The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Lordy

Although it's a good '70s era Sci-Fi film the Andromeda Strain is hardly a detective movie.

I included The Andromeda Strain in my list of detective movies because it is such in the sense that they're solving a mystery. That's one reason for my disclaimer in my post. It's definitely good 1970s sci-fi, though!

[mja345]

The thing about detective films back in the day is they were great vehicles for "cool" actors. McQueen, Newman, Nicholson, Bogart, Eastwood, etc. Pacino and Gould in the early 70s exuded that as well. Coburn, Marvin, and Bronson could have also done these type of films. You could put some cool motherf**ker in a detective movie and it would be inherently watchable. They smoke some cigs, have a few drinks, and remain above the fray with some quips as they solve the case and it becomes a great baseline for a film. Hackman wasn't necessarily cool, but made for a good star of these kind of vehicles because he seems like a guy who wakes up with a massive hangover every day.

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case. That's why Shane Black had to set "The Nice Guys" in the 70s, which would have been a much better film had it been made in the 70s and hadn't had the horribly annoying daughter.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by mja345

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case.

I hope you don't mind if I quote this on social media, this is GOLD.

[sawdustandtinsel]

Since we're on detective movies, I hope Criterion would consider releasing Robert Siodmak's The Devil Strikes at Night. It's about a serial killer in Nazi Germany as well as corruption and propaganda all set in the last year or two of WWII. If you're a fan of The Killers and The Lives of Others I'd recommend seeing it regardless.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by ravenus

I hope you don't mind if I quote this on social media, this is GOLD.

Thanks my man.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by mja345

The thing about detective films back in the day is they were great vehicles for "cool" actors. McQueen, Newman, Nicholson, Bogart, Eastwood, etc. Pacino and Gould in the early 70s exuded that as well. Coburn, Marvin, and Bronson could have also done these type of films. You could put some cool motherf**ker in a detective movie and it would be inherently watchable. They smoke some cigs, have a few drinks, and remain above the fray with some quips as they solve the case and it becomes a great baseline for a film. Hackman wasn't necessarily cool, but made for a good star of these kind of vehicles because he seems like a guy who wakes up with a massive hangover every day.

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case. That's why Shane Black had to set "The Nice Guys" in the 70s, which would have been a much better film had it been made in the 70s and hadn't had the horribly annoying daughter.

Actually, that sounds like a good premise for a movie. At least it hasn't been done to death. Seriously though, you make an excellent point. They aren't making actors like that any more, not because there aren't good actors these days, but they either don't choose to or don't have the opportunity to work in the kind of genre films that might produce the next The Long Goodbye or Bullitt.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by nitin

LA Confidential doesn't work for you? That is really the main one I can think of, although Night Moves too to an extent.

I own the blu-ray. It's a very very good film, but it isn't in the same class to me.

Night Moves is good too.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by mja345

The thing about detective films back in the day is they were great vehicles for "cool" actors. McQueen, Newman, Nicholson, Bogart, Eastwood, etc. Pacino and Gould in the early 70s exuded that as well. Coburn, Marvin, and Bronson could have also done these type of films. You could put some cool motherf**ker in a detective movie and it would be inherently watchable. They smoke some cigs, have a few drinks, and remain above the fray with some quips as they solve the case and it becomes a great baseline for a film. Hackman wasn't necessarily cool, but made for a good star of these kind of vehicles because he seems like a guy who wakes up with a massive hangover every day.

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case. That's why Shane Black had to set "The Nice Guys" in the 70s, which would have been a much better film had it been made in the 70s and hadn't had the horribly annoying daughter.

This discussion is reminding me of this time last year. I found a copy of Raymond Chandler's The Little Sister on clearance. I decided to read it because I always found the movie adaptation a bit muddled (Marlowe with James Garner) and thought it would clear some things up (it kind of did and kind of didn't). So I ended up binging on Chandler's books and watching the movie versions right after. By sheer chance, while I was doing this, TCM had showings of Lady in the Lake and The Falcon Takes Over. That then extended to watching several more Chandler-esque movies such as the Tony Rome films, Chinatown, Inherent Vice, etc. It was fun. I would really love to see some new film adaptations of some of Chandler's stuff, especially Lady in the Lake because of all of his books that's the one that seems the best fit for a slick modern day thriller

[Show spoiler]with a twist ending,

yet the Robert Montgomery first-person movie experiment is absolute torture to sit through. The biggest surprise was that Time To Kill with Lloyd Nolan as Robert Shayne was a more faithful adaptation and more enjoyable film to watch than The Brasher Doubloon with George Montgomery.

