2 out of 2 people found the following review helpful:

mosgeo2000#1 from BICESTER, 21st May, 2004

First off, I have to admit that I have a fondness for Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe: I've read the books and seen the Bogart, Garner, Gould and Mitchum celluloid interpretations of that famous detective (with varying degrees of satisfaction).


I also like James Caan and was intrigued as to what he'd bring to the character. Well, overall he does a good job -- I initially thought he was perhaps slightly too old but then the action takes place in the early Sixties, so I guess Marlowe would be older than the Forties version. I guess that at least he wasn't as old as Robert Mitchum in The Big Sleep. Not convinced he would have had such a young wife but still.


The story is well realised, with excellent attention to period detail -- although sometimes I felt the camera lingered just a fraction too long on some of the artifacts: as if to say, "Look what we got for the movie, it cost plenty so we're going to get our money's worth"!


The plot was pretty good, although it felt a bit contrived at times (the twist is not so much unexpected as completely ridiculous) and you'll spot the villain the first time you see him/her. That said, watch this with a glass of bourbon in your hands and enjoy the atmosphere and Caan's fine performance.

Read all highest rated reviews

1 out of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Film blanche

howie from , 31st December, 2004

This made for TV movie is based on an unfinished Raymond Chandler novel that was completed by Robert B. Parker. It's clear from the novel that Chandler was getting pretty tired of Marlowe whilst Parker, who started his career doing Chandler homages with his P.I., Spenser, had also moved away from the Chandler-blueprint by the time he was given the task of completing the book, so this story is largely Chandler-by-numbers. Set in the early sixties, in the Kennedy era, the story could have been an interesting examination of how anachronistic the ageing Marlowe had become, and there are one or two nods in this direction, but mainly it is a fairly straight forward detective story, without any of the snappy dialogue that is a trademark of Chandler and Parker (Tom Stoppard did the screenplay). The film also lacks the atmosphere of the classic film-noir Marlowe films; there's hardly any rain or neon lights or dark shadows. It's well shot and well acted but even with Marlowe as the lead character, strictly routine private eye fare.

Read all highest rated reviews

Poor Sam

A Customer from Glasgow, 7th September, 2005

No it just doesn't work. I read the book many years ago and it was fine but the transition to screen lacks conviction and direction. James Caan is no use as Sam Spade and I don't mean because he's no Bogart, I just mean he's no use!

Read all highest rated reviews

A little too slick for it's own good

Don Crees from Worthing, 20th April, 2005

The cast did their best, but it all seemed completely overdone. Being fair though if you had seen the old Philip Marlowe, Humphrey Bogart with his Moll Lauren Bacall....what can one say !

Read all highest rated reviews