This sounded pretty good... Nicholson is mostly fun to watch, and I enjoyed Chinatown immensely(Towne returning to write this sequel was a treat, as well). I enjoyed it for a while, but not too far past the half-way point, I realized that it had run out of steam... the film kept rolling, but it no longer kept the viewers' attention. Jack Nicholson is no director, and it shows... while he is a skilled actor, he should stay in front of the camera instead of trying his hand behind it. The cinematography is close, but doesn't quite make it to being good... we have shots that linger, and wasted opportunities aplenty. Polanski's loose, involving camera is sorely missed here. The pacing is also off... the film ends up seeming heavy as a result. The writing is quite good. The acting varies, but is mostly on the positive end. The tone isn't entirely sure what it wants to be, but does create some great "noir" moments. Jake's monologues are occasionally spot-on. The mystery varied some... parts of it, I had figured out before the lead, whereas others only became clear to me just as they were revealed. This is a hit and miss scenario... and unfortunately, it misses more than it hits. This is worth watching as a continuation of Chinatown for those that want more of the plot, and can compromise with the drop in style and finesse of the film-making values. I recommend this to big fans of Jack Nicholson and those interested in seeing what occurred after the events of Chinatown. 6/10
86 Reviews
Now I get it
SnoopyStyle4 March 2020
In the sequel to Chinatown, private eye Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) works divorces in post-war L.A. Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel) hires him to catch his cheating wife Kitty (Meg Tilly). They are the two Jakes. It's a scripted set-up but they catch Kitty in bed with his business partner Bodine and shoots him dead. There is a question about Jake Berman's motive by the police. There is a wire recording. There is a tract of land. There is possibly oil. There are mobsters, oil tycoon, and the constant earthquakes.
I didn't understand it back in the day. I got bored with it. It has the 70's noir with a 90's sunshine glare. Nicholson is older and less energetic. Madeleine Stowe's performance threw me off. To me, she's faking a melodramatic damsel and I kept wondering if her character is faking it. After watching it recently, I actually understood the general premise of the movie but some of the whys still elude me. It's better but it's still too long. The tension is not quite the same as Chinatown. Jake Gittes needs to be in more danger. He seems to be outside of it. Also, it pales in comparison with its iconic original.
I didn't understand it back in the day. I got bored with it. It has the 70's noir with a 90's sunshine glare. Nicholson is older and less energetic. Madeleine Stowe's performance threw me off. To me, she's faking a melodramatic damsel and I kept wondering if her character is faking it. After watching it recently, I actually understood the general premise of the movie but some of the whys still elude me. It's better but it's still too long. The tension is not quite the same as Chinatown. Jake Gittes needs to be in more danger. He seems to be outside of it. Also, it pales in comparison with its iconic original.
One Word Describes It Best: Convoluted
ccthemovieman-16 July 2006
Being a "sequel" to "Chinatown," I had high expectations of this film. I even gave it two looks - one on VHS and then one a few years later on DVD - because I wanted so much to like it....but it stunk each time. What a waste of money.
The only thing going for it is the beautiful film-work and the great 1940s atmosphere, as "Chinatown" had some 16 years earlier when that film came out. (Kind of long wait for a sequel, anyway, don't you think?)
If ever a movie could be called "convoluted," it's this one. It made Chinatown as simple as "Bambi." Even the mainline critics all agreed this was incoherent in its storytelling. It's less confusing, but not much, if you know the characters from Chinatown since there are references to "Kathryn Mulray." However, it's just too frustrating to watch and try to follow what's going on.
I know lots of people who loved "Chinatown" but not one who likes this film.
The only thing going for it is the beautiful film-work and the great 1940s atmosphere, as "Chinatown" had some 16 years earlier when that film came out. (Kind of long wait for a sequel, anyway, don't you think?)
If ever a movie could be called "convoluted," it's this one. It made Chinatown as simple as "Bambi." Even the mainline critics all agreed this was incoherent in its storytelling. It's less confusing, but not much, if you know the characters from Chinatown since there are references to "Kathryn Mulray." However, it's just too frustrating to watch and try to follow what's going on.
I know lots of people who loved "Chinatown" but not one who likes this film.
Just because it's no Chinatown, doesn't make this film bad
d_fienberg2 January 2001
The Two Jakes and The Godfather 3 were released in the second half of 1990 and both films proved that sometimes it's best not to tamper with classics. This is not necessarily because sometimes a sequel can't compliment a classic, but because no matter what you do, there's no way to avoid comparing the new versions to the old. And the final chapter of the Godfather trilogy is vastly inferior to the first two. And Two Jakes is vastly inferior to Chinatown. But since Chinatown and the first two Godfathers are among the best films every made, that's a pretty pointless comparison. Just as The Godfather 3 stands on its own as a very sturdy and interesting piece of filmmaking, Two Jakes also works on its own merits. It's confusing, overlong (a full ten minutes more than the original), and never fully gels, but it's also passionate, intelligent filmmaking. Go figure.
In his autobiography, producer Robert Evans refers to Robert Towne's script for Two Jakes as basically only half-finished. It was half-finished when they started shooting, half-finished when they made it half-way through the shoot, and it pretty much feels half-finished in the final product. This is a movie where characters wander in and out and a full two-thirds of the storylines go essentially unresolved. The grand climax of the film (and trust me, I'm not spoiling anything) is an evidentiary hearing, for heavens sakes! And I couldn't really explain the plot if I wanted to, but here's the quick summary: It's fifteen years after Chinatown and Jake Gittes Jack Nicholson) has become older, fatter, and a good deal more bitter. He's now an Investigator respected throughout LA, but he's still haunted by his experiences with the Mulwrays, especially the late Evelyn. The film begins with a jealous husband, Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel), storming into a hotel room and killing his wife's lover, with Jake listening in the next room. Of course, you know the crime probably wasn't entirely about love or lust and that money probably had something to do with it. Money, history, and oil, actually. And it spins in circles from there.
It's easy to notice that the film slacks off at around the half-way point. It's then that you realize just how tight Robert Towne's Chinatown script was. Even at a shred over two hours, every word counts, every gesture, every twist. Two Jakes is flabby in comparison. The dialogue is pleasantly hardboiled and the actors enjoy delivering it, but the resolutions of the various mysteries mostly fall flat. You either see them coming, or don't understand when they arrive. It's to Towne and director Jack Nicholson's credit that the film ends on a number of satisfying grace notes.
Nicholson's direction is almost never the source of the film's flaws. And this is legitimately high praise in a film as twisting and convoluted as this. Of course, he again makes you appreciate the brilliant economy of Roman Polanski's direction of Chinatown, a film with an immeasurable amount of class. Nicholson produces several wonderful moments including a beautiful pull shot from the ocean to a teatime conversation with Kahn (who Chinatown fans will avidly remember). Nicholson and director of photography Vilmos Zsigmond capture a Los Angeles of burnt out dreams, on the brink of overdevelopment and overexpansion. The film has noir stylings but it respectfully looks different from Chinatown.