[witchmania]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Had 90 minutes to kill. Good as time as any to keep plowing through some blind-buys. So I cracked open my fresh new World Cinema Project Volume 2 box set to see what's up. Another six random films I've never heard of before--going through these is like a weird box of chocolates (but I do value Vol. 1 for The Housemaid, Redes, Trances, and Touki Bouki).

First flick in Vol. 2: Insaing. I could tell going in it's not my kind of movie--a very slow-paced drama where very little physically happens. I got to admit though, there is a fair amount of tension every time the mother character opens her mouth, and the 4K remaster really brings out the grunge. This is one grimy-looking movie and I do appreciate the look and locales of it. Chances are I might warm up to it on a rewatch--it is a slow-burner that builds up to a pretty hard-hitting finale. Need to be in the right mood for it though.

I'm glad to see a bit of commentary on the World Cinema Project No. 2 box, I was hoping there might be a bit more talk about it by now. I watched Insiang as part of the BFI's Lino Brocka set and was very impressed by it, although I didn't think it was quite in the same league as the other film in that set, Manilla In The Claws Of Light. I think the performances are great, and the tone makes for an interesting mix of social realism and revenge melodrama. The transfer looks great as well (on the BFI version, at least - I gather it's virtually identical on the Criterion though).

Have you managed to take a look at any of the other films in the box set yet?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by mja345

The thing about detective films back in the day is they were great vehicles for "cool" actors. McQueen, Newman, Nicholson, Bogart, Eastwood, etc. Pacino and Gould in the early 70s exuded that as well. Coburn, Marvin, and Bronson could have also done these type of films. You could put some cool motherf**ker in a detective movie and it would be inherently watchable. They smoke some cigs, have a few drinks, and remain above the fray with some quips as they solve the case and it becomes a great baseline for a film. Hackman wasn't necessarily cool, but made for a good star of these kind of vehicles because he seems like a guy who wakes up with a massive hangover every day.

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case. That's why Shane Black had to set "The Nice Guys" in the 70s, which would have been a much better film had it been made in the 70s and hadn't had the horribly annoying daughter.

This is a great observation.

Inherent Vice is a good effort, because Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) is so out of place in the world, but even it pales in comparison to the classic-era detective films.

Michael Fassbender could probably pull of such a film these days, but that's about it.

I really enjoyed The Nice Guys, but, yeah, the daughter reminded me of Penny from the Inspector Gadget cartoons.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by stevieray44

I guess I may be the only living person who loves Lady In The Lake (1947). I don't find it to be a perfect movie by any means, but I always make sure to catch some of it when it's on; the dialogue is fantastic (if it was ripped right from the book, I couldn't tell you, though).

I just wish it was made as a straight film and not the first person POV film that was made because it greatly limits the story. There's so much lopped out of the book because of that and the film is reduced to a few extended scenes of talking. I'm not one of those people who often crows about how "the book is so much better", but that film was such a missed opportunity and the book screams out for a more faithful adaptation because there's some really exciting plot points that the extant movie leaves out.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by witchmania

I'm glad to see a bit of commentary on the World Cinema Project No. 2 box, I was hoping there might be a bit more talk about it by now. I watched Insiang as part of the BFI's Lino Brocka set and was very impressed by it, although I didn't think it was quite in the same league as the other film in that set, Manilla In The Claws Of Light. I think the performances are great, and the tone makes for an interesting mix of social realism and revenge melodrama. The transfer looks great as well (on the BFI version, at least - I gather it's virtually identical on the Criterion though).

Have you managed to take a look at any of the other films in the box set yet?

I did make time for Mysterious Object at Noon as well. It didn't engage me at all, and might be my least-favorite of the lot. I figure it looks/sounds as good as it can--it's a very grainy and rough-looking picture with some occasional lines or print anomalies, but still fairly sharp.

Started Revenge, will continue it tonight. That one looks like something I'll dig more. The image seems really bright, but it's very sharp and clear.

[llj]

Originally Posted by mja345

The thing about detective films back in the day is they were great vehicles for "cool" actors. McQueen, Newman, Nicholson, Bogart, Eastwood, etc. Pacino and Gould in the early 70s exuded that as well. Coburn, Marvin, and Bronson could have also done these type of films. You could put some cool motherf**ker in a detective movie and it would be inherently watchable. They smoke some cigs, have a few drinks, and remain above the fray with some quips as they solve the case and it becomes a great baseline for a film. Hackman wasn't necessarily cool, but made for a good star of these kind of vehicles because he seems like a guy who wakes up with a massive hangover every day.

There aren't many actors who have that cool factor anymore. There are still many great actors, but not many you would say, "Let's just put him in a film and let his cool factor be the baseline we're starting out with." It's not part of the zeitgeist of film any longer. You don't want to watch a detective movie about some a-hole who wakes up, gets his workout in, eats his granola, checks his social media, and then goes out and earnestly solves a case. That's why Shane Black had to set "The Nice Guys" in the 70s, which would have been a much better film had it been made in the 70s and hadn't had the horribly annoying daughter.

