It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Much has been written about the social issues the movie touches upon – as well as the personal drama Sinatra's character faces both through his work life and personal life. This is clearly the strength of the film. In fact, halfway through the movie, I've easily forgot all about the murder mystery, as all these issues felt more central than the murder plot itself. Intentionally most likely, but at the end, I couldn't help but feel that this could been balanced a bit better. This is only an initial thought, and I might need a rewatch to decide how much this bothered me or not.
Sinatra's performance was good, if not as expected for this kind of character. It's effortless, and couldn't really have been acted any differently. For that reason, it's a character that suits Sinatra well. Haven't really seen Sinatra in that many movies before. Interesting.
Stylistically The Detective is very similar to Bullitt and Harper; all films made around the same time. Bullitt is maybe my all-time favourite film outside Bond, but I chose not to include it in this thread. Immediately regretted that after seeing Jacqueline Bisset being introduced! Interestingly, she is introduced at a time in the movie where I felt it needed something to happen. From here on out everything goes along quite fast, maybe a bit too fast, as well. This didn't affect how I enjoyed the film, though. I'll give it a 7.7 out of 10 – which is quite good for any first viewings.
About Jacqueline Bisset: only seen her in a few roles, but surely she could have been a great Bond girl? I mean – any role between 1969 and into the 80's would have been perfect! Could see her outact more than a few Bond girls from that period.
- I was thinking about the way the film is structured, and the fact it "undersells the conspiracy" and "turns into something totally different than what you think of a detective film by the end, where the twist is not about some criminal conspiracy but instead revolves around sexual repression and the fear of being gay." Indeed, the fact the Rainbow conspiracy is treated as secondary hints at the idea that in its essence, the film is not about that, but a society that represses homosexuality. That got me thinking by association about the film I selected for us to watch, Sea of Love. Without wanting to spoil anything, I'll just say I find a certain aspect --expected to a degree because of genre conventions-- is underdeveloped. I'm ambivalent about whether this choice adds more than detracts from the movie, but I contemplate the possibility it was intended as a deliberate statement on the film's genre experimentation-- a way of saying "this really isn't that kind of film." I'll leave it at that, to be further discussed at a later date.
- I can now see what you mean regarding Robbie. There is definitely a difference between the character at the beginning of the film and at the interrogation scene. The pivotal moment is indeed the bar scene. I think the fact Robbie is so clearly likable in the first scene, as opposed to the latter, hints at the intention the filmmakers had about him.
- Joe wouldn't get back with Karen, I agree. While he is human and therefore fallible, as demonstrated at the end, he ultimately just has to do the right thing; can't have it any other way. He is, therefore, a man of integrity, who lives by a code, and as much as he loves and presumably understands Karen, she was not faithful to him and is herself a reflection of the decadent world he fights against, instead of being a respite from it, which is what he probably had hoped. He wouldn't go back to her.
Also, great work analyzing the Hays code violations.
In much the same way that any of the twists and turns regarding the falcon in The Maltese Falcon are lost at the end under the more salient weight of Spade's human struggle and the human revelation that tops any of the mystery surrounding the statue, The Detective has that same balance, where there is a mystery and a human story, but where the latter inevitably overpowers the former simply because it's always more interesting. We don't watch movies like Chinatown to see an elitist California water plot play out, we watch it to experience how the machinations of that plot and what occurs in response to it effects the human story of Jake or Katherine, the most important part of the film and its heart. As with The Detective's murder mystery, Chinatown's yarn has that same facade of mystery to it that turns into something more ghastly, but at the end the revelation of the case is there less to wow us with its cleverness but more to serve the story and prove to the characters what they already know: that their world is broken and they are at its mercy.
The revelations about California's water and Noah Cross exist to show Jake that once again the system is balanced against the "good guy" and that his old problems with corruption are never-ending in much the same way that the revelation over Rainbow and MacIver has a more important function to serve by showing Leland that society is as troubled and stacked against the common man as he already expects. In an amusing way, these revelations for the story of these secret-laden mysteries end up being the opposite of revelations, and simply support ideas about the characters' world that we've been led to expect from the beginning based on their own monologues and diatribes.
