MovieChat Forums > Confess, Fletch (2022) Discussion > Really great right up until it's infuria...

Really great right up until it's infuriatingly bad (SPOILERS)

posted 17 days ago by Ace_Spade (9435)
15 replies | jump to latest

I through this on because I enjoyed the Chevy Chase Fletch flick, I like Jon Hamm a lot, I figured this'd be a mild dose of fun at worst.

Well, it was better than that. The one-liners are fantastic and Hamm does a marvellous job with the material. It's not like watching Don Draper in a Laker's hat, he really does great work with the character.

The characters are actually all great. Each one is unique and quirky and fun to see interact with Fletch. Eve, Griz, Monroe, the Countess (Marcia Gay Harden owns it here!) - they're all fantastic.

As for the plot, it was humming along. A really great mystery, interesting list of suspects - the whole thing was really working...

...and then the finale came. Herein lie the SPOILERS.

Fletch corners Angela and Horan on the boat, unspools the mystery, and gets it dead wrong. He's corned by Horan and gets his butt saved by Griz. Munroe and Griz (mostly Griz) put it all together. Oh, I cannot say how wonderful it was having the main character of the film ultimately have no effect at all on the plot or the conclusion thereof. It was great. Such a great choice. Streetwise investigative reporter Fletch just fails his own movie.

Now, I'm okay with bumblef*** main characters who are ineffective. They can be used well. But Fletch isn't one of them. I don't know if the book goes down the same path - I haven't read the books - but at least from the first film, I know Fletch tends to have a little something to do with the solving of the mystery.

Just in case I didn't get the point, the movie makes sure to underline that Fletch had nothing to do with it in a speech with the cops where Griz makes sure to underline that she was the one who really solved everything, not Monroe. And, in case I really didn't get the point, Monroe then throws in a line about how he wouldn't be allowed into the yacht club, but Fletch is (Fletch's "Because you're Jewish," line was at least funny). So, it's pretty unsubtle at that point.

But, don't worry, the movie still thinks the audience is stupid and needs to be lectured, because they make sure Griz lists Fletch's unsavoury qualities and "white privilege" is among them (as though this is a personal failing, like he chose to live in a society with racial prejudice). What really drove me nuts is that the film didn't need this. They had a great, diverse cast, with great roles given to women and people of colour. The movie was just intrinsically being inclusive. Why turn it into a soapbox lecture!?

So, to sum up: a great movie right up until it creates an ending where the lead character has no effect whatsoever and then it starts lecturing us on social politics for the next five minutes.

The denouement is reasonably fun, anyway, with the final fate of the paintings, but that climax is just awful.

[–] DarthAckbar (1067) 17 days ago

im glad i didnt watch it

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 17 days ago

I probably shouldn't have ranted so much. I don't regret watching it, but it was very disappointing to have that finale cap off what was a witty, fun, engaging story right up until the end. I'm not sure if it's a good movie or not, because so much of it is good, but when it fumbles the landing so hard... I don't know if it wrecked everything that came before it or not.

Maybe it's this: Confess, Fletch is a great meal while you're eating it, but the dessert was bitter and leaves a bad aftertaste.

[–] DarthAckbar (1067) 17 days ago

i am an uber fan of the first one,

so i doubt i would like any facsimile anyway

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 17 days ago

Yeah, you'd probably have to go in reminding yourself to judge it on its own standards, and even then, it's hard to get past such love. I've got a few works like that. A remake of The Maltese Falcon, for instance, could be done really well, but I don't know that I could get Bogey out of my head.

I like the first film a lot, but I wouldn't describe myself as an uber fan.

[–] DarthAckbar (1067) 17 days ago

it's one of my all time favorites is why i used that term

another one is slap shot with paul newman

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 16 days ago

I haven't seen Slap Shot. Might have to check it out now.

[–] DarthAckbar (1067) 16 days ago

oh you should

it's a great one

it gets better each time you see it

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 16 days ago

I'll put it on the list. Thanks for the recommendation!

[–] DarthAckbar (1067) 16 days ago

you are very welcome

[–] Heisenberg (6424) 17 days ago

I have to say, you enjoyed it more than I did.
I found Hamm particularly off in this, not his performance but the way he does not fit the smug, funny, slobby character. He keeps trying to go against his Draper persona but I think it is not working.

And yeah, I hated the wrap up but I was not surprised like you, the whole movie put Fletch behind Griz and pretty much everyone else.
This project was the dream of those same asshole types that said 007 is a chouvinistic dinosaur from the 60s and he needed to apologize and be cancelled. In many Craig's movies they address this, but thank God his character keeps his stubborn way to act and seems not to care too much.
In this Fletch movie instead, that same sentiment is so transparent and dominant that it overwhelmed everything in the film, starting with its main character, to expose him and to point out his flaws and ridicule him for them. It felt like they wanted to retell his story out of hate for him, so they could fix what was said in the 80s and make it right.

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 17 days ago

Yeah, it sounds like I enjoyed it a lot more than you did.

Hamm's performance was a highlight for me. I actually would have described his Fletch with all of the adjectives you used: smug, funny, slobby... I might have thrown in smarmy, or subbed it in for "smug," but that's exactly how he seemed to me. I thought they did a great job of keeping my mental image of Don Draper out of my head. That's saying a lot because I watched and re-watched Mad Men a few times. Although, I also watched The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, so maybe that had a hand in bunker-busting my idea of who Jon Hamm could be.