Nicholson's performance is more a study of what has happened to the actor since Chinatown, rather than what has happened to the character. Because Jack was less of an icon when Chinatown was made, the original Jake Gittes is one of his least iconic performances. By the time he won his Oscar the next year for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest Nicholson had already become JACK (in all caps) and he hasn't looked back. In Two Jakes, Jake Gittes has become JACK. There's no getting around it. However, there's also no getting around the fact that Nicholson is a great actor and even if his performances are frequently variations on a theme, it's a pretty super theme.
Two Jakes is peppered with supporting performances of varying degrees of depth. Harvey Keitel has never been better as the second of the two Jakes. His character is emotionally complicated and perhaps the only person in the film (besides Gittes) who gets to go through a character arc. He plays it wonderfully. The femmes fatale in the film, as played by Madeline Stowe and Meg Tilly are less and more complicated than they seem. Ruben Blade, Richard Farnsworth, and Eli Wallach provide capable support when they're given anything to do.
The fact is that like the Godfather 3, if you came upon Two Jakes with a completely open mind, you'd find it a complicated thriller, vastly more substantial than most films of the genre. The fact that it's got its flaws that it'll never compare to Chinatown are the basis for a 7/10 rating.
In his autobiography, producer Robert Evans refers to Robert Towne's script for Two Jakes as basically only half-finished. It was half-finished when they started shooting, half-finished when they made it half-way through the shoot, and it pretty much feels half-finished in the final product. This is a movie where characters wander in and out and a full two-thirds of the storylines go essentially unresolved. The grand climax of the film (and trust me, I'm not spoiling anything) is an evidentiary hearing, for heavens sakes! And I couldn't really explain the plot if I wanted to, but here's the quick summary: It's fifteen years after Chinatown and Jake Gittes Jack Nicholson) has become older, fatter, and a good deal more bitter. He's now an Investigator respected throughout LA, but he's still haunted by his experiences with the Mulwrays, especially the late Evelyn. The film begins with a jealous husband, Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel), storming into a hotel room and killing his wife's lover, with Jake listening in the next room. Of course, you know the crime probably wasn't entirely about love or lust and that money probably had something to do with it. Money, history, and oil, actually. And it spins in circles from there.
It's easy to notice that the film slacks off at around the half-way point. It's then that you realize just how tight Robert Towne's Chinatown script was. Even at a shred over two hours, every word counts, every gesture, every twist. Two Jakes is flabby in comparison. The dialogue is pleasantly hardboiled and the actors enjoy delivering it, but the resolutions of the various mysteries mostly fall flat. You either see them coming, or don't understand when they arrive. It's to Towne and director Jack Nicholson's credit that the film ends on a number of satisfying grace notes.
Nicholson's direction is almost never the source of the film's flaws. And this is legitimately high praise in a film as twisting and convoluted as this. Of course, he again makes you appreciate the brilliant economy of Roman Polanski's direction of Chinatown, a film with an immeasurable amount of class. Nicholson produces several wonderful moments including a beautiful pull shot from the ocean to a teatime conversation with Kahn (who Chinatown fans will avidly remember). Nicholson and director of photography Vilmos Zsigmond capture a Los Angeles of burnt out dreams, on the brink of overdevelopment and overexpansion. The film has noir stylings but it respectfully looks different from Chinatown.
Nicholson's performance is more a study of what has happened to the actor since Chinatown, rather than what has happened to the character. Because Jack was less of an icon when Chinatown was made, the original Jake Gittes is one of his least iconic performances. By the time he won his Oscar the next year for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest Nicholson had already become JACK (in all caps) and he hasn't looked back. In Two Jakes, Jake Gittes has become JACK. There's no getting around it. However, there's also no getting around the fact that Nicholson is a great actor and even if his performances are frequently variations on a theme, it's a pretty super theme.
Two Jakes is peppered with supporting performances of varying degrees of depth. Harvey Keitel has never been better as the second of the two Jakes. His character is emotionally complicated and perhaps the only person in the film (besides Gittes) who gets to go through a character arc. He plays it wonderfully. The femmes fatale in the film, as played by Madeline Stowe and Meg Tilly are less and more complicated than they seem. Ruben Blade, Richard Farnsworth, and Eli Wallach provide capable support when they're given anything to do.
The fact is that like the Godfather 3, if you came upon Two Jakes with a completely open mind, you'd find it a complicated thriller, vastly more substantial than most films of the genre. The fact that it's got its flaws that it'll never compare to Chinatown are the basis for a 7/10 rating.
Nicholson
gavin694223 March 2017
The sequel to "Chinatown" (1974) finds Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) investigating adultery and murder... and the money that comes from oil.
Made 16 years after its famous predecessor, the film had a very troubled production, and was supposed to be made around 1985. Originally, producer Robert Evans was to play the "second" Jake, but Towne, who was going to direct the film at that time, did not think he was the right choice and fired him. After this, Nicholson ended up directing (and it would be his last film to date).
Obviously, it was never going to be as good as the original. But it did not deserve to flop, either. Jack Nicholson is commanding in his performance (and direction), and I would suspect that the film would have a growing fan base as Harvey Keitel's star rose post-Tarantino. This is the same great underworld as before, and I wish a third film would have come to pass.
Made 16 years after its famous predecessor, the film had a very troubled production, and was supposed to be made around 1985. Originally, producer Robert Evans was to play the "second" Jake, but Towne, who was going to direct the film at that time, did not think he was the right choice and fired him. After this, Nicholson ended up directing (and it would be his last film to date).
Obviously, it was never going to be as good as the original. But it did not deserve to flop, either. Jack Nicholson is commanding in his performance (and direction), and I would suspect that the film would have a growing fan base as Harvey Keitel's star rose post-Tarantino. This is the same great underworld as before, and I wish a third film would have come to pass.
Long-winded sequel that has its moments
sickofenjoyingmyself11 August 2016
The Two Jakes has the misfortune of following an absolutely exceptional original in Chinatown. Few sequels live up the original and one can only wonder at how different, and presumably better it would have been if Polanski had directed again. This is not a bad movie.It was nice to see the character of Jake Gittes again. It does have its moments of private eye noir and intrigue. Jack Nicholson and Harvey Keitel are always fascinating to watch. Some of the action and word play is really enjoyable. Unfortunately it has no rhythm. The plot is long winded, confused and tentative. On too many occasion's I felt my interest waning. However I decided to see it through and felt the pace gather a bit towards the end. The acting is good and there's enough in it to keep it fairly interesting, but at times I felt like I was just hanging in there watching and hoping for it to become great, which it never does. If someone asked me to explain what happened in the film I think I would actually struggle to make sense of it. Nicholson and Keitel make it watchable, but not memorable. It's not not great because Chinatown was so good. It's just not great full stop. It was an average sequel. Not the first and certainly won't be the last...
