MovieChat Forums > Mulholland Falls (1996) Discussion > Great Cast! How come it sucked?

Great Cast! How come it sucked?


This had to be one of the greatest casts of the last twenty years. Yet, I remember seeing it and just thinking, when is it going to be over? I think they got too caught up with making it look authentic. Always with the hats, the cigarettes, the cars. It was like, OK OK, I believe you, it is the '40s! Wow, should have been much better. Reminds me of "Devil in the Blue Dress," another '40s era movie I hated. Eventually, you have to seel the film on the story!

Salvation is free

reply

"OK OK, I believe you, it is the '40s!"

So, right off the bat, apparently you don't get it, because it's the 1950's.

reply

Bad random script with almost non existent builds or so poorly executed it was in the ball park of the last season of A Team.

It had some good stuff. The crater in the desert was an intense moment. But it wasn't set up right.

The cast was amazing wasn't it?

reply


A major part of the problem is that they gave away the ending IN THE OPENING CREDITS!

Think about it. After the film is over, what did we learn about the motivation for murder that we didn't see before the first line was spoken? NOTHING. It's obvious from the first two minutes of the movie that Allison was killed because she knew too much.

Maybe that bit of editing was a hack job by the studio... I dunno. Either way it completely removed any 'punch' from the ending.


The Doctor is out. Far out.

reply

I saw this movie 11 years ago and thought it good enough to view again last night. I was mistaken. Apart from the spectacular -- and too short -- visuals of a younger Jennifer Connolly, this movie is a waste of time. It has a great cast and tries to be of the caliber of Chinatown, but fails miserably.
Why? Poor writing and no character development.
Nolte is given a few well written lines, but practically nothing for Penn, Madsen and Palmenteri. A waste of acting talent -- they're only cartoonish stereotypes and little more -- I felt embarrassed for them. Malkovich is miscast as a military general and has too little screen time -- another painful waste of talent. Melanie Griffith does OK with what's given to her, but the writing's too thin. The behavior of the Treat Williams character is not credible and comes across foolishly – poor writing, again.
It seems the producers sunk all of their money into recreating the past with excellent settings, wardrobes, hairstyles and makeup, but fully missed the boat with the screenplay.
The following year (1997), LA Confidential got it right – thank heavens!


reply

I agree. I just watched this film last night as it is streaming on Netflix Instant. I love neo-noir, particularly 90's movies that look back at tough L.A. detectives and classy dames of the 40's and 50's. "L.A. Confidential" is obviously the best. I think "Mulholland Falls" had potential, and certainly had a great cast, but it was completely derailed by the script.

The opening scene: brilliant. Nick Nolte and his crew look out of place at a fancy restaurant, then bust in and rough up a bunch of Chicago gangsters like it ain't no thing. They drag William Peterson to the top of 'Mulholland Falls' and let him go. "You can't do this! This is America!" pleads Peterson. Nick Nolte says, "This isn't America. This is L.A."

BAM! That's a great opening 'hook,' this whole scene is probably why the screenplay sold in the first place, and this is what the whole movie should have been about. The rise and fall of Nick Nolte's "Hat Squad" - how they bent the rules and pushed the law too far, and how the tide of the country was about to change the Miranda Rights and such, and they could never go back.

I think the rest of the script made two mistakes. One, they brought the military into it. This just wasn't as interesting as that opening scene and it just becomes about 'cops vs. army soldiers.' No good. A military conspiracy in the middle of a L.A. detective story, I suppose that's a novel thing, but it's brought down by miscasting. Treat Williams and John Malkovich don't come across as genuine military personnel. Overall, this entire plot feels like a subplot, disconnected from what should have been the main thrust of the film - Nick and his squad brought to the edge.

The other mistake the script made: relying far too much on flashbacks. We only see Jennifer Connolly in flashbacks! She is a knockout, dynamite screen presence and she's hardly in this movie for more than five minutes. This movie was about 107 minutes long...what you really needed was a 145 minute epic. Cut the whole military angle, show how Nick Nolte met and fell in love with Jennifer in real time - not a flashback - and how it disintegrated his marriage. This could be alongside a main plot of Nick trying to stop gangsters or butting heads with the FBI, or maybe there's a Dahlia-like killer who's targeting women like Jennifer and she dies at the midpoint of the film.

The problem with flashbacks is that they typically reveal information to the viewer that the characters already know. It's at the Act I break we learn that Nick had an affair with Jennifer but that doesn't really change anything. Nick was investigating the case before and he's still gonna investigate it now. He needed to be forced to make a decision, something would that have spun the story in another direction for Act 2. Instead, they just continue doing what they're doing, until Nick's men get attacked by the military at the beachouse. That's an exciting scene but it should have come much earlier.

Anyway. This movie had loads of potential but clearly a lot of problems too.

reply

[deleted]

Easy question. Answer in two words. John Malkovich. He was severly miscast. No way he would ever have been a General- not to mention that was when the wheels came off the movie. The Amry (especially a highly classified division in the 50's cooperating with the LAPD?? Not a chance. They would have had Treat Williams boot Hoover's a** off the second he crossed the no-wake zone, not have Timm, in his smoking jacket, invite him to tea.)

Also, I have to agree with the posters who discuss the many inconsistencies in the film. Tough cop with psychiatrist. Hoover "in love" with wife but adulterous affair "as much as he could get away." A lot just didn't add up so it was hard to get behand the characters.

reply

John Malkovich's character is the only thing that keeps me from rating this film a "10" in my book. Unfortunate. There is so much I like about the film. Mainly love the atmosphere, costumes, sets and music. John Malkovich's character is so difficult to watch and his performance is so artificial. Too bad. I rate the film a solid "7" with him in it.

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"

reply

Get real, driver 8, Devil in a Blue Dress was a great film. You are in a definite minority on that one. Maybe you've watched too many MTV videos and have seriously warped your attention span. Maybe you have ADD. Too bad.

reply

Very good points, Belmontheir. My main issue with Mulholland Falls is that it just felt hollow to me - an attractive surface, good recreation of the period, costumes, cinematography, talented actors - but I couldn't really care about the characters or what happened in the course of the movie. I'm not saying that you have to like the characters, but they should inspire some feeling in you other than indifference.

I agree that the military angle felt very out of place. It would have made it much better if the plot involved organized crime, a serial killer or some kind of Hollywood cover up. That's what made LA Confidential and Hollywoodland so interesting.

Mulholland Falls is not a bad film (and certainly does not fall into the same company as the horrific theatrical cut of De Palma's The Black Dahlia), but it's not in the league of others that it has been compared to.

I'm also not a Nick Nolte fan, so that might be another reason why I'm not overly fond of this movie.

reply

[deleted]

I'm late coming in, but I suspect that for all those who thought/think this films sucks, it's because they have to actually pay close attention (meaning they must have an actual attention span) and listen to dialog and follow a story-line that is intriguing and unfolds in a natural way. Watching this film, one has to actually engage one's brain, which I know is difficult for many, especially in this day and age of tweeting and texting and looking at one's iPhone while watching a movie. Oh, and there's no shootouts, explosions or ludicrously over-choreographed martial arts fights in this either - so that's a problem for many bird-brains also.

reply