Sunset

"Sunset" is the blackest of black comedies. I was surprised to learn from watching it on TV last night what a really fun movie it is, given the uniformly bad reviews it received. Pay no attention to the critics, this is good stuff. Bruce Willis, as Tom Mix, and James Garner, as Wyatt Earp, have never been better at their laid-back charm-boy schtick. The plot, while complex and often violent, is not to be taken seriously -- or better still, not to be thought about at all. In this connection, just remember what the movie itself tells you, "It's all true, give or take a lie or two." In addition to Willis's and Garner's stellar performances, Kathleen Quinlan, as Mix's long suffering girl friend, is a hoot. The mood of time and place -- 1929 Hollywood -- is perfectly captured: interesting costumes, great looking vintage cars, the last gasp of the Jazz Age just before the Depression. Highly recommended, 7 out of 10.

This movie has been kicking around on cable TV lately and I've put off watching it because I expected it to be another very stretched version of a buddy cop movie. The story seems made for it. Experienced old real-life marshal Wyatt Earp teaches callus young phony cowboy Tom Mix how to solve a crime. "Dragnet" on a 1920s back lot. But it wasn't that way at all.

It's true enough that Earp (Garner) hung around Hollywood at the time, or maybe a bit earlier. We don't really get to know much about his past. But although Mix (Willis) drove expensive cars and wore flashy suits and big hats, he wasn't a phony. He'd been a real cowboy too, was a great rider, fought in the Spanish-American war, and could take care of himself. Instead of the expected clash between the master and the tyro, we get two guys who pretty much hit it off with one another right away, and show mutual respect.

It's an interesting friendship.

But then the movie turns darker. A murder takes place. There are fist fights (mostly comic) and several shootouts (done seriously). Willis is kind of cocky. Garner displays the laconic off-hand dignity he showed in "Murphy's Romance," or whatever it was. He's an icon here, with that black outfit and mustache. He's never been a flashy actor, but invariably a competent one. Off-screen he's come up with some dandy spontaneous comments about how the social world of Hollywood and the rest of the country is structured. He's got my vote. Willis isn't bad either.

The rest of the cast does yeoman work but no one has roles that are as interesting as those of the two leads. And the murder story fails to grip the viewer, at least this viewer. I didn't really find myself caring who did it, although it was clear from the beginning who the villains were. There was an exception, though, the British actress playing Garner's former lover. She's simply outstanding in a supporting part, and provides a great example of how to be beautiful without being "beautiful."

I wish the film didn't seem kind of -- I suppose lost is the word. It meanders between comedy, drama, and warmth, without seeming to know just what it wants to do. This isn't a total failure on Edwards' part. It holds together as a story but the characters bounce off one another. Henry Mancini, who wrote many scores for Edwards' films, shows his versatility here.

The score is quiet and unobtrusive (except for one or two brass bands that seem to follow Tom Mix around) and is punctuated by contemporary recordings, including one by Duke Ellington. The photography is first rate. It must be getting hard to find locations that look like Southern California looked in the 1920s before the irruption of humans and their artifacts.

It's worth watching. But I don't know where that title came from. "Sunset." What is the sun setting on? Not Earp. He's old but not doddering, and he can shoot and make love even at the "risk of permanent damage." It's not setting on Hollywood, which would continue to book for another two generations or so. I suppose we'll settle for its being one of those generic titles that could mean anything. "Another Dawn." "Guns of Darkness." "On the Edge." "Sunset." "The Muppets Conquer the Mustang Ranch."

I can't believe I had never heard of this movie before I decided to record it. I was expecting standard Blake Edwards fare, which for me means mostly enjoyable, usually ranking about a 7 of 10, but instead was treated to an engaging cinematic odyssey. This movie has everything, it is a western, it is a romance, it is adventure, it is a crime drama, it even has horses, car chases, and a biplane, not to mention the stunning art deco scenery. And western scenery. Add in the fabulous shots of Mix's Duesenbergs, and what's not to love.