Smart and subtle
pootc28 December 2005
It's just not Chinatown is all I can really say about, The Two Jakes. Again written by Robert Towne, the screenplay for the Two Jakes, like Chinatown is compelling enough, but Jack Nicholson's directorial debut lacks the creativity of Roman Polanski's. While Polanski strayed away from the typical film noir clichés this doesn't, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but again, it's just very different to Chinatown.
Nicholson's performance however, is again great and if anything this movie is a great character study of what has become of Jake Gittes over the years. This film is smart, and subtle. It's good too, not Chinatown good but good none the less and for some reason, it still left me wanting more. Cloverleaf - anyone?
Nicholson's performance however, is again great and if anything this movie is a great character study of what has become of Jake Gittes over the years. This film is smart, and subtle. It's good too, not Chinatown good but good none the less and for some reason, it still left me wanting more. Cloverleaf - anyone?
You can't forget the past any more then you can change it
kapelusznik181 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
****SPOILERS*** With the original director of the hit movie "Chinatown" Roman Polanski on the lamb in far off Europe as a fugitive from justice it came down to actor Jack Nicholson to pick up the ball and direct it's sequel "The Two Jakes" with him playing one of them private eye Jake Gittes. It's Jake who's involved with the other Jake L.A real-estate developer Julius "Jake" Berman, Harvey Keitel, who feels that his old lady Kitty, Meg Tilly, is cheating on him. As it later turns out Kitty is in fact cheating on Jake with his real-estate partner Mark Bodine,John Hackett, who's gunned down by what seems like , were never really sure, Jake Berman himself. That's when Mark is found with his pants down as well as wig off at the Bird of Paradise hotel in downtown L.A.
The film then gets to what exactly Jake, that's Berman, really had going at his housing development that was frequently rocked with tremors and earthquakes making it almost impossible for anyone to live there. It takes a while but were soon to find out that there's a major oil field, 22 by 46 miles, underneath the housing development that a number of people including top L.A hood Michael "Mickey Nice" Weisskopf, Ruben Blades, and millionaire financier Earl Raway, Richard Farnsworth, are itching to get their hands on.
***SPOILERS*** What's the biggest surprise in the film is Jake's, that Jake Berman, wife Kitty who as it turns out is not whom he as well as Jake, that Jake Gittes, and us in the audience think that she is. This is soon discovered, Kitty's real identity by Jake, that Gittes, himself after an exhausting search for the truth in Mark Bodine's murder that Jake, that's Jake Berman, is accused of. It turns out that Kitty did indeed knew Jake, that Gittes, some ten years ago in the movie "Chinatown" that messed up his mind ever since. At the end of the film Jake, that's Berman again, is no longer worried what's to happen to him in that he cleared or tied up all the loose ends in both his and Kitty's life. With nothing to do and nowhere for him to go Jake, That's Jake Berman, just lights up a cigarette and blows himself to smatterings in his gas, natural gas, filled condominium. At the time he had no fear of death in that he was dying, from radiation poisoning, already.
The film then gets to what exactly Jake, that's Berman, really had going at his housing development that was frequently rocked with tremors and earthquakes making it almost impossible for anyone to live there. It takes a while but were soon to find out that there's a major oil field, 22 by 46 miles, underneath the housing development that a number of people including top L.A hood Michael "Mickey Nice" Weisskopf, Ruben Blades, and millionaire financier Earl Raway, Richard Farnsworth, are itching to get their hands on.
***SPOILERS*** What's the biggest surprise in the film is Jake's, that Jake Berman, wife Kitty who as it turns out is not whom he as well as Jake, that Jake Gittes, and us in the audience think that she is. This is soon discovered, Kitty's real identity by Jake, that Gittes, himself after an exhausting search for the truth in Mark Bodine's murder that Jake, that's Jake Berman, is accused of. It turns out that Kitty did indeed knew Jake, that Gittes, some ten years ago in the movie "Chinatown" that messed up his mind ever since. At the end of the film Jake, that's Berman again, is no longer worried what's to happen to him in that he cleared or tied up all the loose ends in both his and Kitty's life. With nothing to do and nowhere for him to go Jake, That's Jake Berman, just lights up a cigarette and blows himself to smatterings in his gas, natural gas, filled condominium. At the time he had no fear of death in that he was dying, from radiation poisoning, already.
Nicholson and writer Robert Towne revisit old haunts...
moonspinner5529 February 2008
Long-delayed follow-up (of sorts) to 1974's "Chinatown", which was directed by Roman Polanski and featured Jack Nicholson as 1930s private detective J.J. Gittes. "The Two Jakes" was written by returning screenwriter Robert Towne and directed by Nicholson himself, who also stars, but--despite a certain patchy swagger and style--it's a let-down for admirers of the previous film, and a yawner to latter-day Nicholson fans who might be expecting some combative, belligerent fireworks. Jack's gumshoe delves into an infidelity scandal which quickly leads to dirty doings in the oil business (it was water the first time). Confusing and deadly slow, with the irritating, gravel-voiced narration by Nicholson failing to supply the proper mood. There are a few arty camera set-ups and good players in the cast (including Meg Tilly, Harvey Keitel, Eli Wallach, and a nice 'bit' by Faye Dunaway), but it fails to intrigue even on a nostalgic level. * from ****
Confusing....but better than I expected
planktonrules9 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
"The Two Jakes" was the sequel to "Chinatown" that apparently no one wanted. Much of it was because it came out so much after the original film back in 1974. It also was directed this time by Jack Nicholson himself, as the original director, Roman Polanski, could not come to the USA to film because of an outstanding conviction for raping a 13 year-old back in 1977. Regardless, it lost a lot of money in the box office...earning back only about half what it cost to make.
The story is a bit convoluted and confusing. So, instead of talking about much of the plot, I'll just mention the set-up...you can see the rest yourself. A client, Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel), comes to see Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) because he claims his wife is having an affair. When Jake and his assistant enter the room where the wife is with her lover, Berman pushes past them....and shoots the lover. It turns out the dead man was Berman's business partner....and not surprisingly, the police arrest him. What's next? Well, a LOT!
The film looks great...and they achieved the 1948 look very nicely. It also has some terrific actors in it. And, I liked the style of the film. But it was very confusing in spots...and I had to really concentrate to know exactly what was happening much of the time. Still, not a bad film at all and with some nice surprises...and certainly much better than its reputation.
The story is a bit convoluted and confusing. So, instead of talking about much of the plot, I'll just mention the set-up...you can see the rest yourself. A client, Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel), comes to see Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) because he claims his wife is having an affair. When Jake and his assistant enter the room where the wife is with her lover, Berman pushes past them....and shoots the lover. It turns out the dead man was Berman's business partner....and not surprisingly, the police arrest him. What's next? Well, a LOT!
