The Detective

Movie star, actor, singer and entertainer, Frank Sinatra was able to pick and choose his roles as he saw fit by 1968. He picked movies he wanted to do, not just for the sake of doing a movie. With 1968's The Detective, Sinatra was at the helm of a police drama that was ahead of its time and helped kick the door open for where the genre would go at the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s.

A veteran detective with years of experience in New York City, Joe Leland (Sinatra) has seen it all, and it's starting to wear on him more than a little bit. He's been called in to investigate a particularly gruesome murder, the son of a rich businessman killed and disfigured. Rumor has it the dead man was gay, Leland and his fellow detectives forced to explore the gay sub-culture (its the 1960s, just go with it) to see if they can track down the murderer. The case has gained notoriety in the headlines, putting Leland and the precinct in the spotlight to solve it and solve it quickly. It's the kind of case that can make or break a police officer. Solve it and quickly rise through the ranks? Don't? Well, a scapegoat will be needed. It's not the only case on the docket though, crimes -- murders and more -- rolling in on a daily basis. Hopefully, Leland can keep it together long enough to find his man.

The appeal in this police drama from director Gordon Douglas is obvious. Made during one of the most turbulent times in Hollywood history (and American history at that point), 'Detective' embraces the sharp-edged, rougher mindset perpetuating the minds of the audiences. It isn't interested in being politically correct...at all. A gay man being murdered (with his penis cut off) provides quite the jumping off point, constant mention of "fags" and "homos," as well as an almost laughable portrayal of a homosexual meeting point. Beyond that though, it's a brutally realistic story in terms of the storytelling. Sex, violence, one-night stands, drugs, city corruption, 'Detective' is ready, willing and able to dive in head first and get dirty.

For all the positives though, there's the obvious counter of the negatives. In a movie that runs 114 minutes, I thought too much time was spent getting to know Sinatra's Leland via a series of flashbacks. It serves to give some cool background, but there's a limit. We see Leland meet Karen (Lee Remick) who he eventually marries. If cop movies have taught us anything though, it's that a cop's marriage has never gone smoothly in the history of law enforcement. The subject matter may have seemed ahead of its time in 1968, but it makes the story lag. We hear Joe talk about all the women he's been with, we hear Karen discuss her troubled past, her series of one-night stands, her inability to hold a relationship. A little bawdy if you ask me (that's sarcasm by the way). Seeing Remick's Karen say 'Let me make love to you this time' is a little scandalous for the time, but when the murder cases are far more interesting, those wavy-screened flashbacks kill the momentum.

I've always thought Sinatra was an underrated actor. Was he a great actor? No, but he was far better than people remember him. He does a no-nonsense tough guy like nobody's business. As we see with his dating/marrying Karen, Joe is exceptionally smooth, looking like he's almost bored with the process. He's that cool. More than that though, I appreciated the human side of Sinatra's part as longtime detective Joe Leland. The job is beating him down as he sees the lowest of lows, what people can do to each other in day-to-day life. He comes from a family of police officers and does it because it's in his blood, not because he loves it. Joe is good at what he does, but as he sees the violence and corruption, he begins to question how much more he can take. Uninterested in being a PR police man, he wants to do his job. An underrated part, Sinatra is the best part of this one.

Give Sinatra credit when it's due. Other actors wanted to work with the guy. Including Remick, the cast is pretty impressive. The list of Leland's fellow detectives include Robert Duvall, Jack Klugman, Ralph Meeker and Al Freeman Jr, Horace McMahon playing the precinct commander. Jacqueline Bisset plays a widow who approaches Leland with a case involving her dead husband, supposedly by suicide but she believes otherwise. Also look for Tony Musante, Lloyd Bochner and William Windom as possible suspects in the cases Leland is pursuing.

I wanted to like this one more, mostly because there was so much potential for a really good to maybe even near-classic status. The flaws are pretty big though, especially the intense focus on Leland's personal life. I thought the twists in the movie's last act were pretty solid too, catching me by surprise, but even in that aspect, the execution is pretty weak as the film limps to the finish. Really good performance from Sinatra and a solid cast overall, but it never lives up to what it could have been.