But in all this, the human story is the most important, as I don't think anybody really watches or reads mysteries to play along and see if they can guess a killer or how it all connects. There's certainly fun in that, but what keeps us rewatching a Maltese Falcon or Chinatown is how the mysteries impact those fascinating and morally lively characters, and less because we enjoy watching the reveal of it all play out. In this way the mystery of noirs are usually best served not to be a shock and awe moments of surprise and cleverness, but more to support the view the film has created of the world to confirm the suspicions of the central character. Because the mystery in The Detective confirms what Leland already knows, he feels helpless to change what he sees and is faced with the truth that his cynicism about the state of the world isn't a sign of his exaggeratedly jaded nature, but more a fact of life and an observation impossible to deny. The most striking image then becomes that of a man who stands up to corruption knowing he'll lose because to not fight is criminal, and who finishes the film switching off the chatter in his car and going radio silent. The mystery and circumstances of the story all lead back to the human story in a cyclical fashion, and how those events and revelations have changed the protagonist forever after beyond their ability to create tension and suspense. I think The Detective is smart to build itself so often around the department and Leland reacting to what is happening inside of it, because through those scenes we can get a snapshot of how life in his city really is. It was important for us to know how the society functioned and how particular people in it felt because the story is very much a social commentary veiled by the neo-noir banner, and it uses the cop characters to symbolically frame a lot of the issues of that society by how they act during particular situations throughout the film. The Nester character (Duvall) shows us that homophobia and racism is alive and well (and can wear a badge), while other characters show us the lengths of police impunity and what happens when one doesn't use restraint with a badge (Robbie's interrogation), what police brutality looks like (how the cops treat the gay men in the trucks on arrest) how stress on the job leads to irreversible mistakes (the death of the unarmed black man) and how corruption or fact fudging creates lies and hides the truth of the matter (like how Leland's boss covers up for the department's mistakes) . The story is able to cleverly use the scenes in and around the police department to give us a dimensional idea of the society we're seeing and how things are stacked, with Leland then being used as the figure of exception who is constantly contrasted with a lot of the phobia, hatred, brutality and corruption that we see unfolding.
It's quite brilliant that instead of giving us the department as scene dressing to show us Leland is in fact a cop, The Detective ties all its themes and messages to the building and makes it a vital storytelling device. Because of this, it's the stuff that happens in the department that carries the most weight in the film. It's where a cop confesses to killing an innocent, where Leland stands up to his boss in the face of corruption, where suspects are brutalized before us, and where Leland blurs moral lines in getting a confession from Tesla; all these events not only move the mystery along, but they also directly comment on society's issues and how those same troubles connect to MacIver's tragic situation that is revealed to Leland at the very end. The aggressively hateful and judging society is the same one that drove MacIver to his own self-judgment and loathing, causing a tragic outcome to happen.
For that reason, The Detective is less a film about a cop and more a movie about being a cop because so much meat is rooted in what wearing a badge truly means beyond a simple visual, of how the job impacts society from a law enforcement point of view (as in, how cops treat their citizens) and also how it impacts the lives of the officers off shift (like Leland's struggles to keep his marriage in tact). It's rare to find such a comprehensive and truly rich and haunting depiction of the kind of life real cops would live, contrasted with the glorified adventures of other TV or movie cops that don't address how it would be to face corruption, lawlessness, social revolt and more. Trust definitely has a lot to do with Joe's drifting from Karen, and he says as much when he comments about how it would cost "too much" to go back with her again. He wasn't the type to shack up and share his life, knowing his job and who he was, so when the right woman came along and ruined his trust in a life beyond his job, he really came back hurting. Like Bond and Vesper, he opened the doors to his heart and got punctured, teaching him not to open up so easily again, if ever.