The film looks great...and they achieved the 1948 look very nicely. It also has some terrific actors in it. And, I liked the style of the film. But it was very confusing in spots...and I had to really concentrate to know exactly what was happening much of the time. Still, not a bad film at all and with some nice surprises...and certainly much better than its reputation.
The Two Jakes Review
pedroborges-9088112 January 2021
The Cinematography evokes some of the original film, but the story is very weak.
It's a cool trivia that Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino returned to one of their most famous roles 16 years later, both films from the same studio and both co starred by Eli Wallach.
It's a cool trivia that Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino returned to one of their most famous roles 16 years later, both films from the same studio and both co starred by Eli Wallach.
It's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a very good movie.
gottogorunning17 August 2005
Most reviews pull The Two Jakes to pieces, except for a very well-considered one by Roger Ebert (find it at the Chicago Sun-Times).
Of course, it's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a damned good movie. It's about the past, how it pervades our lives for the rest of our days, and how we assimilate it into our futures.
Many have complained that the film is convoluted, that when the key revelation comes (I ain't givin' that away) you miss the impact of it. I strongly disagree with this. I for one had actually figured out the revelation before it happened - this didn't bother me because I wanted so much for it to be what I had thought it was going to be. And when it comes, it's so subtle you could almost be forgiven for missing it. It's lovely, so comforting in a very ironic way.
All I'll say is, pay attention to the scene where Jake (Nicholson) goes to see Kahn (the unmistakable James Hong). Something about the flowers...
Anyway, I'm drifting. The Two Jakes is subtle, well-crafted, and when all is revealed, so very simple. The 'convoluted' events in the plot serve to illustrate what a single, simple desire can cause.
Just watch it. Bear in mind the events and characters from Chinatown, but only so that you have a back story for these characters and not a standard to which they should be compared.
Of course, it's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a damned good movie. It's about the past, how it pervades our lives for the rest of our days, and how we assimilate it into our futures.
Many have complained that the film is convoluted, that when the key revelation comes (I ain't givin' that away) you miss the impact of it. I strongly disagree with this. I for one had actually figured out the revelation before it happened - this didn't bother me because I wanted so much for it to be what I had thought it was going to be. And when it comes, it's so subtle you could almost be forgiven for missing it. It's lovely, so comforting in a very ironic way.
All I'll say is, pay attention to the scene where Jake (Nicholson) goes to see Kahn (the unmistakable James Hong). Something about the flowers...
Anyway, I'm drifting. The Two Jakes is subtle, well-crafted, and when all is revealed, so very simple. The 'convoluted' events in the plot serve to illustrate what a single, simple desire can cause.
Just watch it. Bear in mind the events and characters from Chinatown, but only so that you have a back story for these characters and not a standard to which they should be compared.
It just can't let go of the past.
TOMASBBloodhound19 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted this film to work better than it did. Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes character from Chinatown deserved a better sequel than this, however. That said, Nicholson is still a treat to watch as the resourceful private eye, and he even shows some skill behind the camera. The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is as wonderful as ever. Problems come mostly from the fact that Robert Towne's script can't let go of too many elements from the original film, and we the audience are left with one of those "could have been great" films.
The story picks up about a decade or so after the events in Chinatown. WWII is now over, and Jake Gittes has become a much more successful investigator, yet he still does the occasional adultery case. In the opening scenes of The Two Jakes, Gittes gets himself involved in one such case with deadly consequences. A man we are led to believe is a jealous husband (Keitel) hires Gittes to stake out a motel with him where his wife (Tilly) will be meeting her lover. The lover turns out to be Keitel's business partner, and Keitel shoots the man dead! This leaves Gittes as a possible accessory to murder! It's up to Gittes to clear his name and figure out if Keitel's fit of anger was just that, or if there are bigger things going on in the background. Well, of course there are! This is a Robert Towne script! Before we're done, we've got the housing industry, the oil industry, and a sex-crazed widow in the mix, as the story wildly jumps the tracks and eventually leads to an explosive conclusion.
That plot I have just described actually would have been enough for a great new film about Jake Gittes. Trouble is, Towne makes the mistake of digging up elements from Chinatown that seem awfully contrived as they are woven into the current plot. We learn early on for example that Gittes is still haunted by the memory of Faye Dunaway's character from Chinatown. Too much time is wasted digging up memories of her, even at one point having Gittes find her old butler and rehash old memories with him. In the last fifteen minutes, we also learn that Keitel's wife is really Dunaway's daughter from Chinatown. Yes, the one she had in an incestuous relationship with her father. This is just too much of a contrivance to swallow. There is simply no need to bring the Mulwray family back and try to weave them into this story! There are other problems with the story. We are told that Gittes in engaged, but we never really get to know his fiancé, and she is all but forgotten until a scene where she ends the whole affair with him. Richard Farnsworth is introduced as an unscrupulous oil man who may be doing great damage to the countryside with his illegal drilling practices. Yet, once this is revealed to us, nothing ever comes of it! I think the film probably suffered from too many re-writes. Trouble with Towne is, he knows he's a gifted writer. So he likely feels he needs to make things needlessly complicated in order to put his name on a script.
This film bombed badly in the theaters. this is probably due to the long production delays as much as anything. Too many people probably forgot how good Chinatown was to want to go see this film. It's too bad that The Two Jakes keeps trying to remind us.
6 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
The story picks up about a decade or so after the events in Chinatown. WWII is now over, and Jake Gittes has become a much more successful investigator, yet he still does the occasional adultery case. In the opening scenes of The Two Jakes, Gittes gets himself involved in one such case with deadly consequences. A man we are led to believe is a jealous husband (Keitel) hires Gittes to stake out a motel with him where his wife (Tilly) will be meeting her lover. The lover turns out to be Keitel's business partner, and Keitel shoots the man dead! This leaves Gittes as a possible accessory to murder! It's up to Gittes to clear his name and figure out if Keitel's fit of anger was just that, or if there are bigger things going on in the background. Well, of course there are! This is a Robert Towne script! Before we're done, we've got the housing industry, the oil industry, and a sex-crazed widow in the mix, as the story wildly jumps the tracks and eventually leads to an explosive conclusion.
