The movie follows Detective Phillip Marlowe, investigating the disappearance of a woman's lover. Let me get this straight, this is not the kind of movie I usually enjoy, but I couldn't pass on Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, and Jessica Lange all together in a movie. But the movie very much felt like a parody, the kind we have all seen in TV series, on that one episode where everything is in black and white and people are over acting. I wasn't invested in the story, I never actually liked a character enough to care about their safety, and the story was very much known from the moment Diane Kruger arrived in that office. I would say though that if you like that kind of movie, you get great actors in there, and old Hollywood (it seems like a trend lately). Would I recommend it? No, but you might really love neo-noir movies.

Well I really wanted this film to be good, especially considering Liam Neeson's recent films have all been terrible. This one actually looked like it would be different.

Unfortunately its another painfully stale outing for Liam. Boring, dull, and just sad are the words I would use to describe Marlowe. Bland writing, terrible and at times cringe worthy dialogue. Just made me think why on earth is Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger in this film, they are soo much better than this crap.

The only thing that got me through this film is the fact that one, this film did have a good cast. Two, I love the 1930s aesthetic, and neo-noir atmosphere is awesome. Three, Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger are great actors but even they couldn't save this film from being unbearably boring.

If you're a fan of Neeson then maybe if you're desperate enough you could possibly derive some enjoyment from this but I doubt it, huge skip. Probably would've done better as a straight to streaming movie.

IMDb: 2/10Letterboxd: 2/5

Watched in Theaters.

As a Raymond Chandler fan and one who likes Liam Neeson's acting and films I was quite delighted to know about this film. Based on a novel inspired by Chandler "Marlowe" follows the basic plot of Chandlers first novel "The Big Sleep" where a married woman of wealth hires detective Philip Marlowe to find her boyfriend who mysteriously disappeared. Marlowe gets to work and into the dark underbelly of the big city he grapples with forces as challenging as they are ugly. Featuring Neeson as Marlowe the film depicts depression-era Los Angeles in fine laidback form. Neeson isn't the world-weary, annoying smarta** Marlowe is in the classic novels but well... Liam Neeson. Whether that's good or bad depends on your movie palate. Good acting and a smooth pace keep this simple and straightforward film going. While nothing outstanding and no classic the film delivers. Noir is usually worth the watch and this is no exception. So bring out the popcorn and soda and harken back to the age of fedoras, trench coats, and crime in black and white.

Set in the 1930s during the rise of the Hollywood studio system, Phillip Marlowe, a private investigator, is hired to find Nico Peterson, the ex lover of Claire Cavendish, the daughter of a former Hollywood icon. As Marlowe digs deeper into the case, he unravels more threads that lead to a bigger organization operating under the noses of everyone in Tinseltown.

Marlowe could've been a great movie. Long gone are the conventional, time-honored noir films that dominated the 1940s and 50s. A genre populated with cynical, down-on-their-luck rumpled detectives, beautiful but deadly women, double and triple crosses, and a case far further reaching than the detective initially conceived of, the noir made use of all these elements to create mysteries and whodunits that have stood the test of time. All of that is present here in Marlowe and yet somehow almost none of it works. Adapted from the 2014 novel The Black-Eyed Blonde, Marlowe took all the best bits of the genre and found a way to ensure that little of it made sense. Claire Cavendish is stunningly beautiful. Marlowe looks tired and untrustworthy of almost everyone throughout. Cigarette smoke hangs in the air just right, playing across the character's faces. It's all there and none of it is worth anything because the story itself doesn't make a lick of sense. A film that blows past convoluted and catapults into absurd, both the plot and the screenplay feel like a high schooler read a few Raymond Chandler novels, recognized what made them cool, and regurgitated it into their own thing, forgetting that all these pieces only work when paired up with a genuine mystery that will keep audiences engaged and guessing. Marlowe unfortunately doesn't and with its sometimes cringeworthy lines mixed with story beats that feel like darts thrown at a board, the real mystery is how this script got greenlit in the first place.

Thankfully starring Liam Neeson in something other than a washed-out action role, Marlowe sees the veteran actor in a noir setting for the first time. Surprisingly, Neeson is good in the role of Phillip Marlowe, portraying an aging private investigator attempting (and failing) to stay a step ahead of as many people as possible. Neeson's world weary countenance conveys the look of a man who's tired of dealing with the nonsense he encounters on a daily basis. While his scenes with Diane Kruger are excellent at capturing the tones of a traditional noir, it's his scenes with Jessica Lange that stand out. For his part, Neeson does his best to carry the anemic story and were he to return to the role with a stronger writer, another chance would be merited.