I think Joe's feelings regarding Karen's situation are frequently called back to in random dialogues that give us his impression of life. He says to the therapist that, “I think that each person knows what’s important to him, and he should compromise for nobody.” Joe is extremely particular about his life and that code you speak of, with lines that are defined in the ground. Though Joe isn't perfect he never once lies to himself or others, and often gets in hot water because he's too honest and can't "kiss ass" as he says. Even when he gets that confession out of Tesla he knows going into the room what he's doing and afterwards it haunts him. He can't lie to himself or anyone else, and that's why he finishes the film leaking MacIver's story. The truth isn't pretty, but it must be spoken because truth is that important essence to Joe that he can't compromise.
More directly focusing on Joe and Karen, it's pretty clear to see even from the beginning of the film as we see their first meeting and how they act as a couple that they wouldn't ever have worked out long term, and that has everything to do with who they are. Joe's work was his life, and he always let the work come back with him even though he tried not to. He feels guilty for piling so much of the job on Karen and how his mood is soured by it, showing us that as a cop it's hard for him to connect with the outside world and the citizens that occupy it. At the party Karen is at he's fast to leave because he just can't function outside the department with "normal" people because they don't understand him or see the world he does; on top of that he's so used to speaking with other cops that he has gotten out of practice with talking to regular people. Karen enthusiastically tells Joe about the therapist that is arguing for the positives of LSD, but Joe doesn't want to hear it because as a cop he only sees the negatives and detrimental effects of drugs every day; again, his job doesn't allow him to reach across that aisle. When Karen takes Joe out to a play with her friends he flees that recreation too because the story he sees on the stage is more of the misery he already faces on the job, again another moment where those on the outside of the department don't get him and why he has a negative reaction to their behavior and interests.
Because of who Joe is and what job he has, I don't think he'd be able to last with any woman, but especially Karen after what we later know of her, because he has never been able to mesh with the outside world. He's a cop till the end, and has a cop's sensibilities. Like a soldier coming back from war, his attempts to re-enter society from the other side of the law would be tough because that has always been his life and it's in his blood; what does it mean to live without it? I could only see him with another cop, if he ever got with anyone again at all, because only a cop, an "insider" could understand who he is (again, like Bond and Madeleine in SP).
But this all distracts from the biggest reason I think Joe doesn't get with Karen, something that the story itself addresses: responsibility and an acceptance of it. Later on in the film when Joe and the therapist are talking and the doctor calls Joe too "narrow" in his view to see Karen's problem, he's quick to reply, “Yeah, maybe a different kind of man would’ve understood her problem. But I’m not civilized enough to look the other way while my wife’s screwing other men.” Joe isn't in favor of masking issues under medical terminology, or avoiding the punishment for bad behavior with constant excuses. Karen's acting out and her numerous affairs are explained away by her many times and she never really seems to take full responsibility or face her mistakes openly; she always hides behind a bad history that made her do it, or psychological mumbo jumbo the therapist has filled her head with.
I think Joe realizes at the end that a lot of the reason why Karen is the way she is is because that therapist has filled her with excuses and taught her to avoid accepting her mistakes. Instead of her being straight up unfaithful, the truth, the therapist explained away her behavior with a childhood connection of her foster life or by using a poor pseudo-psychological excuse to hide the fact of the matter. Joe sees this illogical dancing about, Karen's attempts to avoid facing her problems, and is upset by it and how the therapist has filled her mind with these delusions. Yet he's seen as the uncivilized barbarian for thinking honestly and rationally.
As Joe says to the therapist at the end of the film, “It’s easy to understand why you do such a thriving business here. You’re awful good at getting people off the hook, aren’t you?” When the doctor tries to defend his position and claims that the world's issues come from people being "on the hook" too much, Joe quite wisely points out that, to him, the world's problems exist "because we don’t face responsibility” for our actions. In saying this Joe is not only speaking about his department, a place full of cops that try to hide their mistakes at every turn to avoid backlash or criminal charges, but also to himself and Karen.
Joe didn't face his responsibility with Tesla outright, but he quickly made steps to change that. Instead of trying to excuse his own behavior by trying to argue that Tesla's own mind drove him to confess and not the cop's own motivations, Joe places the blame on his own shoulders where it belongs and faces the consequences of what he's done. He does this while Karen never faces the truth of her actions, and always tries to hide behind another excuse, as does the therapist. I think more than anything it's that inability in Karen, to face the fact of the matter with honesty, that really kills Joe's interest in living that kind of life with her again. Beyond even trust, he finds a woman that won't just lie to his face, but one who will believe those lies in her own head as if they were truths. He had to get out, as his principles were definite and unmoving.