It's that blue collar factor too. These were guys who looked like they've *lived* hard before becoming an actor. There's a self assuredness here that doesn't exist with many actors today, who are more protected and calculated about how they live now. Also, Hollywood has gone more and more with "pretty boys" of late, so guys with not-exactly-handsome mugs don't get as much of a chance to star in big vehicles anymore.

[Keymaster]

Originally Posted by llj

It's that blue collar factor too. These were guys who looked like they've *lived* hard before becoming an actor. There's a self assuredness here that doesn't exist with many actors today, who are more protected and calculated about how they live now. Also, Hollywood has gone more and more with "pretty boys" of late, so guys with not-exactly-handsome mugs don't get as much of a chance to star in big vehicles anymore.

Good points as well.

Popeye Doyle seemed like an "everyman," not a superhero. Today it would be Channing Tatum catching bullets with his teeth.

Also, screenplays, in general, aren't as focused on character anymore. Scripts are increasingly thrusting the focus towards plot (action) and away from complex characterizations.

This is a trend affecting all genres, not just detective films. The fundamental problem with films nowadays is, quite simply, they aren't as well written as they have been in the past. IMO.

[repulsed]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This is a great observation.

Inherent Vice is a good effort, because Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) is so out of place in the world, but even it pales in comparison to the classic-era detective films.

Michael Fassbender could probably pull of such a film these days, but that's about it.

I really enjoyed The Nice Guys, but, yeah, the daughter reminded me of Penny from the Inspector Gadget cartoons.

I thought she was great. not even slightly annoying.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by repulsed

I thought she was great. not even slightly annoying.

She didn't actually annoy me either, but I couldn't stop thinking of Penny in the Inspector Gadget cartoons whenever she was onscreen.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Keymaster

Good points as well.

Popeye Doyle seemed like an "everyman," not a superhero. Today it would be Channing Tatum catching bullets with his teeth.

Also, screenplays, in general, aren't as focused on character anymore. Scripts are increasingly thrusting the focus towards plot (action) and away from complex characterizations.

This is a trend affecting all genres, not just detective films. The fundamental problem with films nowadays is, quite simply, they aren't as well written as they have been in the past. IMO.

I think the fact there are fewer limitations is a big factor. When filmmakers had to worry about the Hays Code and the Legion of Decency they did some creative things to subvert the system.

There's also the rampant use of CGI. It's much easier to add something in post-production. I fear the days of watching films with incredible set and art design like Black Narcissus and Rear Window are long gone.

Most popular films don't interest me. Too many films aim to be awesome in the theaters then are boring on a second watch on home video. I get more from a recent slow-paced Kore-eda or Kiarostami film in addition to the classics.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Keymaster

The fundamental problem with films nowadays is, quite simply, they aren't as well written as they have been in the past. IMO.

Nor do they look as good. The art of mise en scène is pretty much dead, especially in America. It is all about fixing things up in post now.


EDIT: Didn't realize that ShellOil got in just before me. Cheers!

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Too many films aim to be awesome in the theaters then are boring on a second watch on home video.

This was my main problem with Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity and with the 2014 version of Godzilla.

There are a lot of newer films that I can watch repeatedly on Blu-ray, but there are also so many where the wow factor that made them so amazing in a theater setting is vastly diminished at home.

[Al_The_Strange]

I dunno, cinematic style and performances makes Gravity consistently awesome for me, both at home and in the cinema. Also, last time I saw Godzilla '14 my appreciation for it actually went up (probably because the film by nature omits so much detail to focus on the characters in the foreground, much the same way 2005's War of the Worlds does).

But I can see this argument going for movies like Transformers, Marvel and DC flicks, occasional sci-fi action flicks, and most action movies.

But there are exceptions--John Wick will always have a place in my home because the characterization is spot-on and the writing is genuinely good (and this might be one rare case where the "cool" factor was put into a modern movie). Dredd, Max Mad: Fury Road, newer Bond movies, newer Planet of the Apes, Star Trek, and Star Wars remain rewatchable because there is at least some thought put into character and storytelling (usually entwined with the action, and that's the way I like it).

I also found some rewatchable nuggets in random other films--2014's RoboCop is far from perfect, but I can appreciate what it tried to do thematically. Same for Edge of Tomorrow, and the works of Niel Blomkamp, and various others. Sometimes they hit interesting ideas, themes, and plots that help them rise above the other schlock.

It all depends, but I'd certainly welcome more films that focus on talent and craft over spectacle and hype.