Malcolm McDowell is sublime as the villain, James Garner is charming as the sidekick, and Bruce Willis is truly at his best, here in an unusual role not playing Bruce Willis.

Not a great film by Academy standards, but an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. Beautiful, silly, intriguing...all in one movie. Splendid, eh?

I saw Sunset, recently, during a middle-of-the-night channel surf that ended up on a cable channel running the film at about 4:00am. I had never seen the film before, but had always been interested because of the two leads, and the era in which the film is set (the late 1920s).

I enjoyed the film, quite a bit, actually. I thought the story was very good, and well written, and Garner and Willis made a great team. I especially enjoyed Willis' characterization of Tom Mix. He brought just the right amount of cowboy style to the silen movie hero. And, of course, Garner is always good. But he really excelled as Wyatt Earp.

I thought the premise was very original, and that the whole film was a lot of fun.

With one exception.

Why is the villain of this piece so obviously supposed to remind us of Charley Chaplin ? Alvy Alperin ? Formerly known as The Happy Hobo ? A clear reference to Chaplin, and his little tramp. And yet the character is an abuseive rapist, and murderer who beats his own wife to death.

Why Edwards chose to virtually villify one of the most talented and entertaining comedians of the silent era, who was also a fairly nice bloke in real life, if a bit of a womanizer, I do not know.

The other original characters in the film- that is character who are fictional, rather than historical, like Earp, and Mix, are very well-crafted, believable, and completely original. No single character seems to be a rip on any single individual in Hollywood at the time, except for Malcolm McDowall's Alperin.

As a fan of Chaplin, Normand, Arbuckle, and the great silent clowns I found this to be a strong defect in the overall film. I can definitely believe Tom Mix as a hero. But I simply cannot reconcile even a thinly renamed Chaplin with a bully and a rapist.

I wonder why Edwards didn't go the extra mile to make the Alperin character more original.

Aside from this point, which is a big one, really, the film is a lot of fun for fans of the period, and the leads.

Blake Edwards' "Sunset" has the misfortune of following a series of films that are among his all time best: "10", "S.O.B.", "Trail of the Pink Panther" (a surprisingly cohesive film considering the circumstances; see my review for more details), "Victor/Victoria", "The Man Who Loved Women" (an underrated film), "Micki and Maude", "A Fine Mess" and the remarkable "That's Life!" By comparison, "Sunset" is a weak film.

But it is a good Blake Edwards film and good Edwards ("Blind Date", "Curse of the Pink Panther") is much better than horrible Edwards ("Switch", "Bring Your Smile Along", "Justin Case"). "Sunset" is Edwards' attempt at a risky genre, film noir, which if handled wrong, gives us films such as "Palmetto". When handled right, the results can be very entertaining.

"Sunset" is indeed very entertaining. It has laughs, but they're not important here. The atmosphere is what's important here and Edwards drenches us in it. And his casting of James Garner and Bruce Willis is inspired and right. They work wonderfully together and it is a testament to Garner and Willis as actors that they are so utterly believable as Wyatt Earp and Tom Mix, respectively. The bigger surprise here is Willis, who has a fresh faced charm that he doesn't show all that much anymore. I had forgotten what a solid actor he really is beneath that cliched "ACTION STAR" persona.

What prevents "Sunset" from approaching greatness is that Edwards is weighed down by the plot. He wants to create a complex mystery and he achieves that. But after getting to know such rich and likable characters, I really wish he had just forgotten about the plot and focus on them. All of his very best films are about character. Look at the list in the beginning. Each and every one of those films has characters we care about and he wisely forgets about resolving the plot. He observes and that's how he gets our attention (and laughs where appropriate). I only wished he had remembered. Luckily, his next film "Skin Deep" remembered that.

I still recommend "Sunset", if only for the charm of Willis and Garner and that wonderful atmosphere. This isn't a great film, but you just can't resist smiling at the end.

*** out of 4 stars