Marlowe

The iconic titular character of "Marlowe" epitomises noir, but in resurrecting him veteran director / co-writer (with William Monahan) Neil Jordan waters the noir style down to nothing, leaving only a dull, even-paced mystery that fails to engage. Liam Neeson's the aforementioned '30s LA gum-shoe here, hired by wealthy 'femme fatale' Diane Kruger (daughter of 'femme fatale' Jessica Lange (good)) to find presumed dead lover François Arnaud who's wrapped in some kinda drug-running plot with the likes of Danny Huston & Alan Cumming, under the noses of cops like Joe Green & Colm Meaney. It's bland, plodding fare, and is just not noir. Poor.

Liam Neeson is a strongly capable actor whose committed performances are nearly always wasted on incomprehensible messes of films, and this latest one is no exception.

In fact, Marlowe wastes its entire talented cast AND a skilled production design crew on a woefully by-the-numbers crime story that is frustratingly clumsy in how it delivers information to the audience.

Most of the story consists of exposition-heavy, dialogue-driven scenes that are slapped together with editing that leaves it unclear how and why characters get from one place to the next. Much of the information we receive from the dialogue ends up being meaningless to the story anyway, and it just winds up being a confusing mess that left me feeling nothing.

Not a single moment is really dedicated to letting us know who the characters are, or even what their needs and goals are. It's over 100 minutes of meandering from one scene to the next without ever knowing why we're here or where we're trying to go.

Confusing, bloated, corny, emotionally bereft, and pointless. Just like most other Neeson flicks of the past decade.

I lot of people have compared this to the original Marlowe character and series and it is not the case. Maybe that's why people have trashed this movie as it's being judged on an existing franchise. To begin, Liam is not Marlowe but more a lower level PI. He hasn't been at it that long. If you want to compare, I would say this was more Ezekiel Rawlins in The Devil in a Blue Dress. Easy has street connects, Marlowe has cop connections. Overall, the entire supporting cast was steady and complemented the story line well. No Oscar performances but OK for the film. I'm a bit biased as I do enjoy the LA police, Hollywood and the rich-and-powerful subculture of the '40's and 50's and the banter that comes with it. The storyline itself was a bit thin but passable. In short, if you can judge this movie on its own merits and forget the "Marlowe" connect, this is a pretty good movie night out.

Marlowe attempts to pay homage to the classic detective tales of Raymond Chandler but ultimately falls short of its promise, lacking the originality and creativity needed to truly captivate. The movie centres around Philip Marlowe, a private investigator hired by a mysterious woman to locate her missing husband. Throughout his journey, Marlowe becomes entangled in a web of corruption, murder, and betrayal, prompting introspection into his moral compass and identity.

Though the film boasts a few commendable elements, such as its stylish cinematography that effectively captures the dark and gritty atmosphere of 1940s Los Angeles and a score that aptly conveys the genre's mood, these aspects alone are insufficient to redeem it from its numerous weaknesses.

The primary issue with Marlowe lies in its lack of originality and innovation. Rather than introducing fresh perspectives or intriguing ideas to the genre, the movie heavily borrows from the existing source material and other noir films without contributing new or interesting concepts. The plot falls victim to predictability and clichés, offering twists and turns that are either glaringly obvious or illogical. The dialogue, too, is uninspiring, burdened by excessive exposition and cheesy one-liners. The characters remain one-dimensional and stereotypical, devoid of depth or meaningful development. The performances range from mediocre to exaggerated or wooden, failing to elicit genuine emotion or connection.

Another major shortcoming of the film lies in its portrayal of Philip Marlowe. Marlowe is one of the most iconic and intricately crafted characters in literature, yet the movie reduces him to a generic and unremarkable hero. It neglects the wit, charm, and moral ambiguity that made him so compelling. The film misses opportunities to delve into Marlowe's psychology, motivations, and worldview, robbing the character of any meaningful exploration or growth. As a result, Marlowe becomes a mere action figure, merely transitioning from one scene to the next without leaving an emotional impact or resonance.

Marlowe is disappointing; it will fade into obscurity, never having done justice to its source material or the noir genre. It squanders the chance to breathe new life into and reinvent the tradition of noir and fails to provide a memorable and engaging cinematic experience. I would recommend enthusiasts of noir or detective stories or those seeking more profound and substantial contributions from the world of cinema to stay away! Marlowe is shallow and superficial, and you'll forget it as soon as you leave the cinema.

Everyone has their interpretation of Philip Marlowe. As for the books that Raymond Chandler gave us, Marlowe is most often more interesting than the characters he encounters, and more interesting than the plot. He is a loner by nature, he's articulate and funny. He plays chess puzzles and reads. He is also tough. His character is what makes you want to come back for more. The movie is fair, but it would be much better if Marlowe were actually in it. This is the eleventh interpretation of this character and it would be such a novelty if at least one would give us the character as he was created by Raymond Chandler.