The Detective (1968): **/****

The Split

A stylish, dark heist flick from the 1960s with one of the all-time great tough guy casts. It's a winning formula for sure, especially for a sucker like me for heist movies. It took me years to track down 1968's The Split -- which I first reviewed in August 2009 -- and I was less than impressed with the film on my first viewing. When it popped up on Turner Classic Movie's schedule recently, I was going to give it another try. I mean....come on.....look at this cast!

A master thief who's gone off the grid seemingly for several years, a man named McClain (Jim Brown) is reunited with a former partner and an expert planner, Gladys (Julie Harris), when it comes to pulling off impossible jobs. They team up again, Gladys putting forth the plan; rob the L.A. Coliseum during an NFL playoff game that will net $500,000. McClain assembles a team of crooks who haven't worked together in the past, but he convinces them to put their differences aside with the thought of a very lucrative payday. The five-man team goes about planning the job with very little time to do so. The dangerous job is one thing though, but the fallout from the job may be even more dangerous, especially when an investigating detective, Lt. Brill (Gene Hackman), catches wind of them and is right behind them.

For years, this 1968 heist film from director Gordon Flemyng wasn't available in any form; DVD, VHS, nothing. Now, it's available on a burn-for-order DVD so if you've never seen it and are dying to catch up, there it is for you. First or second viewing though, I had the same issues. 'Split' has a lot of potential, much of it tied to the casting, but it never quite goes anywhere. It's got the style from its frame-in-frame credits sequence to its Quincy Jones soundtrack, the on-location shooting at the L.A. Coliseum to the dark nature of the team of crooks working together. All these disparate elements never manage to jell, ending up with a heist film that takes a really bizarre turn in the last third of the movie. A very disappointing end result because it did have so much potential.

How about that casting though? In assembling his team for the robbery, Brown's McClain brings together Bert Clinger (Ernest Borgnine), a gym owner and strong man, Harry Kifka (Jack Klugman), a down on his luck limo driver who will serve as the team's getaway driver, Marty Gough (Warren Oates), a temperamental safe cracker, and Dave Negli (Donald Sutherland), a smooth as ice hit man and hired killer. And NFL great turned action star Jim Brown for good measure?!? How can you lose??? Well, as dark and dirty as things get, something is missing from the group. The movie runs only 91 minutes and after McClain's recruiting, things move right along to the actual heist. The group is full of so many bad guys I never found myself rooting for them to pull the job off successfully. Still, it is an impressive grouping of star power, misutilized though they may be.

I think that's the problem for 'Split' in general. With so much going on, the right tone is never picked out. It bounces back and forth and among all these different things. Brown's McClain meets up with his jilted ex-wife, Ellie (Diahann Carroll), still holding a grudge, but darn it, she still likes him a lot as we see in a montage set to a Jones song as they walk along a beach. The actual recruiting of the team just feels a tad bit off, like certain things aren't fitting together well, but it's entertaining enough. The robbery at the Coliseum lacks a certain energy with no real catch of anything unique helping them pull the job off. But the biggest problem? That would be the final half hour.

One of the keys to a good heist film is oddly enough, not the heist. It's the fallout after the job when the cops close in, the team has to wait for things to cool down to get their money, and seemingly inevitably....turn on each other. That's fine and dandy, just about any good heist movie follows that formula. Ready for the derail? It comes in a really odd one-scene cameo from James Whitmore as Ellie's creepy landlord. Then, Gene Hackman doesn't even make his first appearance until 70 minutes into a 90-minute movie. From there on in, the story and twists and turns feel rushed. It's a pretty dark ending, but even that feels mishandled. The movie just sort of ends, leaving all sorts of questions unanswered. A truly disappointing movie, one that handled differently could have been a near-classic among the heist genre. Oh, and the above poster is bad, giving the impression the team is just a bunch of friends out to pull a job. Um.....no.

The Split (1968): **/****
Rewrite of August 2009 review

Days of Wine and Roses

When I hear the names Blake Edwards and Jack Lemmon, my mind automatically jumps to the madcap, sprawling 1965 comedy The Great Race. It was a favorite of mine growing up, and I still enjoy it a lot. As far as critical acclaim, the duo paired for a film that couldn't be a bigger departure in tone, 1962's Days of Wine and Roses.