That plot I have just described actually would have been enough for a great new film about Jake Gittes. Trouble is, Towne makes the mistake of digging up elements from Chinatown that seem awfully contrived as they are woven into the current plot. We learn early on for example that Gittes is still haunted by the memory of Faye Dunaway's character from Chinatown. Too much time is wasted digging up memories of her, even at one point having Gittes find her old butler and rehash old memories with him. In the last fifteen minutes, we also learn that Keitel's wife is really Dunaway's daughter from Chinatown. Yes, the one she had in an incestuous relationship with her father. This is just too much of a contrivance to swallow. There is simply no need to bring the Mulwray family back and try to weave them into this story! There are other problems with the story. We are told that Gittes in engaged, but we never really get to know his fiancé, and she is all but forgotten until a scene where she ends the whole affair with him. Richard Farnsworth is introduced as an unscrupulous oil man who may be doing great damage to the countryside with his illegal drilling practices. Yet, once this is revealed to us, nothing ever comes of it! I think the film probably suffered from too many re-writes. Trouble with Towne is, he knows he's a gifted writer. So he likely feels he needs to make things needlessly complicated in order to put his name on a script.
This film bombed badly in the theaters. this is probably due to the long production delays as much as anything. Too many people probably forgot how good Chinatown was to want to go see this film. It's too bad that The Two Jakes keeps trying to remind us.
6 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
Incoherent & disappointing
Michael_Cronin26 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Two Jakes is probably the most perfect example of why no one should ever make a sequel to a masterpiece 16 years later (Godfather III, anyone?). It's very easy to say that it suffers unfairly in comparison to the masterpiece that was Chinatown, & that one should take it on its own terms. Fair enough, but to anyone who hasn't seen Chinatown, the plot of The Two Jakes is completely & utterly incomprehensible, as opposed to extremely confusing to those who have. The film can only be understood as an addition to the story that began in Chinatown, & as such, can't avoid savage comparisons when placed alongside such a vastly superior film.
It picks up the story of Jake Gittes ten years or so after the events of Chinatown. He finds himself embroiled in another seemingly straightforward infidelity case gone wrong, which leads to corruption & treachery in the highest corridors of power, this time over oil, rather than water. The twist, such as it is, involves Katherine Mulwray, the incestuous offspring of Evelyn Mulwray & her father, the vile Noah Cross, the heroine & villain from Chinatown.
Sounds good, but this interesting idea is buried within a labyrinthine mess of a plot that jumps all over the place, with real estate scams, terminal diseases, petty hoodlums, earthquakes, gay bars, & most irritating of all, Jake's over-demanding fiancé.
What buries the film is the fact that it doesn't ever really know what sort of film it actually wants to be. Chinatown was a twisted detective story that got darker & darker every minute, & left the viewer in a world where evil triumphed, nothing was certain, & no one could be trusted. The Two Jakes, however, is constantly veering between Jake's depressing musings over the past, screwball sex comedy with Madeleine Stowe's loopy widow, vague hints at conspiracy theories over who really runs Los Angeles, & a general air of cuteness around the character of Jake Gittes. Rather than being regarded by his peers as the disruptive & sleazy bedroom peeper that he is, he tends to be popular among just about everyone, cop & criminal alike. You can just hear them saying, "Oh, that Jake, he's such a character, tsk, tsk..."
There's no terrifying villain to even approach the demon that John Huston created with Noah Cross - no real villain at all, come to think of it. Harvey Keitel's Jake Berman is the architect behind the whole scam, but ends up as some sort of hero/victim who was acting with good intentions all along (despite shooting a man in cold blood), Mickey Nice (Ruben Blades) is more like a cartoon character waving weapons around & never using them, & Earl Rawley (Richard Farnsworth) is never exactly made out to be doing anything REALLY immoral or illegal, despite being the man who seems to be in charge of absolutely everything (i.e. the successor to Noah Cross).
The great twist regarding the identity of Katherine Mulwray is the final nail in the coffin. Given Jake's obsession over the past, & over her in particular, it's not convincing at all that he wouldn't have recognised her immediately, even though he meets her 'alter-ego' several times before finally realising her true identity in one of the most poorly executed revelation scenes I've ever seen. You're left thinking, "Um, so who's she really meant to be? Oh, that's right, Katherine Mulwray - but wouldn't he have known anyway, er, are you sure she's Katherine Mulwray, he didn't actually say, maybe she's someone else..."
For the psychotic Chinatown fan (& yes, I do count myself as one), there's plenty of cameos & references - Joe Mantell as Jake's offsider Walsh, Perry Lopez as a handicapped Lou Escobar, James Hong as Kahn, Evelyn Mulwray's butler, the snotty clerk in the hall of records makes an appearance, the same orange groves are used as a location (complete with the exact same 'No Trespassing' sign - it just happens to be lying around), old photos & newsclippings are used ad nauseam, despite the fact that they're stills from Chinatown that couldn't possibly have been taken as photos, & even Faye Dunaway pops up, in a brief voice-over.
Plenty of things to remind the fans what it's a sequel to, & there are some wonderfully haunting echoes of the past that constantly torments Jake Gittes, but ultimately, The Two Jakes is just a big, disappointing mess. Loads of talent, no direction.
Chinatown's writer & creator, Robert Towne, had originally envisioned a trilogy of J.J. Gittes films chronicling the history of Los Angeles, one set in the 1930's about water, one in the 1940's about oil, & another in the 1950's about the freeway system (apparently to be called 'Cloverleaf', after a type of freeway exit configuration). He, along with Robert Evans & Jack Nicholson, set up a company in the 1980's called TEN (Towne, Evans, Nicholson) to continue the endeavour, & Towne was slated to direct The Two Jakes, but he walked away long before the production actually started. The one reason that's most often cited was his objection to the original casting of producer Robert Evans as Jake Berman. Roman Polanski wasn't available to direct for obvious reasons.
So, much like Jake Gittes' own thoughts, The Two Jakes is largely a collection of "what if?"s. Had Towne still been on board, & had Polanski been available to direct, who knows what might have been?
It picks up the story of Jake Gittes ten years or so after the events of Chinatown. He finds himself embroiled in another seemingly straightforward infidelity case gone wrong, which leads to corruption & treachery in the highest corridors of power, this time over oil, rather than water. The twist, such as it is, involves Katherine Mulwray, the incestuous offspring of Evelyn Mulwray & her father, the vile Noah Cross, the heroine & villain from Chinatown.
Sounds good, but this interesting idea is buried within a labyrinthine mess of a plot that jumps all over the place, with real estate scams, terminal diseases, petty hoodlums, earthquakes, gay bars, & most irritating of all, Jake's over-demanding fiancé.
What buries the film is the fact that it doesn't ever really know what sort of film it actually wants to be. Chinatown was a twisted detective story that got darker & darker every minute, & left the viewer in a world where evil triumphed, nothing was certain, & no one could be trusted. The Two Jakes, however, is constantly veering between Jake's depressing musings over the past, screwball sex comedy with Madeleine Stowe's loopy widow, vague hints at conspiracy theories over who really runs Los Angeles, & a general air of cuteness around the character of Jake Gittes. Rather than being regarded by his peers as the disruptive & sleazy bedroom peeper that he is, he tends to be popular among just about everyone, cop & criminal alike. You can just hear them saying, "Oh, that Jake, he's such a character, tsk, tsk..."
