superhero films being released.

Back when Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Dr. Strange movie were released in close proximity, I saw them and… I didn’t like either.

Something in me broke, to be honest, and while I have caught a Marvel movie here and there, I haven’t been seeking them out as I did before. Further, while I have the final two Avengers films, I haven’t found the time or inclination to see them. The last Marvel film I saw was Spider-Man: Far From Home and… I really didn’t like it much at all.

I’ve seen many of the DC hero films but have a few I have that I haven’t watched either (Shazam! and Wonder Woman 84).

So maybe I’m getting a little burnt out, as I said above, with the genre yet when The Batman was in production and once it was released, I was curious to catch it. Then I heard it was 3… hours… long... and I just couldn’t see myself going into a theater and sitting there for that long, regardless of how much I loved the character (he’s easily my favorite super hero).

Anyway, the film was released to theaters, did very well, then was released to HBO Max and, in the comfort of my house, I finally gave it a go. For those living in a cave, here’s the movie’s trailer:

The Batman features Robert Pattinson as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Andy Serkis as his reliable butler Alfred, Jeffrey Wright as Commissioner Gordon, Zoe Kravitz as Selena Kane/Catwoman, and, in a fascinating turn, Colin Farrell as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin.

Given the film’s length, I figured I’d see it over the course of two days, one day for one half, the other for the finale. But as it turned out, the film moves quite well and, despite my fears, never felt drawn out or too damn long.

The story features a mysterious new villain, The Riddler (Paul Dano), who has taken upon himself to kill very high level governmental officials in Gotham while drawing Batman into his mysterious and grim “game”.

Before the movie’s release, director Matt Reeves noted he wanted to show us a Batman who was a “detective” and in this case, I’m pleased to say he gives this to us. In the villain, we have a man who lays out a string of clues as to his future actions and victims and Batman is there, with his “right hand man” Commissioner Gordon trying to figure them out.

It is a very good film, certainly a higher tier comic book film, and the characters and setting are well done. If there is a criticism to level against The Batman it is what I wrote above: We’ve seen much of this before, whether it be in other superhero films -or specifically other recent Batman films- and video games. By virtue of this fact alone, it’s impossible to view The Batman as anything but another interpretation of the familiar character and his world.

Still, it’s a worthy trip to take because the film is so well made and, dare I say it, even if you feel more than a little tired of superhero films in general.

Recommended.

Movies, TV

Bruce Willis

For a few years now I’ve noticed rumors appearing on the internet about Bruce Willis’ health. Specifically, his mental health.

An “A” level actor whose films once topped the box office, of late he has been appearing in Video on Demand works where, further rumors had it, he would appear to film for one or two days of work at a staggering million dollars per day.

Many of these VOD films featured Bruce Willis in what amounted to cameo roles, often doing little but sitting at a bar or in a car or something similar, saying his lines and whatever “dialogue” with other actors was made up using film tricks, cuts and close ups and, often, the appearnace the other actors’ work was filmed later on, when Willis was long gone.

There were snickers about his “work” ethics, of Willis “phoning it in” and not giving a shit anymore. Of taking the money and running but now, with the news released yesterday of Mr. Willis suffering from aphasia and “stepping away” from acting (you can read the full article here, from CNN), the jokes have abruptly stopped and an outpouring of sympathy has followed.

Perhaps, some wonder, Mr. Willis was cashing in on those roles because he knew his mental deterioration meant he only had so much time left to build up a proper nest egg for his family. Others also noted the rumors and stories on Wilis being a (to put it politely) handful on sets was maybe a manifestation of the anger and confusion he had early on in the progression of his disease.

I suppose its all possible.

What I take away from this is the sad realization of just how frail a human body is, and how people who are “normal” can find themselves deteriorating and, ultimately, not being able to function as they once did.

Now that the news of his retirement from acting has come out, it seems more of the stories about Bruce Willis’ deterioration on sets is also coming out. The following article, by Ron Dicker and presented on Huffingtonpost.com, notes…

Bruce Willis Has Struggled On Set For Years, Co-Workers Say

Truly it is a sad thing to read and find out how at times Mr. Willis was confused and didn’t even seem to understand exactly what he was doing on certain sets.