Diane Kruger as Claire Cavendish fills the second necessary component of a classic noir story: the femme fatale. Kruger is great in the role as both the character who kicks off the events of the story and as the character you don't know if you can fully trust. Kruger plays to that strength, as both timid and helpless at times while confidently holding all the cards at others. Radiantly beautiful, she's a modern model for the fatale trope, and thanks in large part to the costuming department, Kruger wears her role well.

Jessica Lange is having a ball in this film. Regardless of the hokey lines or clunky exposition scenes, Lange is there to remind audiences she hasn't gone anywhere and still has plenty of gas left in the tank. Her screen time with Neeson is delightful, delivering her lines with the most cheeky and mischievous of manners with many a wink and nod and twinkle in the eye. While appearing infrequently throughout the movie, she's a joy every time she's on screen, whether its supplying Marlowe with information or fanning the flames of confusion. Either way, Lange's Dorothy Cavendish is the film's MVP.

Neil Jordan did the best he could with Marlowe. The man who directed classics such as The Crying Game and Interview with the Vampire (back to back bangers) retains his eye for style and flair as he and cinematographer Xavi Giménez attempt different ways to retain the audience's confusion. At 109 minutes, the movie is paced wonderfully, with answers that only reveal more questions sprinkled throughout the course of the story. As nonsensical, anticlimactic, or just downright absurd as those answers may be falls to screenwriter William Monahan. Responsible for the screenplay behind the hallowed Kingdom of Heaven and the Scorsese classic The Departed, every decision Monahan takes in the plotting of Marlowe is truly baffling. It's surprising that with as much literature is discussed or referenced in the film (Alice in Wonderland, Elements of Style, references to writer James Joyce), the literature of the script falls so short of the mark.

Overall, Marlowe will be a film that's easily forgotten by the beginning of March. A convoluted story, presented to the audience in such a confoundingly bad manner, is only minimally saved by Neil Jordan's direction and the production design. Neeson, Kruger, and Lange do the best they can with the milquetoast screenplay, but thanks in large part to William Monahan what could've been a sumptuous feast of a story ends up being little more than cold broth. A poor excuse for a neo noir, most of the usual trappings are present without a framework to make effective use of them.

If you are into action all the time, watch something else. If youike films where actors act, where movies lure you into drama, then this is your type of movie. Period piece through and through. A real dream to watch Neeson actually do drama. Is it a new generation who is unfamiliar with Philip Marlowe? Well welcome to noir, and no super hero capes, no two-dimensional characters, , no shoot em up bang bang. Pop the top of the drink of your choice. Pop the popcorn. And pop the recliner back. Enjoy a movie where actors act, where noir sets a mood, and where we get to see some good old fashioned movie time.

I liked seeing the outdoor scenes filmed in Barcelona, Spain. I enjoyed seeing the costumes and clothing. The old cars were really cool.

I didn't like the attitude some of the characters in this movie. Too insensitive, cursing, rough and hard hearted. Seemed unneeded.

I didn't like the ending of the movie. It seemed like an unethical ending to me. Makes the movie and main characters seem unheroic.

I didn't like how they were trying to make a romance. Trying. There was no romance. But the trying part and the innuendo was annoying enough.

I didn't understand pray of the plot in the middle of the movie. I don't know if I spaced out or if it was difficult. Did related to the half sister's murder confused me.

I wish Liam was cooler in the movie with more honor and action.

The plot had some interesting points and endings, but, I believe the movie could have found ways to be much more interesting plot wise if they really thought of it.

As a huge fan of Chinatown and LA Confidential my wife and I loved Neil Jordan's take on the noir detective genre. Frankly so did everyone else in the theater with us.

The scenery is compelling and beautifully shot. The dialogue is deliberate with subtle jabs at modern issues. Marlowe takes you cleverly through the story with each distinctive character adding something unexpected to the mix. Too many reviews complaining about it being slow or having too much action are misguided. I expect over time that people will come to appreciate this well written, well executed project that is Liam Neeson's 100th film!!

Marlowe really is to be savored.

