MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade
Ace_Spade (9408)
Posts
Really great right up until it's infuriatingly bad (SPOILERS)
Unsettling and Insightful
Zara - Season 14
Remington Steele?
The poster is a pun
Loved this show (SPOILERS)
Shifting Tone Gives Diminishing Returns
I miss IMDb
Hans Christian Anderson
I didn't care for this (SPOILERS)
View all posts >
Replies
I haven't heard Driver attempt accents, so maybe he can, maybe he can't.
He's got that mopey, angry vibe. He has to be able to pull off the accent, of course.
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.
I'll put it on the list. Thanks for the recommendation!
I haven't seen Slap Shot. Might have to check it out now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I liked about 90% of it. I thought it was going along really well. The mystery was good, the quips were clever, and the performances were all great.
But they didn't stick the ending. The big reveal scene was a major letdown for me and is a really big flaw in an otherwise fun flick.
View all replies >