MovieChat Forums > The Detective (1968) Discussion > Pretty Much of a Mess

Pretty Much of a Mess

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

The location thing was crazy - it went back and forth from LA (boroughs?) to NY faster than the speed of light. Certainly assumed the viewer was pretty much of an idiot or a visitor from Kazakhstan.

The story line incredibly contrived - FS' bouncing around between LR and JB amazing. How he would keep going into almost any apartment and finding LR quite a trick - the last one being the best where he answers the phone where you would have been thinking it was her place - except he just walked in.

And damned if I can figure out how Leikman, MacIver, and Leland ended up in the same pot. (The only juncture was JB walking into FS' office with some questions about a seemingly 'unrelated' suicide - or did I miss something?)

There must have been 8 bad stories all intertwined without being able to see the twine. Was the job of monitoring 'continuity handled by ANYONE?

The consolation was the procession of some known actors and actresses - who all seemed to be there without much reason - and with a lot of wooden lines too.

The weakest Columbo show - whatever it might have been - was incredibly well scripted in comparison - probably Perry Mason too.

[–] JohnnyWeissmuller 15 years ago

Well, no, I disagree and say the film is anything but a "mess" ... Yes, the location filming between city and beach was off kilter, but anyone without much geographical knowledge wouldn't have known the scenes were shot between L.A. and New York whilst most really wouldn't care for a minor discrepancy in the plotting.

The plot is contrived, but not overly so, certainly no more than some of the most acute film noir of the '40s and '50s. If you can't, however, figure out how Leikman, MacIver and Leland were involved in the same plot then you have missed something whilst I would say it was a plus-point, not a consolation, that so many fine and known actors/actresses were involved in, what was, a very potent and popular film.

NOW TARZAN MAKE WAR!

[–] aorourke55 14 years ago

I think you're being a little too kind to this disaster. I've never much liked FS but here he was so bad it was ridiculous. Some scenes were so stupid I thought they were dream sequences until I realized they were supposed to be real.

The worst thing about it was that I think they thought they were being enlightened about gays etc. By contrast, Perry Mason often seemed way ahead of its time in its sensitivities.

[–] bluestocking-7 14 years ago

The weakest Columbo show - whatever it might have been - was incredibly well scripted in comparison - probably Perry Mason too.

lol

Actually, even episodes from "Law & Order" are better scripted and those can get pretty convoluted.

Yep, this movie is a mess. The 6.4 imdb score must be for the subject matter and casting but not for the screenplay and direction.

I just watched it from the Retroplex channel. I don't think I've ever seen it in the Turner Classic Movies schedule or I would have discovered it sooner. And I had to watch in bits and pieces because I couldn't get into it and through the end in one sitting.

There are only 3 reviews of the source material, the novel by Roderick Thorp, at Amazon, 2 are glowing reviews without detail and the 3rd, a 1-star review which I find useful. The reviewer noted: "Though by no means outstanding, the movie version is a vast improvement over the novel." Sounds like the novel was a mess in the first place.

Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

[–] WhackJob 14 years ago

I have to disagree the movie was convoluted but if you give it solid attention it's easy to comprehend. I didn't think it was a mess on the contrary I felt it wound up the stories neatly. It's really easy to comprehend.

I'm Whackjob, I'm insane, and I approve this message
-WhackJob March 18, 2008

[–] jmix66 13 years ago

Actually, OP, you want to watch the film again as you seem to have missed several details:

1) There ARE many beaches near NYC. Long Island has many as do both New Jersey and Connecticut. The major flaw in this film seems to the fact that the beach scenes are filmed w/ the ocean being on the left when standing when it would be on the RIGHT on the Eastern seaboard.

2) W/O giving away any spoilers it's pretty clear how all of this ties together if you watch the movie closely.

3) His finding Lee Remick was/is difficult to explain, but as the past and present narratives intertwine, there may be an explanation that's simply implied and not given about the "reality" of some of their encounters.

I think that if you decide to view this film again w/ an open mind and closely following the narrative, you might see that this film is actually not too bad.
It was certainly seen as "radical" when it was produced.

Bad films are a crime against humanity.

[–] robfwoods 13 years ago

It wasn't me with an issue with beaches - I'm a born and bred NY:er and sure noticed that there were many times it was not in NY while pretending to be quite aside from any beaches.

As for the machinations of the plot, etc. I have the DVD and can re-look sometime - but seems there are others on the MB that find many conflicting and contrived aspects. Let's see.

