This had to be one of the greatest casts of the last twenty years. Yet, I remember seeing it and just thinking, when is
-
plabord — 20 years ago(July 12, 2005 11:58 PM)
I thought John Malkovich was terribly miscast in the role of an Army general. Although I like him as an actor, and have enjoyed his performances in other roles, Malkovich does not even come close to being credible as a career military officer.
-
dwarol — 17 years ago(January 04, 2009 06:13 PM)
The history of Timms' character suggests he was modeled after Lieutenant General Leslie Groves, who was the officer in charge of Project Manhattan. Groves was trained as an engineer, he built the Pentagon prior to heading Project Manhattan. And heading the postwar atomic program would require some technical background. So expecting Timms to be portrayed as MacArthur or Patton would be not be consistent with his character. Then again, Groves himself was known to be very impatient with the "egghead" scientists who developed the atomic bomb. One of the reasons he chose Oppenheimer as chief scientist was because he seemed the most practical and dedicated to getting results of all the world-class scientists involved in the project.
-
mobocracy — 20 years ago(July 19, 2005 06:23 AM)
It's hard to think of films with large, high-quality ensemble casts that don't suck.
In this case, though, I think it had more to do with the writing than anything else. I found the idea of four of LAPD's toughest detectives riding around together in a convertable somewhat comical, and Chaz Palminteri's psychiatrist bit was so against type as to undermine type. We only got a couple of other opportunities to see the mobster squad at work, and it was over-the-top punchouts.
It also lacked meaningful sub-plot(s); the entire story revolved around the dead girl. Shouldn't there have been some LA-based subterfuge? Linking the girl to the mob, Nolte's character and Malkovich's character would have meant more since it might have undermined Nolte's career.
I also found Nolte's relationship with his wife to be far too maudlin; either he's indifferent enough to sleep with Jennifer Connelly "every chance he gets" or he's in love with his wife; both doesn't cut it. -
inoldhollywood — 20 years ago(August 25, 2005 01:02 PM)
I liked that you actually make some well-thought-out points about why you did not like Mulholland Falls, and I respect what you had to say. Like you, I also think it might have been better to move beyond the dead girl and make it a grander scheme beneath. Chinatown moved beyond the Evelyn Mulray imposter and with each successive twist, the story beneath the story became more about what the movie was all about. That is exceptional writing.
Okay, now not all ensemble cast films suck. here are a few I thought of
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Longest Day
Judgement at Nurenburg
The ones that sucked? Yeah, I can also think of plenty that were pretty horrible..
Earthquake
The Conqueror
Pepe
and there are lots more in each catagory. -
savcam500 — 15 years ago(November 27, 2010 11:06 AM)
Concerning other great ensemble casts. It is certainly a hard thing to successfully pull off as I'm sure egos come into play, especially as it concerns screen time. I'm sure it's quite difficult to wrangle all the actors and keep them from chewing the scenery to pieces.
Other great or successful Ensemble Films I think would include:
Glenngary Glenn Ross.
(One of my favourite films.)
The Long Riders.
The Deer Hunter.
The Dirty Dozen.
The Usual Suspects.
(Though it may be argued that many of the actors were unknowns at the time. It depends on what definition of "ensemble cast" one uses. Either a film in which all the main characters are given equal importance to the plot or story, or merely an "all star" cast. The former seems to be correct in the world of film, while the latter sees colloquial usage.)
The Breakfast Club.
The Magnificent Seven.
The Seven Samurai.
Crash.
(Though I didn't like the film, I can recognise it as being a well put together, well thought out and very successful film.)
Traffic.
(Or just cursorily interconnected stories. But again, an "all star" cast of actors.)
Murder on the Orient Express.
The Thin Red Line.
Once Upon a Time in the West.
(Though here it may be argued that the story merely revolved around the three main characters, and were connected by Claudia Cardinal's character and circumstance.)
Pulp Fiction
&
Reservoir Dogs.
(Though these may again just be separate, but interconnected-albeit disjointed- stories of a few main characters. Reservoir Dogs is perhaps a better example.)
The Great Escape.
And finally, the
Ocean's #
series, though I
hate hate hate
these films and they
bore bore bore
me. Really I only saw the first two, so maybe the third film pulls them all together and redeems the first two. They were just mindless, pandering films that sought audiences by being "star-studded" and by having quick action and "witty" dialogue. But I'm not here to foist my opinions off on anyone, I just could not abide these movies.
I find the
Ocean's
films silly, pointless and plot-less; instead of a clever twist (which all films seemingly MUST have these days
) or a logical denouement, the writers just seem to resort to the
deus ex machina
style of writing that seems so prevalent in recent years. I can best describe
Ocean's 11
as
Heat
but instead of automatic weapons, a top-notch team of professional thieves, and a great plan (foiled only by Danny Trejo) they use witty dialogue and their boyish good looks to pull off their heists. Ah!! I'm adding
Heat
to the list of great ensemble films
Heat. -
Too313 — 17 years ago(June 30, 2008 01:18 AM)
Bad random script with almost non existent builds or so poorly executed it was in the ball park of the last season of A Team.
It had some good stuff. The crater in the desert was an intense moment. But it wasn't set up right.
The cast was amazing wasn't it? -
DoctorStrangelove — 17 years ago(September 12, 2008 03:53 PM)
A major part of the problem is that they gave away the ending IN THE OPENING CREDITS!
