21 reviews
"C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R...Chandler, as in Raymond."
Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the noir genre hasn't enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in its screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie just doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to a boil. *1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Aug 14, 2009
- Permalink
Missed the Plot But Couldn't Have Cared
TCM did recently show this movie on a typically lazy summer afternoon before the 4th, and from the start, I was looking for some type of story line in which to sink my interest in, but things turned out murky. Its big draw was that it starred the much under-appreciated Warren Oates as some kind of detective who starts asking the big redeeming questions after he can't bring himself to carry out the job of tailing a mysterious woman for a corporate interest. When that plot line eventually became evident, I had the misfortune of falling asleep for just a few moments, and upon awakening, became even less involved as Oates wandered from scene to scene with the intent of discovering why the woman (the capable Leslie Caron) was on everyone's mind. My fault, sure, for nodding off, but unless the viewer is into speculation, this idea is never really revealed which leads to one guessing why her character is so central to the film's plot. Also disconcerting is how effortlessly the scenes wander between Carmel, Calif. and Los Angeles. The film's geography apparently has the two locales next door to one another, but they're not. The action moves too conveniently between them. And when Oakes and Caron end up with an inoperable vehicle yards from the Pacific Ocean under Big Sur's famed Bixby Creek Bridge after appearing to only have pulled off a main highway and onto a dirt road the night before, it appeared as if the producers wanted to get some grand photogenic shot near the end of this floundering mess. For whatever reason, too little too late. Nitpicking, yes, but I'm trying to find something worthy to write about what could have been a very good flick with just a little more pertinent exposition, and if I could, I would have had another joyous detective movie from the glorious '70s to chew on and enjoy.
- mpescajeda
- Jul 2, 2013
- Permalink
Not to be confused with the works of Raymond Chandler
" If you can forgive my abruptness, I can forgive your lack of Interest "
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. **
- thinker1691
- Oct 26, 2009
- Permalink
Once I was decisive, maybe
To paraphrase Warren himself: "This won't do"
- askmonroville
- Sep 1, 2015
- Permalink
Philip Marlowe it ain't
Raymond Chandler (Warren Oates) quits his security job. Corrupt government official Ross J. Carmady is looking to take control of gangleader John Melchior. Bernie Oakman offers old acquaintance Chandler as a patsy and hires him to protect government witness Katherine Creighton from Melchior without telling her. He befriends her and rescues her from kidnappers.
The name seems to be there to confuse fans of Raymond Chandler who created hard-boiled private eye Philip Marlowe. Chandler is world-wearied but sadly he's lifeless. The movie has nothing. The directions are stiff and without style. It's a sad tired effort. Everybody seems to be moving at half speed. Its production problems are the least of the deficiencies. Carmady's plans are not explained well. The shooting style is horribly stiff. Warren Oates looks uncomfortably small. The story is slower than molasses. Even the car chase is badly done. This is amateur hour.
The name seems to be there to confuse fans of Raymond Chandler who created hard-boiled private eye Philip Marlowe. Chandler is world-wearied but sadly he's lifeless. The movie has nothing. The directions are stiff and without style. It's a sad tired effort. Everybody seems to be moving at half speed. Its production problems are the least of the deficiencies. Carmady's plans are not explained well. The shooting style is horribly stiff. Warren Oates looks uncomfortably small. The story is slower than molasses. Even the car chase is badly done. This is amateur hour.
- SnoopyStyle
- Aug 24, 2015
- Permalink
Interesting total failure
The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."
It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.
I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!
It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.
I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!
- sensofwndr
- Dec 14, 2009
- Permalink
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.
- jonjmcurry
- Aug 8, 2009
- Permalink
Well-Cast Seventies Neo-Noir Has Its Moments, But Not Enough
A Wretched Movie
There is nothing to recommend this turkey. I like Warren Oates but even he can't enliven the terrible dialogue, rotten script, stupid editing, and the horrid, horrid soundtrack. Plot? Oh, something about somebody wanting to kidnap Leslie Caron, or kill her, or something. But it's all a ruse to set up another guy who works for the organized crime syndicate that's run by the government. Something like that. Stay away. Especially if you like Warren Oates; you don't want to remember him this way. One thing that's of interest: listening for Gordon Pinsent's Newfoundland accent. But you don't want to remember Pinsent this way, either.
