MovieChat Forums > The Long Goodbye (1973) Discussion > Disappointing?

Disappointing?

posted 15 years ago by neonatalpenguin
15 replies | jump to latest

I know I’m probably going to get flamed for saying this, but I was really disappointed by this film. Having loved two of Robert Altman’s later films (Gosford Park and Short Cuts), and hearing what a big influence this film was on other films (particularly The Big Lebowski), I expected something with a little more weight.

Don’t get me wrong; there were things I liked about it. The security guard who impersonates movie stars was a fun touch, and Gould’s performance pretty much saves the film for me.

The look of this film was drab and narcoleptic, and not just because of the 1970s décor. I felt like I was watching the whole thing through a weird yellow liquid. And the constant re-use of the theme song (which seemed like a neat device at first) was just an annoying gimmick after a while.

And whatever possessed Altman to cast Nina Van Pallandt as Mrs Wade or Jim Bouton as Lennox is beyond me – neither of them can act even slightly. The worst part of the entire film, for me, has to be Augustine. That subplot could have ended up on the cutting room floor and barely left a scar. Also, what’s the point of coming up with some badass mob boss who smashes bottles on his mistress’ face, if you’re going to cast a goofy Barry Manilow look-alike to play the part?

Anyone agree/disagree?

[–] McGonigle 15 years ago

I didn't like this movie the first time I saw it but I love it now.

I thought Bouton did a fine job as Lennox, and Van Pallandt did a decent job as Mrs. Wade.

And I thought Augustine was great.

Also, what’s the point of coming up with some badass mob boss who smashes bottles on his mistress’ face, if you’re going to cast a goofy Barry Manilow look-alike to play the part?

Um, I don't know, maybe to confound your expectations?

I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

Hey guys, this movie is teeterring on the edge of greatness. Everybody in it is cast against type and the story is told uncharacteristically for a detective yarn. And for those NOT in the know, Marty Augustine was played by film director Mark Rydell. All in all, a very sly take on a murder mystery written by one of Hollywood's true past masters, Leigh Brackett, who also wrote a little story you may have heard of --"The Big Sleep." A very good show!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

Flutchman:

Leigh Brackett is the deal. I with ya on that one. This came on earlier tonight. Even better to watch late at night. Makes its mood is even more magnificent: the teetering is the best part!

A solid interview of Brackett:

http://tonymacklin.net/content.php?cID=242

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

So fascinating how majority of newer viewers don't get it. They act as if bowllegged and toothless, but think they are so well educated. A laffer, ha!! Thanx for the lookup; will cruise on over for a visit,zurich.

Hell is the truth learned too late.

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

Oh, Education is the problem. As Karl Kraus said: “When a man passes for universally educated, he may still have once chance in life: that he really isn't.” They don't and can't teach mean. You are mean. Or you are not. But at the same time it's good if: you mean what you say, you mean what you show, you mean what you do. Clear; but not iffy.

But: you can teach the convention of commitment. But I never understood that: you can be committed to an insane asylum as much as you can be committed to an ideal or a moral, or even a God. Commitment is actually iffy as an idea, that makes you ask: what does this mean?
Mean vs. Commitment: Altman is a mean artist. That said: Two things you'll hear educated people go at Altman for. First, he lacks “character development”. That's because Altman accepts people for who they are and most importantly who they are tying to be, nor does he find anyone weird, and most of all he allows motivation to remain private. He's not so arrogant to subscribe why people do things: as if it's one thing. He explores their world. And he means to.

Most films have character development and what that really means is the protag learns to accept the status quo and in some way become “normal”. Two of Atlman's best films, this one and McCabe & Mrs. Miller have the protagonist act totally in a nonlinear or normal fashion at the ending. This film: a man who valued friendship above all else shooting his friend. This other: McCabe a spineless dude growing a spine (and being shot in the back for it—so much for personal growth being rewarded!)