A successful public relations man for a firm based in San Francisco, Joe Clay (Lemmon) both likes his job and is equal parts frustrated with it. During a boat party hosted by one of his clients, Joe meets Kirsten (Lee Remick), a beautiful secretary who he likes, but she wants nothing to do with him. Upon actually talking with Joe though, she starts to fall for him, and then it's only a matter of time before they are dating and then married with a kid. As their relationship develops though, Joe's main passion, drinking, begins to affect Kirsten too. What starts off as a drink here and there turns into something much more severe, threatening to tear the relationship apart.

As I watch certain movies, I try to remind myself that the purpose of every single movie is not necessarily to entertain. Some movies you just sit back and watch. Take in the acting, the cinematography, the music, whatever. This is a dramatic movie. I feel safe saying you won't just out and out enjoy it, much less like it. Edwards' film documents in great detail two people's descent into alcoholism, and not surprisingly it isn't a barrel of monkeys to watch. It is intensely uncomfortable to watch and never even eases up just a little.

So looking at the entire film, I just can't give it an overly positive review. Seeing the descent into alcoholism is fascinating to watch in a sick way. Early on, we see Joe bring over two grocery bags of booze to Kirsten's apartment, emptying them and giggling about it. He introduces his future wife to alcohol, the duo just drinking occasionally only to eventually end up as boozehounds. The issue becomes -- on a purely movie basis -- is that it just wasn't interesting to watch (for me at least). How many times can we see people going back to the bottle after achieving some sort of sobriety? Yes, I realize that's the reality of alcoholism, but as a film, that doesn't make it any easier to tolerate. It gets tedious, and with a 117-minute movie, it feels significantly longer thanks to its episodic story techniques.

Where the movie is worth recommending is the performances from Lemmon and Remick as Joe and Kirsten. Their chemistry is without question. They look, act and talk like a couple madly in love, drawn to each other as if the universe wants them to be together. There is a genuine connection of some sorts between them, but eventually their relationship becomes more about the alcohol and bonding over their mutual love of alcohol than anything. Their drunk scenes are pretty bad (literally with some unintentional laughs but also uncomfortable to watch), and their crumbling relationship is difficult to watch. On performance alone though, it's two great acting jobs. Both were nominated for Oscars, Lemmon losing to Gregory Peck (To Kill a Mockingbird) while Remick lost to Anne Bancroft (The Miracle Worker).

The story requires a focus heavily on Joe and Kirsten, but two other performances stand out. One is Charles Bickford as Ellis, Kirsten's widowed father. This is a Dad who just wants the best for her daughter, even seeing that this relationship could be an issue the first time he meets Joe. Also look for Jack Klugman as Jim Hungerford, Joe's eventual Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. Both are small parts, but both left a very positive impression.

Again, my review is only based on an entertainment level as I try to do with all my reviews. As a film, it is easier to judge. The acting is great, Edwards' direction solid as always, and the shadowy black and white cinematography is ideally suited to the darkness of the story. On the other hand, it simply wasn't a film I enjoyed. It's a tough film to get through in spite of all those more technical positives. Ahead of its time for a 1962 audience, yes, but just not a film I will revisit soon.

Days of Wine and Roses <---trailer (1962): ** 1/2 /****

Two-Minute Warning

When I think of movies from the 1970s, one genre rises above the rest...the disaster movie. Put an all-star cast together with a possibly world-ending catastrophe, and you've got a winner on your hands. Well, sort of. Most of these movies are pretty bad, the appeal coming from guessing which huge Hollywood star is going to die gruesomely in some horrific way.  Hint: It's almost always the aging star sacrificing themselves for the lives of a younger person. The disaster movie opened the door for all sorts of movies with all star casts, not necessarily just at the end of the world.

Take 1976's Two-Minute Warning as an example. The caliber of names is certainly impressive, but more on that later. The premise is disaster-like, but it's more of the man-made variety.  In fact, the movie and its premise -- a sniper setting up shop at a sporting event and opening fire -- was so controversial that it has been almost entirely buried over the last 30-plus years.  To air it on TV, an additional 30 minutes were added to make the lone sniper a diversionary tactic for a heist in Los Angeles, supposedly lessening the blow and the impact of what's going on.  The original theatrical version is a mixed bag overall though with a dull first hour, great middle half hour, and a finale and ending that rival the most uncomfortable scenes you'll ever watch.

