A new Liam Neeson movie in January or February is pretty much a staple of a new year. For roughly the past decade so, a new Liam Neeson thriller has premiered in theaters during the first few weeks of the year often to box office success. Marlowe is a bit different than all those films in Neeson's recent filmography, both in terms of is tone and critical/box office reception. It's an uneasy cross between the Liam Neeson action audiences have come to expect with the traditional film noir the character Marlowe is known for with mixed results.
Set in 1930s California, Marlowe is a slow-moving period piece that likely will put those who loved the Taken trilogy to sleep, though likely to interest those who enjoy the classic film noir of the 1930s and 1940s. The slow pace is alternatively both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Initially it's refreshing and interesting to see a Hollywood mystery take its time developing the story, similar to something like Chinatown or The Two Jakes. Neeson seems an unconventional, though inspired choice to take over the role of Marlowe, and he is a joy to watch as always. The supporting cast from Diane Kruger as the traditional femme fatale to Alan Cumming as one of the story's many antagonists, are intriguing and fun in their respective roles. And, most importantly, the mystery itself is fairly interesting, at least early on. But, eventually, the slowness of the mystery becomes at odds with the obligatory scenes of Neeson having to punch someone in the face or shoot a gun.
The action scenes themselves are well shot and Neeson is still a thoroughly convincing tough guy at 75-years-old. The problem is that these scenes seem like the results of studio-mandated notes awkwardly shoe-horned into the story for the benefit of having action beats in the theatrical trailer. Director Neil Jordan himself seems somewhat uninterested in delivering these action beats, as they are generally super short and, in some instances, awkwardly cut away from just when the real action seems to get going. In the end, Jordan seems to be stuck with a conundrum. His film probably could have worked (and made much more money) as a more traditional Neeson action vehicle with more fighting and gunfire, but then it would have worked a lot less as a Marlowe movie. However, by mostly sticking with being a film noir mystery with action awkwardly thrown in, the whole thing becomes a bit of an uneven mess at times.
Despite the overall uneven tone, there's still enough good material to recommend Marlowe to both Neeson fans and Marlowe fans. There's enough entertainment value, enough mystery, and enough humorous film noir one-liners delivered by Neeson to keep the uneven nature from ultimately sinking the production. Ultimately, general audiences didn't seem to think this new iteration of Marlowe was worth their time, as it flopped at the box office and is definitely considered a dud. Maybe in time, Marlowe will develop a cult following amongst Raymond Chandler devotees. For now, though, it's one of the most largely ignored releases of 2023. It may not be the best Marlowe movie ever made, but it's still a decent mystery. 6/10.
Set in 1930s California, Marlowe is a slow-moving period piece that likely will put those who loved the Taken trilogy to sleep, though likely to interest those who enjoy the classic film noir of the 1930s and 1940s. The slow pace is alternatively both its greatest strength and biggest weakness. Initially it's refreshing and interesting to see a Hollywood mystery take its time developing the story, similar to something like Chinatown or The Two Jakes. Neeson seems an unconventional, though inspired choice to take over the role of Marlowe, and he is a joy to watch as always. The supporting cast from Diane Kruger as the traditional femme fatale to Alan Cumming as one of the story's many antagonists, are intriguing and fun in their respective roles. And, most importantly, the mystery itself is fairly interesting, at least early on. But, eventually, the slowness of the mystery becomes at odds with the obligatory scenes of Neeson having to punch someone in the face or shoot a gun.
The action scenes themselves are well shot and Neeson is still a thoroughly convincing tough guy at 75-years-old. The problem is that these scenes seem like the results of studio-mandated notes awkwardly shoe-horned into the story for the benefit of having action beats in the theatrical trailer. Director Neil Jordan himself seems somewhat uninterested in delivering these action beats, as they are generally super short and, in some instances, awkwardly cut away from just when the real action seems to get going. In the end, Jordan seems to be stuck with a conundrum. His film probably could have worked (and made much more money) as a more traditional Neeson action vehicle with more fighting and gunfire, but then it would have worked a lot less as a Marlowe movie. However, by mostly sticking with being a film noir mystery with action awkwardly thrown in, the whole thing becomes a bit of an uneven mess at times.
Despite the overall uneven tone, there's still enough good material to recommend Marlowe to both Neeson fans and Marlowe fans. There's enough entertainment value, enough mystery, and enough humorous film noir one-liners delivered by Neeson to keep the uneven nature from ultimately sinking the production. Ultimately, general audiences didn't seem to think this new iteration of Marlowe was worth their time, as it flopped at the box office and is definitely considered a dud. Maybe in time, Marlowe will develop a cult following amongst Raymond Chandler devotees. For now, though, it's one of the most largely ignored releases of 2023. It may not be the best Marlowe movie ever made, but it's still a decent mystery. 6/10.