More often than not I’ve enjoyed Mr. Willis’ acting. I first noticed him way, waaaaaayyyyy back in 1984 in the episode “No Exit” of Miami Vice. He played that episode’s (the 7th one aired during the first season of the show!) bad guy, and he was damn nasty in the role as a wife beating scumbag…

He would then get the co-starring role in the very popular TV show Moonlighting before moving on into films. His first couple of films, Blind Date (1987) and Sunset (1988), didn’t do all that well, but a little film named Die Hard (1988) was right around the corner.

I hope Mr. Willis’ sunset years will be peaceful and comfortable. It seems like he has a large and loving family and it feels like he’s hopefully in good hands.

I suppose that’s all anyone can hope for.

Movies

So… how about them 2022 Academy Awards…?

Of late, I’ve not taken much of an interest in watching the Academy Awards. Granted, because of COVID the last couple of years have been very strained regarding the awards and, for that matter, the release of films.

But last night’s awards… ho boy…

What’s left to say? Will Smith didn’t like Chris Rock’s joke and, frankly, I’m not in Smith’s shoes so I don’t know how badly that joke landed given what his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, has dealt with regarding her alopecea. Then again, there are those that are thinking -because Will Smith was shown laughing at the joke originally- that maybe Jada made some comment and got his goat up.

Chris Rock’s joke, that he couldn’t wait to see Jada in G. I. Jane 2, obviously referenced her baldness, which is in part due to that alopecea and…

…look, again, I’m not in Will Smith’s shoes. I would never condone violence and, it seemed later in the program when Will Smith actually won the freaking Academy Award, he was clearly having second thoughts about his outburst… though in all his blubbering and apologies, he didn’t apologize to, you know, the guy he hit.

I feel for Chris Rock, of course, the victim of the violence. His joke might have been inappropriate and even dumb/insulting, but come on… that’s all it was. A bad joke, I grant you. An insensitive joke, absolutely.

But still.

What should have been a great night for Will Smith, to win the Academy Award, was instead marred by this outburst. No charges were pressed by Chris Rock and, hopefully, the two will make their peace, though reports are the Academy Awards are going to investigate this situation.

I know there’s a sense of “the show must go on,” but perhaps in this case maybe it would have been better to get security there. Not to say Will Smith was capable of doing something worse, but who knows.

What a night.

POSTSCRIPT: Saw this on Reddit… the reactions of various stars…

r/wallstreetbets - My face after each time I buy the dip!

Ryan Gosling there at the end… man oh man…!

Movies

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) a (evil doppelgänger) review

It’s always interesting to see, over time, how certain movies which were once popular fade away in interest while others become better liked or even achieve a certain cult status. Big hits of yesterday sometimes receive far more critical second consideration while some which were at best modest successes receive second and third -and much more positive- looks.

So it is with the Phillip Kaufman (The Right Stuff, The Unbearable Lightness of Being) directed 1978 film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. This film, the first remake of the Don Siegel classic cold war paranoia film of the same name released in 1956 (there is at least one more, perhaps two other remakes which have followed, I do believe).

The plot is essentially the same as the original film: Space spores come to earth and, while people sleep, the spores create pods which replicate the sleeping individual while sucking their life-force from them. When all is done, what is left behind is a ”pod person” (I suppose that’s where the expression comes from, no?) who looks just like the original person, but who shows odd emotional displays and interacts with other ”pod people” to further the goal of replicating the people around them.

In the original film, the action was limited to a rather smallish American city, if memory serves (its been a very long time since I’ve seen that film, which means it may be time to give it another look!) while in this remake the story takes place in San Francisco, hardly a ”small” city even then!

Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) plays a lab tech who works for the city and who discovers a strange bud/flower she can’t quite identify in and around the parks she frequents. That night, while sleeping, her boyfriend has the bud in a glass of water on the nightstand beside the bed.

