> Now we're counting tickets sold to justify art? And
who's driven to
> discuss FARWWELL MY LOVELY with much passion these
days. It's a nice
> enough piece of well-mounted and well-crafted fluff
that I find quite
> enjoyable, but let's face it: Mitchum got to the
party thirty years
> too late and the fussy attention to detail makes it
seem like a museum
> piece at times. It's Marlowe in aspic.
Actually this week Robert Ebert reviews Farewell My Lovely in
his 4 star Great Movie reviews. Here is a sampling of his
praise for Farewell, and I agree with everything he
says.
The review is on the Ebert page at suntimes.com Here is a
quote from his review:
"It is, indeed, the most evocative of all the private
detective movies we have had in the last few years. It is not
as great as Roman Polanski's "Chinatown," which was concerned
with larger subjects, but in the genre itself there hasn't
been anything this good since Hollywood was doing Philip
Marlowe the first time around. One reason is that Dick
Richards, the director, takes his material and character
absolutely seriously. He is not uneasy with it, as Robert
Altman was when he had Elliot Gould flirt with seriousness in
"The Long Goodbye:" Richards doesn't hedge his bet.
And neither does Robert Mitchum, in what becomes his
definitive performance. Mitchum is one of the great screen
presences, and at 57 he seems somehow to be just now coming
of age: He was born to play the weary, cynical, doggedly
romantic Marlowe. His voice and his face and the way he
lights his cigaret are all exactly right, and seem totally
effortless. That's his trademark. In a good Mitchum
performance, we are never aware he is acting. And it is only
when we measure the distances between his characters that we
can see what he is doing."
--Chan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Dec 2007 EST