There's no terrifying villain to even approach the demon that John Huston created with Noah Cross - no real villain at all, come to think of it. Harvey Keitel's Jake Berman is the architect behind the whole scam, but ends up as some sort of hero/victim who was acting with good intentions all along (despite shooting a man in cold blood), Mickey Nice (Ruben Blades) is more like a cartoon character waving weapons around & never using them, & Earl Rawley (Richard Farnsworth) is never exactly made out to be doing anything REALLY immoral or illegal, despite being the man who seems to be in charge of absolutely everything (i.e. the successor to Noah Cross).
The great twist regarding the identity of Katherine Mulwray is the final nail in the coffin. Given Jake's obsession over the past, & over her in particular, it's not convincing at all that he wouldn't have recognised her immediately, even though he meets her 'alter-ego' several times before finally realising her true identity in one of the most poorly executed revelation scenes I've ever seen. You're left thinking, "Um, so who's she really meant to be? Oh, that's right, Katherine Mulwray - but wouldn't he have known anyway, er, are you sure she's Katherine Mulwray, he didn't actually say, maybe she's someone else..."
For the psychotic Chinatown fan (& yes, I do count myself as one), there's plenty of cameos & references - Joe Mantell as Jake's offsider Walsh, Perry Lopez as a handicapped Lou Escobar, James Hong as Kahn, Evelyn Mulwray's butler, the snotty clerk in the hall of records makes an appearance, the same orange groves are used as a location (complete with the exact same 'No Trespassing' sign - it just happens to be lying around), old photos & newsclippings are used ad nauseam, despite the fact that they're stills from Chinatown that couldn't possibly have been taken as photos, & even Faye Dunaway pops up, in a brief voice-over.
Plenty of things to remind the fans what it's a sequel to, & there are some wonderfully haunting echoes of the past that constantly torments Jake Gittes, but ultimately, The Two Jakes is just a big, disappointing mess. Loads of talent, no direction.
Chinatown's writer & creator, Robert Towne, had originally envisioned a trilogy of J.J. Gittes films chronicling the history of Los Angeles, one set in the 1930's about water, one in the 1940's about oil, & another in the 1950's about the freeway system (apparently to be called 'Cloverleaf', after a type of freeway exit configuration). He, along with Robert Evans & Jack Nicholson, set up a company in the 1980's called TEN (Towne, Evans, Nicholson) to continue the endeavour, & Towne was slated to direct The Two Jakes, but he walked away long before the production actually started. The one reason that's most often cited was his objection to the original casting of producer Robert Evans as Jake Berman. Roman Polanski wasn't available to direct for obvious reasons.
So, much like Jake Gittes' own thoughts, The Two Jakes is largely a collection of "what if?"s. Had Towne still been on board, & had Polanski been available to direct, who knows what might have been?
a worthwhile sequel that came too late
dtucker8621 October 2001
Jack Nicholson is certainly one of the greatest actors of this or any generation. Chinatown is perhaps his greatest film and he certainly should have won an Oscar for it. Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe certainly have nothing on his Jake Gittes! The only problem with this sequel is that it came out many years too late. I read that Robert Evans originally wanted to make it in the 1980s but legal problems held it up. The Two Jakes was pretty much ignored at the box office and got some awfully bad reviews. I could not understand why because I thoroughly enjoyed it. So many films that come out are geared towards kids and make you feel like a kid again when you see them. Thats okay, but this film made me feel like an adult seeing it. The film is as good as Chinatown in so many ways. I love the props and the ambiance of the 1940s that they use. Jack did a great job directing this film and he deserves a lot more credit.
The Raymond Chandler Effect
B2422 September 2003
Because Los Angeles (say it with a hard "g" and you'll get the exact way most "Anglos" said it before 1950) is where desert meets ocean, there lingers over the place a constant aura of the primordial. It can be by turns a tropical paradise or a dusty wasteland. Raymond Chandler captured the feeling as no other writer before or after.
It is his heritage at work in both "Chinatown" (1974) and "The Two Jakes" (1990). Not only the place as shown but the style of writing is a derivative composite. With that kind of material as an inchoate element in every scene and every nuance, the literate viewer is on familiar ground, always ready to settle comfortably into the plot and characters no matter how lacking they are in their own right.
Those of us old enough to remember when L.A. traffic lights had little "Stop" and "Go" flags on them and pedestrians were always given the right of way will recognize this movie as Chandler redux. Jack Nicholson is possibly the best actor around -- now that Robert Mitchum is no longer here -- to play the Philip Marlowe role. And the old plot is still good: hard-bitten detective with heart of gold overbalancing many flaws gets some rough treatment and goes through several femmes fatales on his way to solving the crime.
It is precisely the lack of novelty at this point, together with an odd filter on the lens and some vaguely wrong visual settings, that deter me from giving high marks on this one. That and the melodramatic conclusion which, as in "Chinatown," relies on an odd turn of events exposing the secret. True Chandler fans would look more for a purely logical and organic climax, with a whiff of Lucky Strikes rather than oil fumes in the air.
It is his heritage at work in both "Chinatown" (1974) and "The Two Jakes" (1990). Not only the place as shown but the style of writing is a derivative composite. With that kind of material as an inchoate element in every scene and every nuance, the literate viewer is on familiar ground, always ready to settle comfortably into the plot and characters no matter how lacking they are in their own right.
Those of us old enough to remember when L.A. traffic lights had little "Stop" and "Go" flags on them and pedestrians were always given the right of way will recognize this movie as Chandler redux. Jack Nicholson is possibly the best actor around -- now that Robert Mitchum is no longer here -- to play the Philip Marlowe role. And the old plot is still good: hard-bitten detective with heart of gold overbalancing many flaws gets some rough treatment and goes through several femmes fatales on his way to solving the crime.
It is precisely the lack of novelty at this point, together with an odd filter on the lens and some vaguely wrong visual settings, that deter me from giving high marks on this one. That and the melodramatic conclusion which, as in "Chinatown," relies on an odd turn of events exposing the secret. True Chandler fans would look more for a purely logical and organic climax, with a whiff of Lucky Strikes rather than oil fumes in the air.
A near miss?
JasparLamarCrabb9 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This sequel to CHINATOWN has a lot going for it, but unfortunately its parts do not amount to a full on masterpiece. Jack Nicholson reprises his role of Jake Gittes, this time knee deep in a mystery involving land baron Harvey Keitel (the other "Jake"), daffy vamp Madeline Stowe and the very enigmatic Meg Tilly. Yes, it ties back to the earlier film and yes, the script by Robert Towne is extremely rich. That said, the film itself is not altogether satisfying because while it's chock full of excellent scenes, it's missing a major element that every good mystery needs: a truly menacing adversary. While CHINATOWN concluded in the most catastrophic way, THE TWO JAKES essentially cops out at the end. Still, it's a well-mounted period piece with exceptional acting (particulary Tilly) from all. Nicholson is a savvy director with a keen sense of casting. He populates the supporting cast with Frederic Forrest, Eli Wallach, David Keith and, from the earlier film, James Hong, Perry Lopez and the dependable Joe Mantell as his right-hand man.