Also: his actors don't “act”. People in life, unlike movies, don't show 1,200 facial movements when they are talking and hold their eyes open for two minutes. If they do they have some neurological disorder. Like in this movie Nina doesn't “act”. Well, she's been beaten in the head and the heart by her husband on a routine basis for a long time. I don't think she'll be that publicly emotive and precise with how she expresses herself.

[–] colt_89 14 years ago

I saw mentioned earlier about younger viewers and all that, I hate those lame stereotypes, I'm 18 and I really enjoyed the film.

I didn't find the plot itself particularly impressive, it didn't seem like an investigation, Marlowe's detective work were pretty miniscule. But the characters were so fascinating and it was just a really fun film, I feel a second/third (and so on) viewing of the film will help me appreciate the story more, but I'm happy with it being a character driven film. Gould was fantastic as Marlowe! I've seen The Big Sleep, and I found that utterly forgettable and average, it just reminded me of all the other noir films and it really seemed to lack a lot - But this, I liked a lot.

Though, I will agree, the constant repetition of the theme and implementing it into the film itself was neat at first, but it got old fast, kind of actually annoyed me.

[–] fooseball 15 years ago

Honestly without the Big Lebowski, there was little other reason for me to revist this film. I enjoyed finding & decoding the small tidbits that were extracted into making Lebowski but the rest was excess fat to be trimmed and thrown to the dogs. I have to give it credit for the inspiration, along with The Big Sleep & Murder, My Sweet but unlike the latter, it is better in part, than as a whole.

[–] jonfrum2000 14 years ago

Sometimes, people like Altman just try too hard. Sometimes deconstructing a genre works, and sometimes it just ruins a good story. Personally, I expect a Chandler story to represent what Chandler intended - not something to be turned upside-down. I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare set in Weimar Germany, or any such crap like that, so there you are. Eliot Gould is not my idea of Marlowe either - he just doesn't have the look or carry himself properly for the role. To me, this movie was an experiment that should never have happened. A proper remake is certainly in order.

[–] BigJohnPilgrim 14 years ago

I agree, this movie was a waste of time and talent. The script and dialogue was unbelievably pretentious, with little of the dialogue making sense. I felt like I was on a bad acid trip where things just happened and people said things but nothing made sense from one second to the next. Awful movie. Sterling Hayden's acting was terrible, what a tragedy that someone who played credible gumshoes himself was miscast as a crazy guy in such a lame gumshoe movie. I could go on for hours on the bad acting, over-acting, stale dialogue, stupid plot (what was a gumshoe doing driving such a conspicuous car when he was supposed to be sneaking around? And the bad guys never noticed him! yeah, right!) Suffice it to say I won't be watching this one a second time.

Come see a fat old man sometime!

[–] rcpleasants 14 years ago

A story set in the 1930's taking place in the early 1970's was interesting. I love Elliot Gould but he is not Philip Marlowe. PM gets in a dozen fights in the book. This PM doesn't even slug anybody.

I also didn't like how the plot was changed where Mrs. wade was the victim instead of the villain and I didn't like how he shot Terry Lennox. The addition of Mr. Augustine / the money angle didn't add anything. Not Altman's best.

[–] McGonigle 14 years ago

The story is not "set in the 30s". The original novel was published (and set) in the 1950s.

I also didn't like how the plot was changed where Mrs. wade was the victim instead of the villain

Um, yeah. You might want to watch it again.

I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] muzilon 12 years ago

It seems to be one of those "love it or hate it" movies. I haven't read the Chandler book but I didn't like the film at all - for once I actually agree with snobbish critic Leslie Halliwell, who called it a "boring and ugly travesty".

[–] maz89 12 years ago

The look of this film was drab and narcoleptic, and not just because of the 1970s décor. I felt like I was watching the whole thing through a weird yellow liquid.

The film's tone, aided in part by that "drab and narcoleptic" cinematography, was a crucial part of its success, and what made it capable of delivering that rich, hypnotizing experience.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.