Hosting a championship football game (supposedly between L.A. and Baltimore?), the L.A. Coliseum has opened its doors to some 90,000 fans who have turned out to see the contest. VIPs including politicians both locally and nationally have come out for the job, making Captain Peter Holly's (Charlton Heston) job that much more difficult maintaining security. Near halftime though, one of the countless cameras around the stadium spot a man with a rifle in the tower over the main entrance, a location that is impossible to get to without being detected. The high-powered automatic rifle will have free reign over the stadium, and no is seemingly safe. A SWAT team headed by Sgt. Button (John Cassavetes) is called in to handle the situation with Holly, but can they get the job done before the lone sniper opens fire on the thousands of targets in front of him?  

This is a difficult movie to review, and I try to only use that complaint every month or so.  It isn't so much a movie as a faux-documentary from director Larry Peerce, giving you the feeling of being a fly on the wall as this high-tension situation continues to escalate. Peerce's movie follows a handful of characters pre-game and as the game develops, giving us just enough info about them to get interested in them (hopefully that is, the attempt is hit or miss). Much of the movie was shot during the NFL season in 1975, also prominently featuring a Pac-10 game between USC and Stanford.  The problem is that much of the story shows a quick scene with the cast then cuts quickly to the football game and then the police and SWAT efforts to handle the sniper. With that filming technique, the first 45-60 minutes have a disjointed feel that makes it difficult to actually get into any rhythm with the movie and keep up with it.

Thankfully the movie finds the right gear at about the hour mark once Cassavetes' SWAT team arrives on the scene, the anxiety and tension building as the game nears its close.  SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Despite the best efforts of the police and SWAT, the sniper does open fire, causing mass chaos as people start dropping dead all over the Coliseum, the deaths portrayed graphically and brutally.  Pieces start to click together as to why the all-star cast is there....as targets and little else.  Seeing movie stars shot aside, the finale as the sniper opens fire is one of the most troubling, uncomfortable extended scenes I've ever watched. Imagine 90,000 freaked out people all scrambling to stay alive, not quite sure what's going on.  People are trampled and thrown, pushed aside like rag dolls as survival takes over above all else. The second hour most definitely makes up for the struggles of the first hour, a truly memorable ending.

Let's talk celebrities here for a bit, typically a trademark of the disaster movie.  The description of the movie didn't do it justice, making it seem like Heston and Cassavetes worked closely together to stop the sniper.  Well, sort of, but not really.  Heston was in quite a few disaster movies so while it isn't a great part for him, he still brings his typical professionalism to the part. The same goes for Cassavetes, always intense and always very watchable.  Who else? Lots more. Martin Balsam plays McKeever, the Coliseum event coordinator, Beau Bridges as a father who brought his wife and two kids to the game, David Janssen and Gena Rowlands as a bickering couple going through a bitter fight, Jack Klugman as a gambler who needs his bet to stand or he'll be murdered by his bookie, Mitch Ryan as the priest sitting alongside him, Brock Peters as a Coliseum employee, and Walter Pidgeon as an aging pickpocket working the crowd.

More than the cast, the uncomfortable premise is the star here. All it takes is one lunatic to decide to do this, not some huge, elaborate plan that takes terrorists years to plan. It is a reasonably easy thing to do, and anyone who has been to a sporting event can appreciate the terror in the situation. The sniper doesn't care who he hits, just that he hits something. There's so much going on here that just wouldn't work now in 2011.  Can you imagine any stadium -- much less the well-known Coliseum -- opening its doors to a movie depicting mass murder?  I'd say N-O.  The movie works at its best in those moments, a feeling of realism, of pure terror and fear racking your body.

The story builds and builds, and thankfully the ending knows how far to push it.  The sniper is never actually shown in close-up (we see glimpses of him, get a vague sense of what he looks like), and maybe most appropriate...his motivations or reasons are never given. He's a nut, going on a suicide mission that will have only one ending; his death.  Cassavetes' SWAT leader delivers a cynical but ultimately honest brief of how the incident will be portrayed, appropriate for a late 1970s movie. The ending doesn't go for the jugular, just focusing on the emotion, Balsam's McKeever sitting in the empty stadium in the aftermath, wondering exactly what happened. The first hour is bad, but the second hour is that good to counter. Stick with this one.

Two-Minute Warning <---trailer (1976): ***/****