Oates is great
Warren Oates was one of the most valuable character actors of >his day and is always a pleasure to watch. In "Chandler" he >plays a private detective who is not quite clever enough for the >predicament he finds himself in. The plot is clever and the >relationship between Oates and Caron is off-b
Paralyzing and Feeble
Of all the 1970's attempts at reviving Film-Noir this is by far the worst. The other Neo-Noirs are far superior and each have an appeal that goes far beyond a gallant effort. This one had rumblings of Studio meddling and was disowned by its Creators.
But that seems to be an attempt at apologizing for their own failures. Because it is doubtful that anything shot assembled in any order and no matter what Score was used, this is a giant misstep of the first order.
The incoherent Plot and the paralyzing dull Dialog are unforgiving. There are feeble tries at some Pulp Fiction one liners and cynical sayings but it is just uninspired and unwelcome. it is ironically a cross-era example of a style out of time. The Gumshoe icon of the Forties and Fifties seems unable to make the time transfer when it is up to mediocre Writers and Filmmakers.
There are other more worthy successes like The Long Goodbye (1973), Farewell My Lovely (1975), Chinatown (1974) and others that prove that the retro resurrection can work and it is those Films that made it possible for the Neo-Noir Genre to flourish to this day.
But that seems to be an attempt at apologizing for their own failures. Because it is doubtful that anything shot assembled in any order and no matter what Score was used, this is a giant misstep of the first order.
The incoherent Plot and the paralyzing dull Dialog are unforgiving. There are feeble tries at some Pulp Fiction one liners and cynical sayings but it is just uninspired and unwelcome. it is ironically a cross-era example of a style out of time. The Gumshoe icon of the Forties and Fifties seems unable to make the time transfer when it is up to mediocre Writers and Filmmakers.
There are other more worthy successes like The Long Goodbye (1973), Farewell My Lovely (1975), Chinatown (1974) and others that prove that the retro resurrection can work and it is those Films that made it possible for the Neo-Noir Genre to flourish to this day.
- LeonLouisRicci
- Jul 3, 2013
- Permalink
Good ain't the word
This movie is seldom mentioned when people talk about neo noirs of the 70s, and it's not hard to understand why. Despite having a certain femme fatale icon from the 40-50s, nothing good that can be said about "Chandler".
The main problem i have with this movie is that it's just too bland. The dialog isn't even clichéd, it's worse, something out of a townhouse conversation with your wife on a saturday afternoon.
The actors bumble around, probably aware of the turkey they had the luck to sign up for, the action peaces are alright but nothing you haven't seen anywhere else, and the twist, well, there is none.
Also, it's hard to understand what exactly the movie was aiming at, it's not a parody, nor some sort of intellectual analysis of the noirs or a political statement of the 70s America, it's definitely not an action flick either.
Perhaps that's the movie's big problem. Most other noirs are either send-off, parodies or deconstructions of their predecessors, while this one is a "NOIR" just filmed in the 70s. It makes the viewer judge the movie on it's own merits, and lacking any, it sinks, just like the Packard in The Big Sleep.
2/10 for two things, Gloria Grahame and the fact that probably someone was watching this and thought, hey, I could do better, and did.
The main problem i have with this movie is that it's just too bland. The dialog isn't even clichéd, it's worse, something out of a townhouse conversation with your wife on a saturday afternoon.
The actors bumble around, probably aware of the turkey they had the luck to sign up for, the action peaces are alright but nothing you haven't seen anywhere else, and the twist, well, there is none.
Also, it's hard to understand what exactly the movie was aiming at, it's not a parody, nor some sort of intellectual analysis of the noirs or a political statement of the 70s America, it's definitely not an action flick either.
Perhaps that's the movie's big problem. Most other noirs are either send-off, parodies or deconstructions of their predecessors, while this one is a "NOIR" just filmed in the 70s. It makes the viewer judge the movie on it's own merits, and lacking any, it sinks, just like the Packard in The Big Sleep.
2/10 for two things, Gloria Grahame and the fact that probably someone was watching this and thought, hey, I could do better, and did.