When Elizabeth wakes up, she finds her boyfriend already dressed and cleaning up broken glass and water from the rug… the bud she found has tumbled from the nightstand and her boyfriend is acting very oddly.

In work, Elizabeth tells Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) her co-worker and a health department head, the strangeness of her boyfriend’s actions. He suggests they go see Dr. David Kibner (Leonard Nimoy), a psychiatrist who is having a book release party that night and that he may help her with whatever is troubling her.

At the party they meet up with Jack Bellichec (a very early role for Jeff Goldblum) who is a frustrated poet who can’t seem to have the same success with his books as Kibner does and is agitated by this.

Dr. Kibner, Elizabeth finds, is dealing with a woman who claims her husband isn’t her husband but an impostor. Elizabeth clearly feels the same about her boyfriend and, afterwards, when talking to Dr. Kibner, he tells her there seems to be some kind of psychological virus going on and there are many people he’s seen who are talking about impostors around them.

I won’t get into too many more details about the plot and quickly offer a high recommendation to anyone interested in seeing this film. It has aged beautifully and is quite suspenseful and even shocking at times. The pace, I found, was also good and the acting by everyone strong.

Getting Leonard Nimoy, who at that time was probably so very typecast as Mr. Spock, to play the role of a psychiatrist was a stroke of genius. He came in with so many expectations and… well, I won’t get into SPOILERS as I said before.

What I liked the most about the film was the way it subverted certain expectations. Again, I don’t want to get into SPOILERS but I love the fate of Brooke Adams’ Elizabeth. It’s a shocker in the end. I love the way we never get a solid grasp on Donald Sutherland’s Matthew.

Is he, to put it bluntly, one of those bureaucratic pricks that seems to live to give others headaches? Our first brush with him it appears he’s just that, checking out a French restaurant and giving them a hard time because of a condiment he finds in their soup, which he claims is a rat turd and they say is a kaper.

Later on, when he returns to his office, Matthew gleefully says he will shut the restaurant down and, intriguingly, the movie never really tells us if Matthew was right or if he was just being a jerk.

The relationship between Matthew and Elizabeth is also presented in a naturalistic way and we’re never spoon fed all the full details. They are clearly very close friends and there does seem to be a spark between them but, for most of the film anyway, Matthew seems to be nothing more than a concerned friend and doesn’t force his way between Elizabeth and her boyfriend. Further, when things start to go sideways, this potentially irritating, possibly angry/petulant bureaucrat becomes a heroic figure and tries his best to not only save his friends, but also solve the mystery of the impostors and save humanity itself.

Yes, I wound up really loving the film even though when I first saw it many, many years ago I felt it was good but not necessarily terrific.

I’ve certainly changed my mind since then!

A very easy recommendation here. The 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers very much deserves its current re-evaluation and is a top tier suspense/horror film.

A couple of fascinating notes: Early in the film there’s a scene where a priest is on a swing. He glares at Elizabeth and looks really creepy. That priest is played by none other than Robert Duvall in a quite literally seconds long cameo without any dialogue! Later in the film, when Elizabeth and Matthew are being taken by taxi, the taxi driver is played by Don Siegel, the man who famously directed the original 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (and, more recently at that point, Dirty Harry!). Finally, there’s a brief sequence early in the film where a man pounds on Matthew’s car and yells almost incoherently about the threat the invaders pose. That man is played by Kevin McCarthy, who was Dr. Miles Bennell (as opposed to Matthew Bennell in this film), the protagonist of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Movies

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the 2021 Academy Award Movie nominees…

Stumbled on this while killing some time online and found it absolutely fascinating.

Sports superstar/writer/actor Kareem Abdul-Jabbar offers his take on the three films which seem the favorites to take the ”Best Picture” award for 2021 releases… and -SPOILERS- he finds them wanting…

The 3 Most Disappointing Films of 2021 Are Best Picture Nominees!