(And the ocean can be on left or right on East or West coasts - depends where the CAMERA is)

[–] jmix66 13 years ago

Umm..when the sun is shown to be on the LAND or left side on the East coast then the ocean should be on right.
You are correct about the camera positioning, but I believe that you know what I meant.

Bad films are a crime against humanity.

[–] robfwoods 13 years ago

Yeah - sure - bring the sun in for 'triangulation' (if you know what time it SHOULD be) and then all clear.

But anyhow I didn't have any problem with beaches for the location conflicts.

[–] mptnla 13 years ago

Thank GOD I'm not the only one who thought this movie was just all over the place. The only reason I'm posting anything on this board is curiosity -- because I started watching this movie on Saturday night - and found it boring and non-sensical, then tried to finish it yesterday [Sunday] and it seemed to get worse. I guess I'm doomed to finish on Monday night what I started, but I 200% agree with most of the posts on this subject that this movie was a mess. The confusing flashbacks, jumping back and forth, and just general disconnected plot makes this one of the worst movies I've ever seen -- and I'm 30 painful minutes away from finishing it.

It seems to have just been a vehicle created for Sinatra to have strong, overly cocky, over the top dramatic scenes, but this all comes off as a bunch of disjointed vignettes with characters I couldn't care less about. I have no clue why Fox Movie Channel gave this film 3 out of 4 stars. The OP hit it on the head - What a mess!

"...and I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids."

[–] robfwoods 13 years ago

I'm the OP - let's give some credit tho - it was a horrible mess but most of us stayed thru it - so that good it was - but it could have been a really good film if it hadn't been directed by Sarah Palin's mother.

[–] Jay09101951 13 years ago

Calling this a mess is being kind. What bothers me is the way they use Jewish cultural reference through Jack Klugman in a way that seems to be patronizing.
Musante's confession scene is one of the most over acted scenes I have ever seen. To me, it seems that when Norma's husband jumps off of the racetrack roof, the movie stops dead. This film was released in 1968 which was one of the worst periods for film in history. After all of the great films of 1967, I guess Hollywood went in the toilet like the rest of the country in 1968.

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination but it has a period charm that I like a lot. It makes the puerile posturing of contemporary politicians and bureaucrats look even sadder than usual.

As it happens I thought that it was a film where the Detective has to traipse round the (gay) demi-monde trying to convince the punters that he wants to solve a crime not persecute them. I'd tried Madigan before The Detective and although the gay motif occurs here it still isn't the one I thought it was. It looks like a pilot for a Clint Eastwood cop show. I think I'll have to have another look at The Boston Strangler.

Any suggestions while I wait for it?

On second thoughts, the last twelve minutes or so give me pause, it might have been the film I thought it was. Such a shame that so many of the films I watched in the late 70s-early 80s were after the pubs had shut.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] charismaseasons 9 years ago

I didn't really find it hard to follow and I missed a chunk of the beginning.

If I read it right. MacIver was involved in the Rainbow scam. He ends up killing the gay guy because he was confused about his own sexuality. Leland is responsible for arresting the wrong guy for the crime and the poor guy ends up in the electric chair. MacIver, who is now responsible for two deaths decides to kill himself. The investigation into MacIver's death leads Leland to uncovering Rainbow but exposing Rainbow and MacIver's death would lead to the public finding out he arrested and killed the wrong man so he and the doctor decide to keep it quiet.

the writing is pretty bad and not really much of a story but not that bad. After watching some old TV shows from the 60's and 70's it seems to me that most of them were about nothing really.

Columbo is the only show that stands up after all this time.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 8 years ago

This movie wasn't convoluted at all. If anything, it plays out very cleverly. At some point you think that the douchey doctor bumped off McIver somehow because of RAINBOW. Then the movie goes full circle and you realize that McIver was the one that killed the guy in the beginning.

It was the stupid flashback sequences that made everything hard to follow. It reminded me of the flashbacks in Sorry, Wrong Number, when even the flashbacks had flashbacks and after awhile, you didn't remember whether you were watching a scene that happened in the past or the present.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] adam-desborough 8 years ago

My biggest problem with the film is way too much time is given to the wife subplot which has very little bearing on the main storyline.
If I had to guess, I'd say that was because Frank's then wife Mia Farrow was set to play the part and Frank wanted her onscreen with him as much as possible.
Of course I could be wrong. Was Lee Remick's character a big part of the novel the film was based on?