I realized I had seen it before, ages ago and forgotten about it.Probably because it is pretty bad. In this film club thread, Memento is still no. 1.
I have to agree.
Thundy was talking about Vampire's Kiss. :D
Overall, a very solid film, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I enjoyed it. More so than expected. Not as much as L'AVVENTURA but if I were tiering the films we've watched so far I'd have no problem slotting this right in alongside MEMENTO.
Thoughts:
The danger is that the "hold that thought" fails to work in the moment, that the shift is too noticeable, too distracting, and detracts from what follows. I think it does work in the moment, however, because I think the film is in the end less about the case (or even Leland) and more about the role of the police force in the late 60s.
The title helps: THE DETECTIVE. Obviously, referring to Sinatra's Leland —perhaps less obviously to his profession itself. That is to say: the detective of the film is Leland. The film may well have been called JOE LELAND, THE DETECTIVE. But the title applies equally well to the idea of 'the detective,' which is to say all detectives. THE DETECTIVE PROFESSION, if you will. THE DETECTIVE works as shorthand for both, and also unifies the movie so that the main question concerns the resolution of Leland as a detective in relation to the city instead of more specifically the resolution of the case he's attempting to solve. We can see throughout the film how many people are contemptuous of the police—not the least of which are some members of the force themselves. It's a very timely film, I think—then but also now.
I was additionally struck at times by the anachronistic elements in the film: how the detectives all wear hats (hats had surely gone out of fashion in the early 60s). The way film portrayed the press (also behatted) seemed likewise something out of a 1940s picture (a mob of press with notepads and pens in hand, at the steps of the police department, wielding huge cameras with large flash bulbs -- not really up on my photojournalism history but it seemed out of time).
At any rate, the mixing of these dated, more surface level details with other more contemporary references (the LSD scene, mentions of the 'Great Society,' attending what had become the new national pastime in a football game), along with the deeper topical/taboo issues, all combines to a point that most sharply stands out, and has a different sort of era-focused juxtapositional power (perhaps even less obvious) in comparison to something like THE LONG GOODBYE (though also probably less potent).
(1) Leland's eventually coming to realize the world he must navigate as a member of the police force is vastly different to the one of the past, in which his father worked. In terms of the contemporary issues, yes, but also within the changing nature of the department itself—i.e. instead of simply wanting to help people, officers now chase promotions.
(2) The ending, where Leland disrupts the 'Rainbow' conspiracy of corruption between the highest levels of the city, thereby 'turning the city upside down' (and shaking it to see what falls out of its pockets). Additionally, since the scheme itself involved in some capacity the buying and selling of buildings, it is perhaps significant that this metaphor is illustrated through buildings).
I still need to go back and catch up with everyone else's comments fully. So apologies if some of the above has been brought up.
I'll watch it soon. I remember watching a couple of scenes from it a while ago.
"I'm a vampayah, I'm a vampayah, I'm a vampayah, I'm a vampayah..."
(cue Doppler effect)
I do like the function that the split in the story of The Detective has, however, where, after Tesla is executed, Leland moves on and so do we, because the film is giving both the detective and us new meat to bite on with the MacIver business. A viewer that takes their eyes off the ball and doesn't feel a conspiracy looming to connect the murder in the apartment to MacIver's suicide is doing exactly what Joe is; not engaging that observational part of themselves that connects the dots. In this way the movie can manipulate one into thinking like the protagonist, so moved on from the events of the past that any clues calling back to the old case are brushed off. Joe never senses ghosts or expects the past and his moral wrong against Tesla to come back so swiftly and in such force to get him, but it does in the worst way. It's very karmic, but he uses it as a teaching moment and strives to redeem as much as he can and puts himself out there to speak the truth even if it puts a target on his back.