Not to spoil the article, but the three films he’s referring to are The Power of the Dog, Don’t Look Up, and Nightmare Alley.

Full disclosure: I have seen none of these films, though I had the opportunity, thanks to the various streaming services, to see the lot of ’em.

But what Abdul-Jabbar writes I find fascinating. Don’t Look Up certainly has its fans… and detractors, and the most common criticisms I found were reflected in what was written in Abdul-Jabbar’s article. I’m hot and cold on director Guillermo Del Toro and it seemed like Nightmare Alley was also a film people were split on. I love the visuals of all of Del Toro’s films -the man certainly knows how to film a scene!- but the stories he tells can be underwhelming, at least to me. Further to this, Del Toro has a tendency to make every scene/sequence look like something big and climactic and, unfortunately, by the time we reach the movie’s end, all those highs dilute the strength of the climax.

As for The Power of the Dog, that seems to be yet another film that has its fans and detractors. Those who don’t like the film really don’t like it, while those who do are big fans.

Again, I haven’t seen any of these films, despite having the opportunity to do so with each, and I don’t know if I ever will. I have so many films I want to catch up on and so little time!

Regardless, if you’ve seen the films -or even if you haven’t- the article and the insights provided by Mr. Abdul-Jabbar are fascinating.

Movies

The Night House (2020) a (spooky) belated review

Many, many years ago and after two films, I became a huge fan of director James Cameron. The two films? The Terminator and Aliens.

When news came out that his next film would feature underwater action/intrigue, I was so there, looking forward to an Aliens-esq action film but set deep underwater.

When the movie came out, I recall one TV critic, now forgotten, who said that watching this new James Cameron directed film, The Abyss, was like watching a runner in a competition having the run of their lives. They’re in first place, far ahead of everyone, and then, just feet away from the finish line, they stumble and fall on their face.

I don’t think I need to draw a picture here with regard to the intriguing, eerie, but ultimately disappointing -at least with respect to its conclusion- Rebecca Hall starring The Night House.

Rebecca Hall is, for the most part, the whole show here, and she’s damn good playing Beth, a woman who, we find in the movie’s opening minutes, has lost her husband and is returning from his funeral. There are others in the movie, of course, but she is front and center through the film and there’s nothing to fault in her performance.

Beth lives in a beautiful lake house her husband built and, it becomes very clear, his death was a shock… especially once we find out it was by suicide.

I don’t want to offer too many SPOILERS from this point on, but suffice to say Beth’s questions regarding her husband’s suicide start to eat away at her. She has visions, perhaps spectral in nature, and wonders if her husband is trying to communicate with her.

The film, during the first two acts, is simply terrific and had me wondering where it was going, just as Beth was investigating her late husband’s last moments leading to his death.

But that ending…

For a film that presented itself in such a sure footed way, it sadly got silly by its ending and, again because I don’t want to get into SPOILERS, I don’t want to give it all away. Suffice to say after plenty of fascinating psychological intrigue and questions about what’s real and what isn’t, things get a little too concrete in the finale and this makes things far less interesting versus maintaining an eerie and unexplained vibe.

I have ideas as to where the story should have gone, but I suppose that’s the nature of my thought process, and it felt like this was a script that needed a little more work, if only in that ending.

So I’m put into a weird predicament. For some 2/3rds of the film, The Night House is terrific, gripping, suspenseful, and intriguing.

I loved what I was seeing.

But that last 1/3rd of the film really let me down and its a tough call to recommend the film based on this alone.

I suppose I would still recommend the film. Perhaps others may not find the ending quite as problematic as I did. Just beware you may find yourself let down in the end.

Movies

The Blue Dahlia (1946) a (incredibly) belated review

If one day you and I should meet and talk and you ask me as an author which writer do I feel is my all time favorite, I might well tell you its Raymond Chandler.

