Monsieur Spade

"Monsieur Spade," with Clive Owen leading as the venerable Sam Spade, started on a promising note, captivating my attention through the first three episodes. The series initially presented a fresh take on the iconic detective, now residing in the picturesque South of France, a setting ripe with potential for intriguing mysteries. Owen's portrayal of Spade is commendable, adding depth and gravitas to a character steeped in literary history.

However, as the series progressed into its latter half, it faltered. The narrative, rather than building on its early promise, became increasingly convoluted. The complexity added to the plot did not translate into a deeper or more enriching viewing experience. Instead, it veered towards tedium, detracting from the series' initial allure. Despite Owen's strong performance, the storyline's unfolding felt like a missed opportunity to revitalize and deepen the Sam Spade legend for a new audience. Ultimately, "Monsieur Spade" leaves a mixed impression, shining in moments but dimmed by its narrative choices.

Just before watching this miniseries about a middle-aged Sam Spade living in France, I read an article about it's co-writer/creator/director Scott Frank and his success as a script doctor who could find a script's weaknesses and set them write. Unfortunately, Monsieur Spade needed Scott Frank the script doctor rather than Scott Frank the writer.

In Monsieur Spade, a middle-aged Sam Spade lives in France and stuff happens. But very little of it happens in episode one, which could be described as a slow boil, but is probably more accurately a low simmer with the heat turned up in the last 5 minutes. It's really rather dull, and takes its time for no good reason.

But then things pick up. A lot starts happening, people die, people threaten, Spade investigates and wisecracks, and it's all pretty good. True, there are odd bits, like the character of Jean-Pierre, who ultimately serves no purpose in the plot and isn't interesting in his own right. But for the most part it's entertaining.

And then in the final episode it goes totally off the rails in double-crosses and murders and schemes that don't make much sense, and then there's this endless discussion that more-or-less explains what happened in the most awkward and tedious way possible, and none of it holds together or offers any narrative satisfaction, and there are so many loose ends.

Come on, Scott Frank, the New Yorker painted you as having unerring instincts. WHERE DID THOSE INSTINCTS GO?

Overall, I actually did enjoy this. I like Clive Owen's Spade, even if he's no Bogie, and I liked the repartee, even if there's nothing nearly as memorable as almost every line of Maltese Falcon. The acting of the supporting cast is excellent, and the story does keep you interested before it falls apart.

Is it worth watching? Maybe. Just be forewarned.

I wanted Clive Owen to channel Bogart without imitating him. I wanted to feel both post WWII France as well as one struggling in Algeria and SE Asia. I wanted that France to be intense and atmosheric. I wanted characters that I cared about. I wanted film noir in color.

I got everything I wanted and this is everything I hoped it would be.

I think too that all this may play against the ultimate popularity of this series. Some will see Owen as half of Bogart, lacking depth, perhaps, and missing the slow burn that Bogie brought to the screen. Others, sadly, may have never seen Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade and wonder why they aren't seeing a more recognizable Clive Owen.

Either way you look at it, if you watched episode one this clearly interests you, and good, bad, or indifferent we all owe it to modern noir to see it through if we ever want to see anyone continue to pursue the genre. And yes, I loved Perry Mason also, and watched every episode of an all too short run.

This is so beautifully shot it's surprising to watch. Even the first scene, as Spade looks at a house uphill and the cameraman shoots him from below, so we're also looking up at Spade...is a surreal experience. The location does help, but oh, this is pretty to watch. Usually, period pieces from eras OTHER than the 60s or 70s are better done, but this one is as it should be; again, it probably helps that it's set in France. I don't even like France, and I've been there several times, but this makes me want to give it another go, but to a rural locale next time. In one episode, we are so drawn in to the character development and plot arcs that, by far, the only annoying issue here is the weekly episode release. Owen gives a good performance, but it's an ensemble piece and they are ALL phenomenal - this impresses me bc I knew none of them, came for him, stayed for them. Though there is a nude scene that I will be re-watching a FEW times. Thank you to the writers, producer, director, cameramen, crew: the pool scene is a gift to the world.

As to the noir mystery element, I've read this style of literature and watched these types of films for decades - and just wow. Please, money-people in the studios: more of THIS.

It's 1955 rural France. Sam Spade (Clive Owen) is searching for Philippe Saint Andre, the father of his charge, a girl named Teresa. He's been hired by Teresa's late mother who is his former lover and had stolen a large sum of money. He faces many obstacles with the disappeared Philippe. He places Teresa with the nuns at a local orphanage. It's 8 years later and Teresa is turning 18. She is set to receive the large sum from a trust and her thieving father is rumored to have returned. One night, Sam finds the girls locked in their room, Teresa missing, and the nuns brutally murdered.

The story is a bit of a mess. It starts great but ends muddled. I don't like the McGuffin boy. He is really just an object rather than a living breathing character. The girl is a much better subject. It is almost a comedy when they get to the final sit-down and calling out all the characters. I really like Clive Owen doing his Sam Spade. It's impossible to get away from Bogie but this is a fun interpretation. Stay for Clive.