I think the story certainly could've been more polished in some aspects, but I think the function of the structure ties to all the other things the film is trying to do. The split comments on the characters that react to it and manipulates the viewer while also setting up the big revelation of the thing at the end. I respect the multi-faceted purpose it serves to support all the other messages and tricks the film is relaying and delivering.
Yes, you've hit on one of the essential parts of the film @mattjoes and I discussed a bit earlier. The Detective is a very apt name for the film because it doesn't just follow the singular journey of Leland and his own existential challenges, it also comments on the very nature of working as a policeman and what that world was like at that place and time (not very different from how it is now, sadly). The story is beautifully crafted such that what Joe faces-the temptation to lie, the despair of seeing society crumble, and the racism and homophobia he encounters around him on the job and off-both roots us in his problems and connects us to what the other cops face too; his problems are their problems.
This is backed up by how Joe always stresses that what he does he does for the good of the department, collectively banding himself up with his other colleagues as a unit. The issues he faces aren't just his, it's what all the cops see and they are bound together in their struggle to take the world as it is. Even at the end of the movie when Leland must step into the crosshairs and release the news about MacIver to challenge the elitists of the city, he does so without a badge because he doesn't want any of it to come back to the department and the job he felt pride in. He didn't like the pressures of being a cop, some of his colleagues or what the work put him into contact with-the human misery, the debauchery of modern crime and all the lies and death surrounding it-but at the end he respected the department no matter what and didn't want his workplace to suffer for what he had to do. That alone tells us so much about Joe and his feelings about being a boy in blue.
We can see just how much Leland identifies as a cop in the film, because it's in his family and in his blood as a tradition, and this connection leads him to being an outsider when he tries to step outside his uniform. When he goes to parties he's quick to recede because he's lost the ability to speak with regular people, and he can't enjoy the kinds of recreations those around him enjoy in drugs or entertainments because he sees the negative effects of drugs on crime and how entertainment can offer detrimental messages of doomsday and cynicism he already has too much of to deal with. Joe's inability to connect gives him a real loner image, and Karen is really the only sign of the outside world he lets in. Everything else about him is the job, and he finds it hard to go out of that shell because it makes up so much of who he is.
So in this way, both in studying how being a cop affects Joe and by setting the movie so heavily around the department and the other enforcers and the collective struggles they face wearing badges, The Detective quite comprehensively becomes a story for all detectives or all cops. It's a movie that is hard on cops at times, much like Joe is, and though it ends with the hero leaving because he knows that a badge doesn't give one the power to change what's broken, we still see the good that cops can do and what it means to rise about immorality to try and make change. The tone of the film and some of its cynicism is less there to paint a sad picture but more to face the reality of the world: there are always good cops out there but a pack of good cops can't stand up against a system that is stacked against them by elites. It's this honesty and sense of reality, the inability to hide things as they really are, that gives noirs a special place in my heart. They tell it like it is, no matter what.
I hope people responded to the content regarding cops and society in The Detective, and felt some sense of déjà vu in what the movie delivers, as that's part of why I chose it. The shooting of unarmed black men, the misunderstanding of minorities, the riots of the poor and dejected all go to show that no matter how much time passes so little changes as we read these kinds of things in our headlines all the time. We're still fighting the same battles Joe was fighting, and it hasn't gotten less complicated. The Detective is definitely a statement on how movies like it were changing and the kinds of uncensored stories they could tell heading into the decade of the 70s that is famous for pushing the boundaries of the medium. I've written about that aspect of The Detective in the last pages so I won't repeat it all again for time's sake, but the movie is definitely in that fascinating time post-Hays Code and right before the MPAA stepped in to instate ratings on films to allow all kinds of new stories to be told regardless of genre. The movie the way it is couldn't have ever been made at any other time without being neutered of its content and ultimate social commentary and message, so it really did arrive at the perfect time in a period where movies like it were given the freedom to be what they needed to and deserved to be.