Raymond Chandler was a terrific author and his books, in my opinion, are great works. He’s best known for his Phillip Marlowe novels, many of which were made into movies. Perhaps most famous of those movie adaptations is the Bogart/Bacall The Big Sleep. There was another version made years later featuring Robert Mitchum. There’s the first person point of view The Lady in the Lake. There’s Robert Mitchum again in Farewell My Lovely. There’s the quirky Robert Altman directed, Elliot Gould starring The Long Goodbye. There are a few movies that adapted his novels but didn’t use the Chandler titles, such as the James Gardner starring (and featuring Bruce Lee in a small, but extremely memorable role) Marlowe, an adaptation of The Little Sister. Then there’s what I feel is the very best adaptation of his novels, which also happens to be the first, the terrific Murder, My Sweet (1944), the first adaptation of Farewell My Lovely,

Raymond Chandler was wooed by Hollywood in and around the time his novels were first being adapted in the 1940’s and he wrote the screenplay to the classic film noir Double Indemnity. Flush off the success of that film, he was hired to write the script to another film, the result of which was The Blue Dahlia.

Featuring the powerhouse (at the time) pairing of Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake, the film is a pretty neat but ultimately flawed work which features just enough of Raymond Chandler’s terrific dialogue to make it worth a look, if you’re a fan of his like I am.

Here’s the movie’s trailer:

Alan Ladd plays Johnny Morrison, a veteran of the Pacific theater who returns home with two comrades in arms, George Copeland (Hugh Beaumont) and Buzz Wanchek (William Bendix). From the movie’s opening segment we realize Buzz isn’t all there: He sustained a head wound in the Pacific during the war and is capable of erupting at the least provocation.

They return to California and Johnny leaves his friends to go back to his wife wife Helen, only to discover she’s having a noisy party filled with questionable people in her bungalow. Included and most prominent in the party is Eddie Harwood (Howard Da Silva), the owner of the infamous Blue Dahlia club, who may well be a gangster and is most certainly Helen’s current boyfriend. Because of the movie’s age and the censorship of the times, this is revealed in subtle rather than too obvious way, but viewers should get the hint.

The party ends prematurely and Johnny confronts Helen. He wants to try to repair their marriage but Helen is a very broken woman, and this is revealed plainly when the argument turns to their son, who died very young.

Johnny leaves Helen and, later, she’s found dead.

The movie’s plot thus kicks in: Who killed Helen Morrison? The finger of suspicion is on Johnny, but as viewers we know he didn’t do it. So who did?

The Blue Dahlia is a solid enough film noir but, as I noted above, is something of a flawed work.

Why? Because the plot has some whoppers that are simply too difficult to accept, perhaps the biggest being the waaaaaaaaayyyyyy too coincidental meeting between Ladd’s Morrison and Veronica Lake’s Joyce Harwood. That’s right, Lake plays the estranged wife of Eddie Harwood and the fact that they just happen to meet the way they do and she just happens to be married to the #1 suspect -in Johnny Morrison’s mind- in Helen Morrison’s murder strains credulity to the point of snapping it… though to be fair there is a point where Johnny Morrison wonders about their meeting and whether it was coincidental after all.

Unfortunately, despite whatever suspicion his character mentions, nothing is made of it beyond that one statement and I can’t help but wonder if perhaps Raymond Chandler’s script was changed between page and filming as was, famously, the reveal of who the killer was.

Yes, it is well known the original identity of Helen Morrison’s killer was not who was revealed at the movie’s end. Worse, the way the killer is revealed -and the way the original Raymond Chandler killer is exonorated- don’t make a heck of a lot of sense but neither is it anything that totally destroys the movie.

If it sounds like I’m really down on this film… well, its not entirely true. The Blue Dahlia is a perfectly enjoyable, if at times illogical, film noir and its neat to see Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake co-starring in another vehicle together, even if the film isn’t quite up there with their two best features which, IMHO, are The Glass Key and This Gun For Hire.

It’s a pity those changes to the script were made and I suspect had the movie followed Chandler’s script a little closer, it would have been a better work.

Still, if you’re into this type of film, its a no brainer to spend some time with Ladd and Lake and savor the dialogue of Raymond Chandler.

Recommended.