All these years people kept talking about Twilight. It's a horrible movie they said, this is an awful thing, blank movie is better than Twilight. I don't know what all these people are on about. I think Twilight the spectacular little film. It has fun camera work, solid acting And of course the reaction between Gene Hackman and Paul Newman is just so much fun.
But all sarcasm aside this is a good film. It just seems strange to me that a different film coming out 10 years later in a different genre will happen to share the same name and nobody brought it up.
So Paul Newman plays a retired Detective whose last real assignment had been bringing back the daughter of Gene Hackman from Mexico. She was by all legal definition a underage minor (17 years*). But everything goes a bit haywire when Reese Witherspoon shoots him in the leg.
Now he spends his days doing Oddball jobs for Gene Hackman and interacting with his wife (Susan Sarandon). That is until he gets involved in this strange case involving the death of a police officer and a long deceased lost case File from over 20 years ago.
The whole film has this strange ''Colomboist'' feeling to it. And that's the weird part, Because Paul Newman doesn't play a Colombo character. His guys a little bit more straight-laced, less entertaining but he's not quite hard boiled. Easiest character to compare them to might be a more simple Perry Mason**.
But it's a Perry Mason is in a world where he's gotten old. A lot of his old Achievements are forgotten, his reflexes aren't as good And a lot of the people he knows might be crooked.
It's uncanny how much this reminds me of an old Columbo episode. Not the short episodes, but those really long ones that felt more like cinematic movies. Where are you would see the entire murder case played out before you and then Columbo has to come in every couple of minutes and try to piece everything together. But in this film Paul Newman is actually part of the case, he's partly responsible for all the things that are going to happen.
It's quite the good film, it won't come off as dazzling or anything but if you're looking for a solid detective story with a few unique elements you'll certainly find them here. and if nothing else you can see Reese Witherspoon naked in the first 10 minutes. So it has that going for it if all you want is titillation.
On an unrelated note if you look this film up on the IMDb page you'll see that all the keywords for it relate to nudity or breasts. Which is a bit misleading as the nudity in this movies kind of minimal. There's a decent amount in the first 25 minutes but afterwards is practically nothing. Anything to get people and seats I guess.
*The character was a minor Reese Witherspoon was well over 18 of the time.
**At this point in time I happen to be reading a novel on Perry Mason. And one of the cities of interest in me story happens to be Yuma Arizona. Which is also a key City in this film.
**At this point in time I happen to be reading a novel on Perry Mason. And one of the cities of interest in me story happens to be Yuma Arizona. Which is also a key City in this film.
Comments
Post a Comment