MovieChat Forums > Devil in a Blue Dress (1995) Discussion > It wasn't a hit because........

It wasn't a hit because........

posted 14 years ago by donofthedial
23 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this film again the other night after maybe 10 years.

It should have been a bigger hit than it was.

I think a few things prevented it from being a huge hit.

Lack of star power.

Not enough of Jennifer Beals.

A bit too laid back.

Some oddball casting.

Weak pay-off.

I had forgotten why the Jennifer Beals character was even in the film and why all the events were occurring. The pay-off at the end did not justify all the action we had seen on the screen. The film is very "Chinatown"ish, but it didn't have a big pay-off like CHINATOWN did.

Some people on this board have also suggested that the film may have been passed over by white viewers and I think that may be true. I don't know how the film was marketed when it was released, but the film has no white stars with the partial exception of Jennifer Beals. Or white folks may have thought it was a 'black film' for black audiences.

Oh, well....too late now.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ivana2804 14 years ago

I completely disagree both about an Eazy/Daphne romance and about the ending. I think the movie is great as it is, exactly because it avoids the Hollywood cliches, and the ending was perfect IMO. A tacked on happy end where Daphne falls in love with Eazy and finds happiness would have felt too cliche, too Hollywood. I like it that the ending is low-key and bittersweet and that things don't work out perfectly.

Daphne and Don were in the movie just as much as they needed for their characters to be fleshed out and to play their role. A good movie doesn't have superfluous and unnecessary scenes just because you want to see more of a cool or sexy character. Daphne needed to be somewhat mysterious early on, so she couldn't be in the movie all the time, and she still had enough screentime for us to learn her story, which was pretty strong.

Pain is to pleasure as disco is to punk.You need to live through one to fully appreciate the other.

[–] chazzmarra 7 years ago

Appreciate what ? Equally horrible.

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

but the film has no white stars with the partial exception of Jennifer Beals.

Tom Sizemore has a main role, and he's not even bi-racial like Beals!

Love United. Hate Glazers.

[–] jmix66 14 years ago

Tom Sizemore was an up and coming actor when this came out and wasn't a major star.
Frankly (and I say this as a Black American) it's extremely difficult to get White Americans (the numerically largest group in this country) to see movies w/ an all (or mostly)minority cast.Especially if there's not a major star to draw them in.

No offense...but your style of writing makes reading even that more difficult

[–] Howlin Wolf 14 years ago

I take your point that he was only on the cusp of becoming recognisable then, but, by virtue of him being one of the important characters in the story and not just a walk-on, then it isn't an all-black cast.

I think it would be the same in this country (I'm in the UK... ) but that's only because different demographics don't mix together in their ordinary daily lives, like they should do... When we get to the stage where all kinds of different races can live alongside one another without it being worthy of comment or a special exception, then that's when movies will end up being produced to reflect that change... If groups have such different lifestyles and experiences, then of course they're going to receive entertainment that speaks only to them.

Despite being white myself. I don't have any problem watching an all-black cast because I love movies of all varieties, and if a movie can take me into an environment I have minimal experience of (from the fantastical exploration of Space or the Old West, to the realities of a black neighbourhood... ) then it's always a learning opportunity.

I know what it's like to be part of a minority, because I'm disabled... Society is a long way off from showcasing lots of films about the disabled, because it's not something that a general able bodied audience would be constantly exposed to, as they go about their daily business. Take the disability issue, and flip it for a majority white audience's interaction with folks of other ethnicity. If we can change that, then we can change the movies that are there to reflect our culture.

"I've been turned down more times than the beds at the Holiday Inn; I still try"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] activista 11 years ago

@donofthedial

Lack of major star power? Hello---what about Denzel---he was already a huge star when this film came out--heck, he was probably the only reason the film even got made in the first place, plus I think he co-produced it--I'm not sure,but it was certainly a change of pace for him at that time. So THAT wasn't the reason it failed--and it was promoted. I'm not sure why it didn't blow up more either, considering it was released right smack dab in the middle of the '90's black film boom. Basically, I guess,because it was an atypical black film,and not a 'hood gangsta flick or comedy like some of the black films made at that time. That would be my speculative thesis on it.

[–] donofthedial 11 years ago

You may be right. OTOH - if he were that big a star with that much power, the film would have worked, perhaps. he is in many films that are not 'hood' or 'gangsta' pics.

Oh, well...it's all over now.

[–] howard849 11 years ago

I can't for the life of me understand why this movie wasn't a hit. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 87 percent fresh. Actually, the only thing I can think of is, we or most of us anyway weren't as "in" to this internet thing in '95 as we are are today. 8 stars.

[–] donofthedial 11 years ago

What does the internet have to do with it?
--------------------------------------------

"Drop the coffee. No, not that one. The other one. Did you drink from this cup yet? Damn it!"

[–] howard849 11 years ago

In '95, not too likely but these days most of us get the news and reviews we learn to trust from the internet.

[–] donofthedial 11 years ago

I still do not really understand what the internet has to do with the film.

Another big thing - there was little or no sex in the film. Jennifer Beals really needed to get nude and nailed. Didn't happen. And now that she turns 50 y/o this December 19th, it won't happen.

[–] howard849 11 years ago

The internet had nothing to do with the movie. Possibly the lack of it allowing people to know how good it was when it came out contributed to this movies failure at the box office. As for nude/getting banged... I wouldn't have minded that and it is one way to get a movie noticed. That there wasn't any of that graphically going on didn't detract from what is a great movie in this instance.

[–] donofthedial 11 years ago

OK - got it on the internet.

JB - The ads at the time had her featured in a sexy blue dress, IIRC. Naturally, you expect to see some action of some sort. I guess they didn't want the hassle of showing inter-racial sex. oh, well...too late now....

[–] shempXIV 10 years ago

Why?

1) Denzel W wasn't a big a star then as now.

2) The movie was set in the 1940s and many young people (well, those between 15 and 34, regardless of skin-tone) seemingly can't relate to anything that happened more than 5 years ago.

3) DiaBD was, essentially, an old-fashioned private-eye mystery, like Harper or The Big Sleep, and one has to actually pay attention to those kinds of movies.

4) No explosions, big special f/x, or nudity.

[–] coldnaps 8 years ago

2 year later, you nailed it with #3

[–] mgtbltp 10 years ago

Great film, a good Neo Noir/PI genesis flick (Easy Rawlins), finally got around to seeing it last night. The recreation of 48 LA was very believable, and the story was interesting. All actors involved were excellent I gave it an 8/10.

If it had just turned up the sleaze factor a notch, added a little gratuitous nudity, delved more into the jazz scene, and toned down the shiny "new penny" look of all the automobiles it would have been a 10/10.

[–] ck1-5 8 years ago

It's a good enough movie; it just wasn't what all of the "cool kids" were into.

[–] aquarianbrass 8 years ago

If whites can't see a movie with no white stars that's pretty sad commentary on their general attitudes. Non whites go All kinds of movies that don't feature any non-whites stars. We have no problem with that.

[–] kwestmo (4150) 4 years ago

It wasn't a hit because it's an OK movie. It's good, not great. That being said it did lay the ground work for the sequels, which could have been better. The Washington/Cheetal chemistry would have sold the sequels.

Sticking closer to the novel's plot would have helped, too.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5998) a year ago

The problem I have is that the story "cheats". He's supposed to be this clean, non-violent guy, but he has this friend who does very violent things and then the main guy gets the full benefit from that, without any of the guilt.