I lot of people have compared this to the original Marlowe character and series and it is not the case. Maybe that's why people have trashed this movie as it's being judged on an existing franchise. To begin, Liam is not Marlowe but more a lower level PI. He hasn't been at it that long. If you want to compare, I would say this was more Ezekiel Rawlins in The Devil in a Blue Dress. Easy has street connects, Marlowe has cop connections. Overall, the entire supporting cast was steady and complemented the story line well. No Oscar performances but OK for the film. I'm a bit biased as I do enjoy the LA police, Hollywood and the rich-and-powerful subculture of the '40's and 50's and the banter that comes with it. The storyline itself was a bit thin but passable. In short, if you can judge this movie on its own merits and forget the "Marlowe" connect, this is a pretty good movie night out.

It's a neo-noir detective drama set in 1939 in Bay City (Santa Monica), California. It follows detective Philip Marlowe as he tries to find a man who had supposedly been killed in a hit-and-run accident.

Philip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is a World War I vet who worked briefly for the Los Angeles Police as a detective but now is a private detective. Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger), a married young blonde, asks Marlowe to find Nico Peterson (Fran?ois Arnaud), her lover who worked at a film studio owned by her very wealthy mother and former film star, Dorothy Quincannon (Jessica Lange).

Marlowe soon learns that Peterson died outside an exclusive private club in a hit-and-run accident. However, it soon appears that Peterson is not dead, and a wide variety of potential villains are looking for him, including the manager of the private club, Floyd Hanson (Danny Huston), and a local gangster, Lou Hendricks (Alan Cumming). Marlowe pursues other sources of information, but each comes to an unfortunate end. By the film's end, Marlowe solves the mystery with the help of the police, with who he remains on good terms, and an African American hood, Cedric (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ), who serves as muscle for Lou Hendricks.

There is much to like in "Marlowe" that fits the neo-noir style of clipped conversation, a world-weary detective unafraid to use his fists, and glamourous but suspicious female leads. However, the ending was too predictable, and numerous characters begged for more context and development. It's not in the same ballpark with "Chinatown."

With seemingly scathing reviews from critics and audiences alike, you'd think that "Marlowe" is the worst thing since Judas' betrayal of Christ. "Sleep inducing," "dull," and "the worst movie I've seen all year," are just a few of the things that people have said about Liam Neeson's 100th feature film - and in fact, if you take a gander at some of the reviews on this very site, you will see many of those sentiments repeated. And while it's hard to argue against those opinions, I can't shake the feeling that, perhaps, people expected a traditional Neeson action film, when in reality "Marlowe" is anything but.

With about 60 seconds of total action in the entire movie, "Marlowe" is a noir drama through and through. Sure, you'll get a fist fight or two, and maybe a shootout here and there, but both the fist fights and the shootouts are the most pedestrian and bare bones action sequences you'd have seen since, well, the last Liam Neeson movie. And while that would typically be a major complaint of mine, I didn't have as much of a problem with it here. You see, "Marlowe" never pretends to be or portrays itself as an action film. Instead, from the very beginning the movie portrays itself as what it is: A dramatic noir mystery.

Steeped in the anachronisms of 1930s culture, barely a scene goes by where someone isn't enjoying an alcoholic beverage or having a smoke. And because I have an affinity for both of those things, I admittedly enjoyed watching people constantly puff on cigarettes and drink hard liquor. True to its time period, "Marlowe" also looks the part - the movie is gorgeous, with impeccable set and costume design; I was legitimately impressed with the movie's portrayal of Los Angeles in its golden age. And the music, too, was very fitting and appropriately moody, adding a certain "je ne sais quoi," if you will.

If a visual and auditory feast is what you're looking for, you'll leave "Marlowe" satiated. So what's the issue? Truth be told, there are a lot of faults here, and this is coming from someone who doesn't think this movie is as bad as people are saying. For one, the plot, while not necessarily convoluted, does play out in a pretty confusing manner. Liam Neeson's Marlowe will go from place to place and person to person with nary an establishing shot to be found, almost as if he was teleporting to various places and talking to people who just instantaneously appeared there. This lack of coherency does make the story hard to follow, especially when coupled with the bizarre dialogue. Characters say things and have conversations in a way that is so unnatural that I can't imagine anyone behaving like that in real life, even in 1930s Hollywood. Yes, there are a few memorable lines here and there, but you do have to sit through a large majority of unrealistic, uncanny dialogue.