Stands on it's own!
jmcdaniels-812-76907 August 2010
Sure it's not Chinatown, but the atmosphere, sets, costumes and iconic actors carried this film and left me longing for the third part of the trilogy. Quick while Nicholson is still breathing! Some had the opinion that it was too long, but the longer I could stay in that world, the better. Even Meg Tilly, sounding as if she had the worst sinus infection on record, brought an excellent performance to the table. It's too bad that it was a sequel and a sequel to what has become a late twentieth century classic film. I've found that it's the same with going to see any film - you have to keep your expectations under control. Many of the reviewers were expecting to see a second classic in this sequel, but I don't think they realize how rare it is, in spite of the effort and talent associated with the making of a film, for it to all come together into something like Chinatown. So, here's to the films that aren't so great, because they make the great films well..great.
A mixed bag
simonqbb16 December 2019
Sequels to great movies are rarely as good as their originals, and "The Two Jakes" is no exception: For those who have seen "Chinatown," "The Two Jakes" could hardly be called essential, or even really necessary, as it mostly recapitulates themes and characters from that great movie. Instead of intrigue around the importation into L.A. of water, this one features the machinations of the oil industry. Besides this, Robert Towne's screenplay, while undeniably intelligent and punchy, is more than a little hard to follow, and might have benefited from some good editing or a judicious rewrite. In short, the story is too convoluted, with the relationships between characters almost impossible to decipher, and the movie is decidedly overlong.
Still, there is quite a bit that could be called great in "The Two Jakes": the set and costume design is absolutely exquisite, as is Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography, and Jack Nicholson's direction is better than good, even very nearly inspired. Even in these areas, though, the movie has a rather controlled tone that borders on oppressive: the set design very nearly overwhelms the story in the same way that Nicholson's direction feels arguably a little too redolent of his own (very often successful) laconic, measured acting style. One wonders if this might have been intentional: one great scene has Nicholson's Jake Gittes interviewing Meg Tilly's Kitty Berman while she gets a facial, her face covered in green mud, only her eyes and lips visible as she smokes a cigarette and takes probing questions from Gittes. This scene, as with much of the movie, creates a quite intense sense of claustrophobia, of the interconnectedness of everything and everyone, present and past. In this respect, "The Two Jakes" could be said to work quite well: as the screenplay would have it, there is no escape from the past. But even more, there are few actual escapes in a culture that has been, to a significant degree, built on rapaciousness and escape. The filmmakers seem confident of this viewpoint, and it plays convincingly, if, however, in relation to "Chinatown," redundantly. (The Movie Czar 12/16/19)
Still, there is quite a bit that could be called great in "The Two Jakes": the set and costume design is absolutely exquisite, as is Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography, and Jack Nicholson's direction is better than good, even very nearly inspired. Even in these areas, though, the movie has a rather controlled tone that borders on oppressive: the set design very nearly overwhelms the story in the same way that Nicholson's direction feels arguably a little too redolent of his own (very often successful) laconic, measured acting style. One wonders if this might have been intentional: one great scene has Nicholson's Jake Gittes interviewing Meg Tilly's Kitty Berman while she gets a facial, her face covered in green mud, only her eyes and lips visible as she smokes a cigarette and takes probing questions from Gittes. This scene, as with much of the movie, creates a quite intense sense of claustrophobia, of the interconnectedness of everything and everyone, present and past. In this respect, "The Two Jakes" could be said to work quite well: as the screenplay would have it, there is no escape from the past. But even more, there are few actual escapes in a culture that has been, to a significant degree, built on rapaciousness and escape. The filmmakers seem confident of this viewpoint, and it plays convincingly, if, however, in relation to "Chinatown," redundantly. (The Movie Czar 12/16/19)
a sequel to 1974's Chinatown,lacking the same spark and imagination
disdressed1212 January 2007
this movie is the sequel to 1974's Chinatown.Jack Nicholson directed this film and stars again as Jake Gittes.Robert Towne wrote the script and the movie is based on characters created by him.it is hard not to compare this movie to its predecessor and comparisons are inevitable.so here goes.First off this movie plods along at a snail's pace.there doesn't seem to be a clear direction.Also,Gittes seems less likable this time around.the surrounding characters seem to lack any real imagination,as do the situations.put simply,there is no spark.and the femme fatalle angle,which worked so well in the original,doesn't work here.but then who could fill the shoes of the mega star charismatic actress Faye Dunnaway?no-one.so,the femme in this case is less fatalle.the script is also lacking in imagination,giving the director(Nicholson)less to work with.you will be bored nearly to tears here.a disappointing followup to Chinatown.,as a stand alone film,however-also disappointing.this movie is not quite awful,but not quite good either.not recommended. 3/10
Oil and water don't mix
ecjones195116 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I can't imagine anyone who isn't familiar with "Chinatown" being able to follow the plot of its long-delayed sequel, "The Two Jakes." So many of the elements that insured the success, if not mythical status of its predecessor are here, including talent before and behind the camera. And yet "The Two Jakes" is self-conscious; the plot labyrinthine to the point of irritation rather than intrigue, the period detail exaggerated to the point of parody.
"Chinatown" eschewed any number of stereotypes of film noir to almost singlehandedly usher in a new era of private eye films. It did not require voice-over narration to keep the audience on the right track or smooth over deficiencies in the plot, or illuminate character. In "The Two Jakes," J.J. Gittes's running commentary is at the same time vital and intrusive. Despite its complex plot, "Chinatown" unfolded in a linear fashion. There were no flashbacks, and the audience was never ahead of investigator Gittes.
The plot of "The Two Jakes" is not only complex, it's almost incomprehensible. The audience is not in lockstep with Gittes, it's just as bewildered as he is; except about the identity of a character which is made known to us eons before it is to him. The dialogue is a pale imitation of that of its predecessor; in fact, the best lines in the film are lifted directly from "Chinatown." Several characters from "Chinatown," most notably Lou Escobar, (Perry Lopez) are still around to give Jake a hard time. If Jake has mellowed a bit, so has Lou. Loach, the cop who fired the fatal shot at the end of "Chinatown," has apparently died in the interim. His son is played here by David Keith, and the second of his two scenes concludes with an unfortunate, scatological joke of the kind the "Chinatown" script so assiduously and deftly avoided. A couple of cameos from other original cast members provide a chuckle or two.
