I enjoy watching this movie ,but from seeing its rating by other viewers I must be wrong . I do know that I like all the actors in this one plus I like period movies, this one happening in the 1940's. Does anyone else like this one?
shareI keep trying to like this film, but it's really hard going. The period look is excellent, in the settings as well as costuming and just the overall "look" of the cast, but it's just not enough for me. Personally, I suspect I resent the way the movie doesn't live up to its potential, particularly since the screenplay was written by John Gregory Dunne (along with wife Joan Didion), who wrote the novel on which it's based. Frankly, they managed to make a hash of the job. (Check out the book, if you haven't done so already.)
shareI've always liked this film and can't wait until it's released on DVD, if ever. I've never seen the wide-screen version so i'm dying to see it as it was originally intended to be seen. I think part of the problem in how the film has been generally received is due to the genre it most seems to identify with -- film noir. It's one of those movies where after viewing it you really have to mull over what happened and how exactly all the characters and scenes come together. Quality noir is so few and far between these days. the only ones of recent years that come to mind are LA Confidential and Mulholland Drive, and the latter certainly had its share of detractors. I don't think this film is as mind-blowing as Chinatown, but it is very enjoyable. I've never read the book by Didion, so I can't speak to the film as an adaptation, but is the Didion book a sort of noir novel with characters and plotlines circling back onto one another to create a well-realised and coherent story?
sharethe person who started this thread should rely on herself instead of the votes this movie has gotten on imdb. it's on right now but i've already missed half so i'll have to catch it later, but it does look interesting. it's also ironic that the guy who wrote the film just died.
shareJohn Dunne's recent passing is ironic. I read a notice in the paper about it and wasn't even aware that he had co-written this film until I stumbled on this message board to get info about when a DVD might be released.
shareThe film, as you say, is not as mind-blowing as "Chinatown," but the book certainly is. John Gregory Dunne (who, as you've since noted, was the book's author) was masterful in his ability to weave together several storylines so that they came together at the end. The book, by the way, is also one of the funniest I've ever read.
To answer your questions more directly, yes, characters and plotlines do circle back onto one another, far more so than in the movie. Is it a sort of "noir novel?" Maybe, but then I'm never sure just what really constitutes noir in a book. (The phrase has only in recent years been applied to novels.)
My previous comments about the movie are formed by my bias in favor of the book on which it's based, and so I'm relatively blind to the fact that -- taken in itself, without reference to the book -- it is a pretty good film. (For me, it's only in the way it fails to live up to that book that the film falls short.) There's an abundance of humor -- black humor, mostly, and much of it the type that makes you wonder about yourself for laughing at it so loudly -- in the book. Tommy Spellacy is much more of a loose cannon (who also has a wife who is herself a bit of a nutcase), and Desmond has facets to his character that (frustratingly) DeNiro could really have done things with in a better screenplay. And, just incidentally, the whodunnit is resolved much more interestingly (and with a different culprit, as well).
-- Paul
Thanks for all the insight about the novel; I think I'm going to hit Amazon and see if I can find a used copy. I can see how the film might pale in comparison; i don't remember it having any of the irony or humor that you note is in the novel.
shareVirtually all of the novel's irony and humor is missing from the movie (along with the subplots and most of the underlying theme); which, I guess, is why I was so disappointed in the movie (particularly since Dunne co-wrote the screenplay). To be fair, a lot of the book couldn't have been filmed, for one reason or another (not the least being that the Catholic church would have screamed bloody murder).
And in fairness, I'll add that the movie (as long as it's judged on its own merits apart from the book) works pretty well as a whodunnit. The period atmosphere of 1947 Los Angeles is pretty much dead-on, and Robert Duvall and his costars even manage to look at home wearing hats . . . unlike Nick Nolte and company in "Mulholland Falls," for instance, who never looked like they really knew what to do about those things on their heads.
-- Paul
yes, I agree... I think that's one of the things that I like most about the film -- its depiction of Los Angeles in the 40's. Doing so was no easy task especially given that Los Angeles, in my opinion, has perhaps the most ahistorical relationship with itself in comparison to other major US cities. New York, Boston, Philly, San Fran, & Chicago have, I believe, a much higher regard for their respective histories and landmarks. Los Angeles decided sometime ago to discontinue lighting the Hollywood sign at night because no one wanted to pay for it. I mean, could you imagine NYC choosing not to light up the Empire State building or the Chrysler building simply because no one thought it was important enough? This city (yes, I live in LA) seems more quick to reduce its history to rubble than to relish it. Attitudes, however, seem to be gradually changing: the old Egyptian theater, which has architecture that rivals Mann's Chinese theater and is also located on Hollywood Blvd., recently reopened. And The Griffith observatory made famous in "Rebel Without A Cause" is undergoing a major structural renovation. Nevertheless, one can see why creating a period film in Los Angeles can be quite an undertaking.
Although images of Los Angeles appear often in the films that have been produced here and that have used the city as a setting over the medium's 100 year history, more often the approach has been fictional and the tone less historical to the extent that LA is rendered as Any City, USA. There are some exceptions that come to mind (Double Indemnity, is one). But a lot of the MGM musicals of the period took a more mythological and imaginative approach. To depict 1940's LA in full-color, as True Confessions does, is no small historical achievement.