All that said, I honestly didn't hate this movie as much as others seem to be. I found a lot to like in terms of the visuals alone, and Liam Neeson was enjoyable in a more dramatic performance. The main mystery is thought provoking enough, and everything wraps up in a satisfying way. "Marlowe" also is a lot of fun to look at, if you enjoy the time period and culture as much as I do. However, the bizarre formation of the plot runs the risk of confusing audiences, and the fact that the movie is 99% dialogue and 1% action also doesn't bode well for large box office returns. When all is said and done though, I liked this more than I thought I would, but I recognize it is by no means Liam Neeson's best.

We were disappointed from the beginning of the film. The dialog was stilted and awkward. As the movie progressed, the plot was murky and the characters undeveloped. The best part for me was the arrival of Colm Meaney's character - he absolutely brought life and color to an otherwise dull and lifeless film. A total waste of an excellent cast. Withint the first ten minutes, we considered leaving but decided to stick with it. I fell asleep after 20 minutes and woke up in time to enjoy Meaney's performance. Also, the actor playing Cedric did a great job and I look forward to seeing more of him in the future. I recommend that if you're looking for a movie to watch, give this one a pass. Not the Marlowe that I was looking for.

It doesn't take a detective to determine that this movie is horrible. Completely and utterly boring from start to end.

It had no plot or, if there was one, it was undetectable. Who wrote this slop and why did they bother?

The only things remotely interesting were the 1930's cars, costumes and scenery.

Liam Neeson obviously had nothing to do before Taken IV is filmed. Perhaps he needed the money for a mortgage payment?

I have no idea why this movie was made, but it's not worth even renting on pay-per-view at home. Please trust me on this. My boyfriend went to sleep and I got a backache waiting for it to end.

I saw "Marlowe" last night, and while not bowled over, the film was an inventive update of the main character Philip Marlowe by Irishman Neil Jordan ("The Crying Game, "In Dreams"). It certainly deserves a more favorable response that what we've seen so far from critics and wannabe critics. While a few notches below the gold standard of latter-day film noir -- think of "L. A. Confidential," "Sin City," and "Nightmare Alley" -- overall the storyline holds up; the cinematography is excellent; and fellow Irishmen Liam Neeson is convincing as a lead. Yes, I know. The principal photography was shot in Dublin and Barcelona; this isn't Los Angeles, now or then. And this isn't the first time the Philip Marlow character has made the large screen. Overall, however, this is an enjoyable, middleweight crime drama.

A modern noir hinted with flavors of classical cinema. The visuals are predominantly stunning and a necessary focal point in comparison to the long-winded plot which struggled to provide a narrative worth following. The cast is compiled of incredible past talent that struggle to develop chemistry with one another. Liam Neeson finds himself in another experience-based role and one that feels completely disconnected from the others in tone, personality, and energy. In a film that has the ingredients to fluctuate a viewer's emotions in a variety of ways, the story produced a mundane structure that made it difficult to attach myself to. If you enjoy the makeup of early 1900s films then this may appeal to you more than it did to me.

This one was a complete snoozefest. I counted at least three sleepers in my showing, I was almost number four. The only people that seemed to care about the film was the set designers as it's about the only good thing I can say about it. The sets do feel very 1930's noir. Other than that, the acting is half-hearted (with the exception of Jessica Lange), the direction is lazy and the script is nonsensical and boring. How anybody thought this production was going to be a winner with Liam Neeson as Marlowe is beyond me. Someone surely got fired over this film. I couldn't recommend it and if you really need to see it, watch it when it comes to Netflix or Hulu. I'm sure it will be on there shortly.

0.5 cases out of 5.

If YOU like to be a detective, this might be a great movie for you.. you have to search the screen for context and try to read in between the weird lines of dialogue to understand what the heck is happening.

I couldn't even give spoilers if I tried. Surely someone made a bet to see how many cliche phrases from the 1930s could fit in one movie.... but unfortunately the meanings weren't always clear and I was constantly wondering what they were talking about.

When it was all over, I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to be happy or sad. I literally don't know if the good guys won or if the bad guys did.. or maybe everyone was a bad guy?

Unlike other reviews I've seen, I enjoyed Liam Neeson's character and I thought he played the role well.. well as well as the negligent script allowed. The romantic tension between he and Clare was off though and I wasnt convinced for a moment they ever would have been a thing.

