The Murders in the Rue Morgue

I've been waiting to see this film for about 10 years. There never was and there NEVER will be a truly great screen adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe. Because it can't be done. Given that Poe is definitely one of my favourite writers, you probably would suggest that I shouldn't watch any movie (or TV movie) based on one of his writings. True. But I love movies, and one of the best I've seen is The Pit and the Pendulum, directed by the great Roger Corman, which is an adaptation of Poe's short story and has virtually NOTHING to do with it. But Corman is Corman and he did 5 or 6 movies based (inspired by...) on Poe, and they're all classics (if you love this kind of cinema), and Vincent Price is absolutely splendid and...enough about history. Therefore, you should never expect a brilliant(or even decent)adaptation of Poe, but if you agree with that and if you are prepared to swallow characters and facts that aren't present in Poe's story (Murders in the Rue Morgue, that is) then you're in for a treat. The lugubrious atmosphere, the fluid camerawork, the impressive production design and the magnificent location all add panache to a well told (by David Epstein) and well directed (by Jeannot "Somewhere in Time" Szwarc) tale. And let's not forget the great, late George C.Scott, whose presence alone makes the film worthwile. And listen closely...If you love Poe just on paper, better stay away! If you haven't read the story (and if you like Scott), stick with it! Just remember - if you want a gore movie, wait till Dario Argento makes his own version. If you want an intellectual/perverse/subversive flick, talk to Polanski or De Palma. This one is just a TV movie.

A detective (George C. Scott) comes out of retirement to help his daughter's fiancé (Neil Dickson) prove that he did not commit a series of murders.

I really enjoyed this film, and was surprised to see it was the only attempt to adapt the Poe tale since the 1930s (the one in the 1970s hardly counts as being remotely close to the source material). While I think some liberties were taken (my memory of the story is not perfect), it follows the general feel and does its best to keep the mystery going as long as it can.

And, indeed, that is what I enjoyed most about the film -- the mystery! How did the killer get in and out of the house? What was the motive? Why did he not want the gold coins? Even though I already knew the story, they successfully brought me along for the ride.

-- The Book:

An very involving read. An intelligent murder mystery (albeit not too complex, as it is a short story) in which the reader can't do anything but tag along for the ride. Lots of clever deductions and conclusions will have you both scratching your head and smiling when the killer's identity is finally revealed.

-- The Movie:

This made-for-TV adaptation does stay true to the nature of Poe's short. It's an adequate adaptation, both in look, feel and atmosphere. David Epstein, writer of the teleplay, did his best to give the characters more depth as well as adding a few. More than decent performances by George C. Scott and Rebecca De Mornay. Val Kilmer, at the time a rather inexperienced actor, gave it his best shot too, one can tell. My only grief is, that the movie was made for TV. In Poe's story, the two murders - or at least the aftermath - are described in gruesome detail. They had to be, because those murders are the core of the plot; the events that jump-start the whole mystery. Sadly, we don't get to see the bloody details in the movie, and we can only guess how brutal the murders were. Revealing the killer at the end, worked a little better in the book (due to the nature of the killer), but the effects were convincing enough. It's a good film, though horror enthusiasts searching for kicks and thrills might find it a bit disappointing.

Considering the fine start in this film, the movie overall was a huge disappointment. Part of that great beginning was the cinematography, a real eye-grabber particularly in the first 5-10 minutes.

The story begins to drag after awhile and it wasn't worthwhile sticking with it all the way - even though I did - because the ending is very unsatisfying.

I didn't recognize Rebecca deMornay, she looked so young. Val Kilmer, too, must have been at the beginning of his career. Being a TV movie, the language was pretty tame, which was nice, but the story just didn't deliver. It's not something I would give a second look.

While the basic crime plot of Poe's story is the framework of this color film noir, we have tacked onto it a melange of elements not in the story, not the least of which is having Dupin as a cashiered, or maybe just retired, Inspector of Police. The "real" Dupin was often consulted by the Prefect of Police, but he was a private citizen, a recluse if you will, with marvelous powers of ratiocination. Furthermore, where did the writers get the idea that the Prefect hated Dupin. According to the stories he pretended a supercilious attitude, but knew that often without Dupin he was nowhere. In this film, we see Dupin at work but get no details about his "ratiocination". It's a good cast, though, and interesting seeing them at work. Give it an A+ for atmosphere, but a C- for classic tale telling.