BroV --
As Charlie Hume once remarked in an episode of "Lou Grant," "You know, it's a funny thing, but you can still find a lot of the old Los Angeles peeking out from between the new stuff . . ." (probably slightly paraphrased). And actually, it's quite true, although I agree with you that the town's probably done more (probably since its earliest days) to destroy its own history than just about any other locale. Los Angeles was settled by -- and built by -- people who were desperate to "reinvent" themselves. Whether their attitude just carried over, or whether there was something to the area that already nurtured that attitude, or maybe whether it's just a case of like attracting like, the place has never stopped reinventing itself since the earliest days.
What amazes me, as per the quote above, is the fact that the old Hotel Rosslyn still stands (in somewhat seedy grandeur) in the middle of all that prime downtown real estate. (Yeah, sure, the area's a skid row, but that's never stopped a determined developer yet.) And, for that matter, it's not alone. Despite the archdiocese's best efforts, there's a push to save the old St. Vibiana's (which shows up in the novel version of "True Confessions" quite a bit), and -- as you say -- attitudes do seem to be changing.
Your reference to "Double Indemnity" reminds me of the (recent) history they had to recreate for the film, shot as it was in 1943/44 but taking place in 1939. Because of wartime food shortages that had left most shelves bare, they had to "stock" a nearby market (just down Melrose from Paramount's location) and protect that stock with armed guards during the filming of Walter and Phyllis' clandestine meeting. Like you, by the way, I cherish that film's location work. (Had Sunday brunch just last month at the Olvera Street restaurant to which Walter escorted Phyllis' stepdaughter, as a matter of fact.)
Getting back to the novel (and with a bit of a "spoiler"), John Gregory Dunne does a pretty good job of recreating 1947 L.A. for the most part, but then (and this, to me, is pretty dumb for a guy who started in journalism and should have researched a bit better) he blows it with a scene set in MacArthur Park (which was still Westside Park at that time). I've always gotten a laugh over that gaffe.
-- Paul
(who was born and lives in San Francisco, but has always regarded L.A. as his "adopted" hometown)
Kathy, it makes not one bit of difference what others think of this film. What is important is what YOU think of it.
Tp2kx, Child of the 50's, the TV Generation
I agree that the period detail and L.A. locations are a major attraction in this film. On that subject, one of my favorite things about "Double Indemnity" is not just the great locations (the downtown office building, the Glendale train station, the Los Feliz neighborhood, the Hollywood Bowl), but also the sure sense of location in the dialog (the Long Beach oilfields etc.). It really gives you a sense that the writers not only knew their way around L.A., but wanted to prove it to the viewer. It also makes the city almost a character in the movie, as it was in "Chinatown."
share[deleted]
I like this movie a lot, I think the photography and score are outstanding and the overall look of the film as good as any made in the 80s,
I've never read the book, but have heard from many that it's much better plot wise...
I have never read the book either, but I have ALWAYS liked this movie. It's so much more than a murder mystery, it's a story of redemption and the relationship between two brothers. Great acting, great sets, dialog is good and the music is charming.
shareWell said rondine, same here. I rated it a 10.
People always go on with is it film-noir and better than The Black Dahlia yes or no. I cannot label it, I just like it too much, but I think it is a crime-story and it is a drama. I especially like the couple of painful scenes between the two brothers who are very opposite (Robert de Niro and Robert Duvall). "Do you want a pie or something..." (they want to connect and communicate but fail). Gold.
thank you, DaVooz. :)
your quote is a perfect example of how the brothers have difficulty relating to one another (until of course they've both been humbled, one by scandal and the other by the mortality of his brother) and the way I like the dialog in the movie. Even if I can express it well, it's just a movie I love to watch.
Yes rondine, or like the other scene, as I posted in your OP with title Favorite Line before:
Just like "I-I-I.. uhm..." in the car with Duval riding after visiting their mom proposing to do something together and Duval annoyed says "Forget it!" when De Niro is hesitating.
So embarassing, painful and clear (another example of how the brothers have difficulty bonding).
I rated this movie a 10.
Great story,cast,acting, and dialog.
What are you gonna do? Kill me? Every body Dies. John Garfield (Body and Soul)
no it wasn't. it was painfully boring.
shareIt is the acting and balance that makes it such a great movie.
For instance The Black Dahlia or L.A. Confidential are more pulpy and have a lot of twists and are very entertaining and spectacular - but I cannot relate to anything of it. True confessions is more realistic for me, it is about the interacting and emotions between two brothers. I think most males miss that or resent that (brotherly love). L.A. Confidential and The Black Dahlia are about crime and fraud mainly. Sure, there's always a dame. But as in L.A. Confidential True Confessions deals also with ambition and career and so on.
Good points about "Black Dahlia" and "L.A. Confidential," which are more "action" films while this is more of a psychological drama about two brothers facing moral conflicts. I loved the performances in this film, but it's obvious it was adapted from a novel that had much better elaboration of the motivations. Still, Duvall and DeNiro make this worthwhile, and the final shot is heartbreaking.
shareNot a bad movie. Just seemed a little slow to me. Every time I was about to fall asleep, something would perk my interest. Then, I'd find myself ready to fall asleep again. The acting was good all around.
shareI loved this movie. I just think it may have been a little slow-paced for some people.
shareWith better direction and tighter editing it could have been good. Unfortunately it is an over-long bore as it is.
shareI always find myself watching this movie when my schedule and the TV schedule coincide. I don't mind the slower pace, and really enjoy the interaction between great actors - all of them. For me it's more enjoyable than the other Black Dahlia based films.
share