Think about it. After the film is over, what did we learn about the motivation for murder that we didn't see before the first line was spoken? NOTHING. It's obvious from the first two minutes of the movie that
Allison was killed because she knew too much
.
Maybe that bit of editing was a hack job by the studio I dunno. Either way it completely removed any 'punch' from the ending.
The Doctor is out. Far out. -
zappalover — 17 years ago(September 25, 2008 04:05 PM)
I saw this movie 11 years ago and thought it good enough to view again last night. I was mistaken. Apart from the spectacular and too short visuals of a younger Jennifer Connolly, this movie is a waste of time. It has a great cast and tries to be of the caliber of Chinatown, but fails miserably.
Why? Poor writing and no character development.
Nolte is given a few well written lines, but practically nothing for Penn, Madsen and Palmenteri. A waste of acting talent they're only cartoonish stereotypes and little more I felt embarrassed for them. Malkovich is miscast as a military general and has too little screen time another painful waste of talent. Melanie Griffith does OK with what's given to her, but the writing's too thin. The behavior of the Treat Williams character is not credible and comes across foolishly poor writing, again.
It seems the producers sunk all of their money into recreating the past with excellent settings, wardrobes, hairstyles and makeup, but fully missed the boat with the screenplay.
The following year (1997), LA Confidential got it right thank heavens! -
BelmontHeir — 14 years ago(January 14, 2012 12:01 PM)
I agree. I just watched this film last night as it is streaming on Netflix Instant. I love neo-noir, particularly 90's movies that look back at tough L.A. detectives and classy dames of the 40's and 50's. "L.A. Confidential" is obviously the best. I think "Mulholland Falls" had potential, and certainly had a great cast, but it was completely derailed by the script.
The opening scene: brilliant. Nick Nolte and his crew look out of place at a fancy restaurant, then bust in and rough up a bunch of Chicago gangsters like it ain't no thing. They drag William Peterson to the top of 'Mulholland Falls' and let him go. "You can't do this! This is America!" pleads Peterson. Nick Nolte says, "This isn't America. This is L.A."
BAM! That's a great opening 'hook,' this whole scene is probably why the screenplay sold in the first place, and this is what the whole movie should have been about. The rise and fall of Nick Nolte's "Hat Squad" - how they bent the rules and pushed the law too far, and how the tide of the country was about to change the Miranda Rights and such, and they could never go back.
I think the rest of the script made two mistakes. One, they brought the military into it. This just wasn't as interesting as that opening scene and it just becomes about 'cops vs. army soldiers.' No good. A military conspiracy in the middle of a L.A. detective story, I suppose that's a novel thing, but it's brought down by miscasting. Treat Williams and John Malkovich don't come across as genuine military personnel. Overall, this entire plot feels like a subplot, disconnected from what should have been the main thrust of the film - Nick and his squad brought to the edge.
The other mistake the script made: relying far too much on flashbacks. We only see Jennifer Connolly in flashbacks! She is a knockout, dynamite screen presence and she's hardly in this movie for more than five minutes. This movie was about 107 minutes longwhat you really needed was a 145 minute epic. Cut the whole military angle, show how Nick Nolte met and fell in love with Jennifer in real time - not a flashback - and how it disintegrated his marriage. This could be alongside a main plot of Nick trying to stop gangsters or butting heads with the FBI, or maybe there's a Dahlia-like killer who's targeting women like Jennifer and she dies at the midpoint of the film.
The problem with flashbacks is that they typically reveal information to the viewer that the characters already know. It's at the Act I break we learn that Nick had an affair with Jennifer but that doesn't really change anything. Nick was investigating the case before and he's still gonna investigate it now. He needed to be forced to make a decision, something would that have spun the story in another direction for Act 2. Instead, they just continue doing what they're doing, until Nick's men get attacked by the military at the beachouse. That's an exciting scene but it should have come much earlier.
Anyway. This movie had loads of potential but clearly a lot of problems too. -
daisysmom — 17 years ago(January 12, 2009 10:00 AM)
Easy question. Answer in two words. John Malkovich. He was severly miscast. No way he would ever have been a General- not to mention that was when the wheels came off the movie. The Amry (especially a highly classified division in the 50's cooperating with the LAPD?? Not a chance. They would have had Treat Williams boot Hoover's a** off the second he crossed the no-wake zone, not have Timm, in his smoking jacket, invite him to tea.)
Also, I have to agree with the posters who discuss the many inconsistencies in the film. Tough cop with psychiatrist. Hoover "in love" with wife but adulterous affair "as much as he could get away." A lot just didn't add up so it was hard to get behand the characters. -
inoldhollywood — 15 years ago(November 27, 2010 11:30 AM)
John Malkovich's character is the only thing that keeps me from rating this film a "10" in my book. Unfortunate. There is so much I like about the film. Mainly love the atmosphere, costumes, sets and music. John Malkovich's character is so difficult to watch and his performance is so artificial. Too bad. I rate the film a solid "7" with him in it.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!" -
jmim-1 — 17 years ago(February 08, 2009 12:24 AM)
Get real, driver 8, Devil in a Blue Dress was a great film. You are in a definite minority on that one. Maybe you've watched too many MTV videos and have seriously warped your attention span. Maybe you have ADD. Too bad.