Weirdly enough, I would also characterise the film's treatment of Fletch and Griz differently. I liked that she was smart, if a bit naive, and was hard for Fletch to shake. But, to your point, he did shake her. The tunnel switcharound he did was funny, brilliant, and got ahead of her. Sending the device (and Griz) to Philadelphia was another great ploy. So, he did get the upper hand, it just took a little doing. They didn't spit all over his abilities until the very end.

I haven't seen the last Craig Bond movie yet, but I agree with you here. But those movies used "You need to be put out to pasture" almost as a way to only create dramatic tension and give Bond something to fight against. In Skyfall, they want him to retire because he's too old to keep going, but "Old Ways vs. New Ways" becomes a theme. The past haunts 007, and that's part of the movie. But, ultimately, it's his past and his experience that brings him through. So we as an audience feel validated by the main character's hard-won victory. With Fletch, he's smart, quick, savvy, and ultimately wrong because the script wants to make a political point.

The dumbest part is that, with a slow, methodical investigator and his naive, workhorse assistant, you could make a really great mystery movie alone. I'd have gladly watched a movie about Griz and Munroe; they're good enough characters. I just don't need the lecture.

[–] FilmBuff (6759) 17 days ago

I enjoyed the film, and don't recall the ending being bothersome. Granted, I saw it during its theatrical run so it's been some time, but it didn't come off as preachy to me at the time. I'm a fan of Chevy Chase, and think Fletch is one of his best roles, but I walked away thinking Hamm was an even better fit for the character. I doubt with the state of the film industry nowadays we'll get a sequel, but I'd love to see a string of Fletch films starring Hamm.

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 16 days ago

The preachiness was more like the toppings on the sundae. That sucked, but not as much as the kick in the shorts that was Fletch just having zero effect on the outcome of the case. The most he did was visit Horan earlier. Everything else, he was just a buffoon and a patsy. It's not great that this is the main character. I have seen it pulled off where the lead is ineffectual, but most of the time, I want the main character to be the person who is at the core of the story. Fletch really isn't here. It's Griz, or Munroe, or Angela, but it's not really Fletch.

This is a big problem here because the character as-established (at least on screen) is the "detective." He is the one who puts it together and has the greatest impact on the outcome. I'm not saying he needs to be a one-man army - and it is really funny when he mucks stuff up - but that he needs to be the primary reason the case gets closed - intentionally.

Now, I actually would watch a sequel. The probability of them writing two mysteries where the main character doesn't affect the outcome is low. So, I'd give another one a shot based on the strength of Hamm's performance and 90% of the writing.

[–] FilmBuff (6759) 16 days ago

One can make the case that everything you say applies to Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Had he stayed home, the story would have played out the same. All he did was end up captured and tied to a stake while events played out around him.

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 16 days ago

That's very true. I'm glad you pointed that out because it is a great counterpoint and has given me pause and made me think, "Okay, so why do I feel differently about the two films?"

I think the biggest factor is that the movie "thinks" Indy does matter. I get the impression that Indiana Jones' lack of effect is not something that Spielberg, Lucas, et al. intended. It was pointed out to me by Cracked or some other pop culture over-analysis-for-comedy thing. That's the first I noticed it - that Indy doesn't actually change the outcome. But because the movie still treats him as a hero, it hits differently. I'll also note that he does change things mid-movie. He is certainly a thorn in the side of the Nazis. Contrast to Fletch in his movie where he doesn't really *do* anything. Because he's investigating a murder the whole movie, he isn't stopping anybody's nefarious scheme, he isn't helping the police - he doesn't do anything. The fate of the paintings is at least in Fletch's hands, but as we're pointing these things out, it probably wouldn't have been changed had he not nabbed them from the boat. The Count would probably have still had Fletch dispose of them to keep his household peace.

Confess, Fletch underlines for us that Fletch was completely useless - over and over again. And while we can make the argument that Raiders of the Lost Ark is an adventure story and Confess, Fletch is a comedy - and therefore might want this kind of anticlimax ending - I'd argue that C,F is as much a mystery and we want the inspector to solve the crime. Furthermore, Fletch is an established character, one who is not sidelined for comedic purposes or made to seem ineffectual and pathetic. This isn't Inspector Clouseau, this is Bugs Bunny.

Those are the biggest reasons why, I think, C,F's treatment of Fletch bothers me but Raiders' treatment of Indie does not. But, to go Columbo for a second: just one more thing...

Confess, Fletch also adds that Fletch wasn't allowed to do those things because he's a white man. I know you don't recall it, but they underline this fact several times during and after the climax. I try not to read too much into this stuff, and I am not the kind of person who goes around these boards yelling, "Woke!" at everything. But when the movie has Fletch shown to be incompetent and then follow it up with Munroe pointing out that he couldn't get into the club and Fletch could (white privilege) and then having Griz literally say "white privilege" to Fletch at the car - as part of a list of his bad qualities - I think it's pretty clear messaging that Fletch couldn't solve the crime because he just didn't have enough melanin or else his private dick was getting in the way of his being a private Dick.

Now, that's just lemon juice. The main wound is everything else I listed above: the difference between Indy and Fletch is largely that their respective movies have very different attitudes about how useful they are. Raiders thinks Indy is a (flawed) hero and Confess, Fletch thinks Fletch is a useless loudmouth.