- siggemannen-374-783473
- Aug 6, 2022
- Permalink
Roaring 70's
This private eye film is purely in the seventies mood, maybe more than KLUTE or THE LONG GOODBYE, produced the very same year. This one is really gloomy, slow paced, a pure product of this period. And Warren Oates contributes more than anything else in this atmosphere, because he was also the most iconic actor of this period, between late sixties and 1975, thanks mostly to Sam Peckinpah. He plays a terrific loser here, as he was in BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA. The intrigue is worthless in terms of understanding, as any gumshoe plots, only spirit, atmosphere counts. A definitely underrated movie, the only one from this director.
- searchanddestroy-1
- Jul 1, 2023
- Permalink
Is this The Narrower Margin?
The cast here is special but the story is less so. Charles Mc Graw just has a small bit here, but he was a principal in the first version, protecting a witness from the bad guys. Warren Oates, Walter Burke, Scotland Crothers, Richard Loo, and others add panache to the story. But, like in so many crime thrillers, they present a picture of an all powerful mob that controls just about everything they see, but their large organization can't get it together to prevent a washed up ex cop from Running Circles around them. Locating the story in Carmel is great for scenery hounds but the story was more compelling on the train.
- david_weinstock
- Nov 25, 2023
- Permalink
TURD-key
This movie sucked on all cylinders, it was a disjointed boring mess that went nowhere. The true crime was that it never realizes the potential it had; decent cast (sans Oates) interesting premise and great locations.
Warren Oates was miscast as the lead, he looks unkempt and unwashed, he reminds me of John C. Holmes in his final days here. Oates just mails it in as his performance is detached and languid, Leslie Caron looks very uncomfortable and disingenuous in her role as well. The lead should have gone to a more competent actor like Joe Don Baker, someone with presence that could convey feelings and was at home in these bleak outings.
I recorded this on my DVR from a TCM 3 a.m. showing, it was relegated to that slot because it is a horrid dry movie. I quickly erased this waste after one viewing.
Warren Oates was miscast as the lead, he looks unkempt and unwashed, he reminds me of John C. Holmes in his final days here. Oates just mails it in as his performance is detached and languid, Leslie Caron looks very uncomfortable and disingenuous in her role as well. The lead should have gone to a more competent actor like Joe Don Baker, someone with presence that could convey feelings and was at home in these bleak outings.
I recorded this on my DVR from a TCM 3 a.m. showing, it was relegated to that slot because it is a horrid dry movie. I quickly erased this waste after one viewing.
- alfredpr-69611
- Jul 2, 2019
- Permalink
"Oh Chandler, Chandler, Tough Guys Can Get So Monotonous"
Some excellent actors are the only reason to watch this slow, dull film noir-inspired yarn about a tough private eye on the skids, (Warren Oates) hired by "the government" to protect a witness (Leslie Caron) threatened by "the association." Naturally, the gumshoe falls for the twist, giving us a romantic angle. Chandler has an excellent scientific knowledge of pressure points on the human body that can immediately disable any opponent and an endless supply of battered antique cars to get himself around. Some scenic LA locales are visited and a fine score by George Romanis keeps this pot aboil.
- theognis-80821
- Dec 9, 2023
- Permalink
flawed but of period interest
This film has attracted ratings of both 1s and 10s-- let's avoid the hyperbole and aim for the middle. No doubt, some scenes are poorly staged, and there are narrative holes galore. However, Warren Oates and Leslie Caron (currently appearing on TV in _Durrells in Corfu_, about the famous novelist Lawrence Durrell and his naturalist brother in childhood) give nice performances. This film evokes that early '70s washed out, depressing era-- exactly what the film's eponymous author Raymond (referenced in the film) accomplished for the 1930s. Robert Altman more successfully evoked this era in _The Long Goodbye_, the best modern era film noir. _Chandler_ has value for its evocation of its era if not for its success as a film per se. I betcha this is one of Q. Tarantino's favs (it's similar to another of his '70s film favs, the TV show _Then Came Bronson_).
Tough guys can get so monotonous.
- mark.waltz
- May 30, 2023
- Permalink
7, but, on the low end