Containing Multitudes Since 2004
The poster art does a decent job of illustrating both why the film is such fun and yet a pretty crappy translation of Ross Macdonald's Lew Archer. The Drowning Pool is closer to Archer (Harper) as he is in the novels.
And yet, Harper is the better film (I watched both back to back recently), go figure.Although The Drowning Pool does have a pretty choice cast. Hard to go wrong with Murray Hamilton, Andy Robinson and Coral Browne.
And a very effective Tony Franciosa. I prefer the Drowning Pool for skipping the William Goldman smart-aleck stuff. I still feel like no one has really done Archer for the movies. It's a bit puzzling.Harper, as I said, is just really good fun - a great cast and it plays like a 60s comic-strip version of a Ross Macdonald novel. The Drowning Pool plays it straight, and while I like it very much, it has the problem of being similar to and coming out at the same time as Night Moves, which is in every way a superior film.
I like to pair up films into double features - double features to run at the Cinema in my brain.This one I see with the Ipcress File.Both featuring 60s cool loner-types on the case.I also like howThey both open with the morning ritualOur hero from stagger to swagger in one well-edited sequence.
That's right. It's been several years since I saw Ipcress but that opening sequence still sticks in my head. Making coffee, eggs, retrieving that little .25 from under the pillow.
I'm afraid there will never be a good or even great Archer film - altho the times have become more adult in their treatment on sceen of most of the subjects Millar used as devices, Lew wasn't Batmannish enough.
That thing's got half of Hollywood in it.
Post a Comment