As for the anachronism of the film in the styles of the characters, I guess I don't feel it as strongly. I think the 60s was still a time when you could get away with wearing a fedora out and about, as Bond himself did for his early films up to the mid-60s, so I don't think The Detective stretches credibility too far. That period was definitely the death of that style item, though, and marked the end of a neo-noir's ability to channel the noirs of the past using fedoras unless the film was a period piece (like Chinatown in '74). Heading into the 70s Elliott Gould's Marlowe opted to drop his hat and the picture of detectives in movies was changing alongside it; the trench coats were still viable, but those brooding fedoras had faded as defining images of detectives just as Sherlock Holmes had to drop the ulster coat and deerstalker. The Detective got in just before that credibility waned, interestingly right at the point where movies were growing up and pushing for more reality and consequence. Did the hats go because it wasn't viewed as realistic for detectives to wear them anymore? Or maybe it was an attempt to stop holding on to the past to embrace the modern world and how things had changed since the 40s? That's a great spot, @Strog, the image of the buildings reflected in the car hood. It's a great visual metaphor I hadn't really connected to before, as Joe really does strive to figuratively turn the city upside down in his search for a truth he doesn't even know yet, and by painting that image on his car the film immediately labels him as the architect of that topsy turvy effort.
You're also right that, in many ways, Leland is seeing a reversed image of the city that is changed from the past, a reflection of what it once was. Joe's father dealt with a lot in his day, but there has been a change. Joe even goes so far as to comment that the hard way is "unfashionable" in his time, sensing how things in society and his job have shifted and how perhaps cops aren't given the tools to do as much as they should be able to. I think his choice to leave at the end, and to possibly go private, is a good indication of what this means for Joe. He wants to get out of the hold of red tape and live by his own rules to do the same work instead of worrying about hurting the department or pissing off the city mayor with his actions that hurt the wallets of the city elites.
The Detective is a fascinatingly ironic title in a way, as the story it tells is one of a detective who chooses to throw away his badge to go independent. But in the same way, it's actually fitting, because Joe would still be a detective whether he was at the department or not: the job is always going to be a part of him, it's who he is. I personally take the story exactly as that, where Joe stops being a detective in blue so that he can still be a detective in his own way. He moves shop and shifts himself from where he was before, sure, but in the end he's working to serve the same goals and to bring the same justice no matter what. He's just doing it his way now and that's pretty fitting considering one of Frank's iconic songs is "My Way." I can almost picture Leland whistling the tune after he shuts off the radio and drives off. Yes, this is very interesting. All the flashbacks are focused on the intimate life of Karen and Joe, as are the striking point-of-view shots that the film has them take ownership of. I like that we start the film seeing that Joe has been with a woman but that it didn't work out, before we're then taken into the past to find out how that break between he and Karen happened. As is conventional of noirs, even when it comes to Joe and Karen's relationship we don't begin with all the information and instead have it slowly peeled back until more is revealed. It's this aspect of the film that really helps to make it a film about a detective as much as a film with detectives in it, because so much time and effort is spent to portray Joe's private life and how that intersects negatively with his job. Yes, that's a great point. The movie very much is the origin story for a lot of other detective films. It's easy to imagine that a Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe or Jake Gittes faced similar things that sent them walking away with their badges thrown in the trash, realizing that they couldn't do the work they needed to with a leash that tight on them. With Jake we definitely get that impression, as the experiences of Chinatown still haunt him in the present day of the movie and have humbled him about the nature of his work and how hard it is to make change whether you wear a badge or not.
Joe has yet to have a moment of revelation like Jake has at the end of that film, however, as he still seems to be under the impression that by working as a private eye he can get the results and make the change that alluded him while in uniform. Perhaps later on he had a moment just like Jake in Chinatown, where he comes face to face with the truth that even as a man outside the system change can't come in the face of an elite force that has more control that one man can defend against. I wish we'd gotten more sequels with the Leland character, just to see what happened after he made the decision he did at the end and what experiences he faced while going private.
Anyone who wishes to kick off discussions regarding @Minion's selected Vampire's Kiss may do so, as yesterday began the two week discussion period for it. I plan on watching the film in the next couple of days and will post my thoughts then, but I know some have their thoughts and are encouraged to share them when they wish. I guess that since most of us have yet to see it, it'd be best to start by sharing general impressions before going into full spoilers, which will maybe kick off later in the week or at the start of next, depending on when people get to it. I don't want to restrain discussion, however, so if I feel spoilers should be alleviated, I'll make that decision when it comes.