I did love the sets and costumes and seeing the prop studio. Those were entertaining at least.

Liam Neeson is a strongly capable actor whose committed performances are nearly always wasted on incomprehensible messes of films, and this latest one is no exception.

In fact, Marlowe wastes its entire talented cast AND a skilled production design crew on a woefully by-the-numbers crime story that is frustratingly clumsy in how it delivers information to the audience.

Most of the story consists of exposition-heavy, dialogue-driven scenes that are slapped together with editing that leaves it unclear how and why characters get from one place to the next. Much of the information we receive from the dialogue ends up being meaningless to the story anyway, and it just winds up being a confusing mess that left me feeling nothing.

Not a single moment is really dedicated to letting us know who the characters are, or even what their needs and goals are. It's over 100 minutes of meandering from one scene to the next without ever knowing why we're here or where we're trying to go.

Confusing, bloated, corny, emotionally bereft, and pointless. Just like most other Neeson flicks of the past decade.

Greetings again from the darkness. The great Raymond Chandler created the now iconic Private Investigator, Philip Marlowe. Over many years, we have gotten to know Marlowe through novels and film adaptations. Actors as varied as Humphrey Bogart, Robert Montgomery, Dick Powell, Robert Mitchum, and Elliott Gould have played the cynical P. I., and now Oscar winning writer-director Neil Jordan (THE CRYING GAME, 1996) has added Liam Neeson to the list. Oscar winning writer William Monahan (THE DEPARTED, 2006) adapted the screenplay from John Banville's (writing as Benjamin Black) 2014 novel, "The Black-Eyed Blonde".

It's 1939 in Los Angeles when Clare Cavendish (Diane Kruger) strolls into Marlowe's (Neeson) office and hires him to find Nico Peterson (Francois Arnaud). Simple enough, only there's a catch (of course): Nico has been declared dead and the body identified by a relative. Adding to the intrigue (of course) is Clare (she prefers to be called Cavendish) herself, the daughter of powerful former film star Dorothy Cavendish (played by two-time Oscar winner Jessica Lange, TOOTSIE, BLUE SKY). As you would expect, the case leads Marlowe to cross paths with many 'bad' folks and a few instances of danger, which he (of course) manages to maneuver or outmaneuver.

The supporting cast is strong and includes Colm Meaney, Alan Cumming (with a southern accent?), Danny Huston (a nod to his father's noir classic CHINATOWN?), and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. A couple of things are unfortunately quite clear. First, every noir cliché and trope is included here; and second, Liam Neeson is not the guy to pull off the Marlowe role - unless it was a full-on parody, in which case, he might have been a better fit. If he has put forth any effort into the role, it was apparently to ensure that his Marlowe is the least memorable one ever. There is no personal stamp on the role, and because of that, nothing really clicks here.

On the upside, the set decorations and costumes are divine. The film has the right look, but just brings nothing new or exciting to one of my favorite genres. It's a throwback to hard-boiled detective crime stories of the 1940's without the grit or charm. Marlowe first appeared in Raymond Chandler's 1939 novel, "The Big Sleep", and most iterations bring something new to the character or story. Perhaps the only thing director Jordan serves here is a shootout near the end. It's more drawn out and noisy than what we would have seen 80 years ago, and it's probably the right choice for today's audience.

Opens in theaters on February 15, 2023.

Period piece set in 1939? Didn't seem like it. Way too much space between scenes and plots. Plots? Wha Hoppen? Terrible script, Terrible story, acting was vacant, not cohesive. No character development. Predictable. Why did I sit through this? Ahhhh! Excruciating, painful, awful. Worst film I've seen this year so far. Liam Neeson did not fit this character. Story was everywhere. Dull characters, dull story. Petersen's sister has a tantrum that came out of nowhere. Romantic type scene between Neeson and Cavendish empty and laughable. No chemistry. This is film that should be given a hard pass. Ugh!

...more like going down a corn hole. A poorly interpreted Marlowe. Robert Mitchum was much better. This dialogue here was muddy and dull. The acting was okay but I really expected much much more given the iconic nature of the material and the legendary status of Raymond Chandler's novel and character. The writing should have been lighter and more vicious. I do think old Hollywood was better portrayed in films like Chinatown. Hard to compete with such classics but Hollywood really does like to eat itself for dinner and then feel satisfied that the fried chicken was too deeply fried in old and rank grease.