That's all for now...
Vampire's Kiss isn't a very good film unfortunately. It's a muddled film neither funny enough for a comedy or sinister enough for a horror film.
Anyone remember a film called, Innocent Blood from the early 90's directed by John Landis? Did this sort of thing much better.
What in the heck is going on?
Still have to watch it. I've got some picking up to do I'm afraid.
The bloodsucking scene was actually kind of disturbing.
No problem, @GoldenGun. And don't be afraid to post your thoughts, either. Some get to movies late and that's fine, but I'd be interested to hear what you thought. I was late to share my L'Avventura review while we were into The Detective, for example, but part of what the group was built on was the understanding that everyones' schedules would be different, due to personal commitments and time zones.
and it can be seen here
http://putlockers.fm/watch/Nx4MWeGz-rumble-fish.html
or here
https://watchmovie.info/watch-movie-rumble-fish/h0z3
With Halloween upon us and always down to experience some unseen horror (and Vampire's Kiss, of all films, perhaps remarkably available for viewing), the stars have aligned. I haven't really been able to celebrate horror film viewing this month like I like to, so this'll do.
Amazingly, Nicholas Cage is doing a pitch-perfect impersonation of Keanu Reeves in Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula four whole years before the film would be released. He has the spaced out surfer dude attempting the poorest of British accents down pat! I don't know why, as he's playing a New Yorker, but he does! It even fluctuates throughout!
This is obviously a movie...as we see Nicholas Cage with his terribly affected British surfer dude accent approach Jennifer Beals at a bar with a terrible pick-up line, not even terrible enough to be so-bad-it's-good, and offer her a limp hand to shake, then cut immediately to the two rolling around steamily in bed. Okay, so she was just a vampire after his jugular, but I trust even vampires have some standards. Also, those were some massive stickies on Beals.
I can see why this man would have such luck with the ladies though.
The scene: an art gallery
Chick looking at painting: "Do you like it?"
Nicholas Cage, walking abruptly away: "I've got to take a piss."
I'm not quite sure how Nicholas Cage made it through to the 90s, let alone to today, but I guess the world is a more interesting place for him.
This was a pretty awful movie—as relentlessly unfunny comedies generally are. I'm sure I would have seen it at some point anyway, so I guess I'm glad I knocked it out now.
The only real winner here is Nicholas Cage in the scenes he got to film with Jennifer Beals. The biggest loser was probably myself, followed by the cockroach that gets eaten by Nicholas Cage.
At least we do get to watch a little bit of Nosferatu on a TV screen.
If in the mood for 80s vampires, I'd reach first for The Lost Boys or The Hunger or Near Dark.
If in the mood for a vampire comedy, I'd reach first for What We Do in the Shadows or Twilight.
I will of course have to watch a good horror film before Halloween now to get the taste out of my mouth. But this was an experience.
It is sort of a follow-up to her 1960s novel THE OUTSIDERS, at least thematically, and which was also made into a film by Coppola. Of the two I vastly prefer RF. Top five Coppola for me.
I would of course see a lot more to most of those later, but back then they were all fresh faces. It is a slightly different experience seeing all those familiar faces in it now.
Not better or worse, just different.
I've not seen as much Francis Ford Coppola as I should've so I'm looking forward to it.
https://watchmovie.info/watch-movie-rumble-fish/h0z3
It is also available here
http://putlockers.fm/watch/Nx4MWeGz-rumble-fish.html
Both of those sites, have some malware spam here and there, but Norton or something similar takes care of that. Just click it away, and press play again.
Also, having just been on the film's Wikipedia page, I had no idea that Coppola directed THE OUTSIDERS. Saw that when I was a teen and remember liking it well enough. (Also read the book.) I wonder how different RUMBLE FISH will be, being both based on another Hinton book (not read that one) and likewise directed by Coppola. Have you seen THE OUTSIDERS, @Thunderfinger?