You know you're in trouble when even three earthquake temblors can't shake things into place. There is good work from a large cast that includes Harvey Keitel (as the other Jake), Richard Farnsworth and Ruben Blades. Eli Wallach and Frederic Forrest are wasted. "The Two Jakes" remains at best a curiosity that might seem better had it not tried to equal, let alone surpass, its predecessor.
"Chinatown" eschewed any number of stereotypes of film noir to almost singlehandedly usher in a new era of private eye films. It did not require voice-over narration to keep the audience on the right track or smooth over deficiencies in the plot, or illuminate character. In "The Two Jakes," J.J. Gittes's running commentary is at the same time vital and intrusive. Despite its complex plot, "Chinatown" unfolded in a linear fashion. There were no flashbacks, and the audience was never ahead of investigator Gittes.
The plot of "The Two Jakes" is not only complex, it's almost incomprehensible. The audience is not in lockstep with Gittes, it's just as bewildered as he is; except about the identity of a character which is made known to us eons before it is to him. The dialogue is a pale imitation of that of its predecessor; in fact, the best lines in the film are lifted directly from "Chinatown." Several characters from "Chinatown," most notably Lou Escobar, (Perry Lopez) are still around to give Jake a hard time. If Jake has mellowed a bit, so has Lou. Loach, the cop who fired the fatal shot at the end of "Chinatown," has apparently died in the interim. His son is played here by David Keith, and the second of his two scenes concludes with an unfortunate, scatological joke of the kind the "Chinatown" script so assiduously and deftly avoided. A couple of cameos from other original cast members provide a chuckle or two.
You know you're in trouble when even three earthquake temblors can't shake things into place. There is good work from a large cast that includes Harvey Keitel (as the other Jake), Richard Farnsworth and Ruben Blades. Eli Wallach and Frederic Forrest are wasted. "The Two Jakes" remains at best a curiosity that might seem better had it not tried to equal, let alone surpass, its predecessor.
The look is nice, but the mystery is lacking
paulijcalderon13 November 2016
It's always difficult for a sequel to live up to the original. Jack Nicholson did manage to recapture the feel and tone of "Chinatown", but not so much with the story unfortunately.
The look of the film is good. All the locations, lighting and camera-work are all nice. The music is very suiting with its somber and calm atmosphere. It feels like the whole thing was shot during magic hour, and every other scene seems to have a sunset in the background. This is a beautiful movie to look at. Everything in the design and look department is done right, but the rest doesn't live up.
Jack Nicholson really tried and I feel a bit bad for him. I can tell that he really wanted to show how J.J. Gittes' memories were haunting him years later. If that would have been the focus, then maybe it would have worked. But, the story that we are treated with is not interesting or intriguing and not much actually happens. I kept checking what time it was every 5 minutes or so. I was really disappointed because the movie never really finds itself. Towards the end they started hinting at something that could be good. But, it's only hinted at.
I liked the one scene where he is at a nightclub, but the only reason was because of the nice lighting and cinematography. It's very melodramatic and there's the classic noir voice over. There's never any big twist or something to really surprise you. It's mostly just Jack Nicholson walking around in a fedora trying to find something interesting to do. It was underwhelming and it lacked some intensity and mystery.
I don't recommend it that much. If you are a fan of Nicholson and "Chinatown", then maybe check it out because of curiosity. But, don't expect much at all.
The look of the film is good. All the locations, lighting and camera-work are all nice. The music is very suiting with its somber and calm atmosphere. It feels like the whole thing was shot during magic hour, and every other scene seems to have a sunset in the background. This is a beautiful movie to look at. Everything in the design and look department is done right, but the rest doesn't live up.
Jack Nicholson really tried and I feel a bit bad for him. I can tell that he really wanted to show how J.J. Gittes' memories were haunting him years later. If that would have been the focus, then maybe it would have worked. But, the story that we are treated with is not interesting or intriguing and not much actually happens. I kept checking what time it was every 5 minutes or so. I was really disappointed because the movie never really finds itself. Towards the end they started hinting at something that could be good. But, it's only hinted at.
I liked the one scene where he is at a nightclub, but the only reason was because of the nice lighting and cinematography. It's very melodramatic and there's the classic noir voice over. There's never any big twist or something to really surprise you. It's mostly just Jack Nicholson walking around in a fedora trying to find something interesting to do. It was underwhelming and it lacked some intensity and mystery.
I don't recommend it that much. If you are a fan of Nicholson and "Chinatown", then maybe check it out because of curiosity. But, don't expect much at all.
Average Storyline, Wrong Casting and Too Long...
nomoons118 April 2010
...of course i don't mean Jack Nicholson, he brings his A game to just about everything he does. This one was rather dull IMO. It just didn't have any pop. The story throughout just didn't have any wow moments like Chinatown did.
Now for the miscasting. Harvey Keitel's tough guy persona just didn't work in this one. Richard Farnsworth was odd as a choice for the demon oil man and to round it out, If Meg Tilly wasn't miscast, then the casting agent was either sick that day, deaf or dead on blind. She's never been one to hit the Hollywood signs for popularity or bring in the crowds so for her to be in this was just a last minute choice or a bad choice.
A little about this being too long. For something to carry on for 2 hrs and 37 minutes and slowly dribble out bits and pieces with bad casting and and average screenplay(watch for a few brief, has nothing to do with scenes with the PI's supposed wife. Didn't belong in the movie), I was just waiting for the end to say I actually finished it.
I recommend anyone who's seen Chinatown to finish it off and watch this but if you haven't and aren't planning on seeing it, you aren't missing anything by skipping this one .
BTW...is it me or could anyone else see Nicholson having a recurring character as a PI in some movies nowadays? He hasn't had a hit in a while, he could do more of these as his character in this. I could see it working.
Now for the miscasting. Harvey Keitel's tough guy persona just didn't work in this one. Richard Farnsworth was odd as a choice for the demon oil man and to round it out, If Meg Tilly wasn't miscast, then the casting agent was either sick that day, deaf or dead on blind. She's never been one to hit the Hollywood signs for popularity or bring in the crowds so for her to be in this was just a last minute choice or a bad choice.
A little about this being too long. For something to carry on for 2 hrs and 37 minutes and slowly dribble out bits and pieces with bad casting and and average screenplay(watch for a few brief, has nothing to do with scenes with the PI's supposed wife. Didn't belong in the movie), I was just waiting for the end to say I actually finished it.
I recommend anyone who's seen Chinatown to finish it off and watch this but if you haven't and aren't planning on seeing it, you aren't missing anything by skipping this one .
BTW...is it me or could anyone else see Nicholson having a recurring character as a PI in some movies nowadays? He hasn't had a hit in a while, he could do more of these as his character in this. I could see it working.
forget it, Jake...it's not Chinatown
mjneu5911 January 2011
Jack Nicholson deserves a lion's share of the credit for bringing the belated sequel to Roman Polanski's 'Chinatown' to the big screen, putting heroic effort into a project that never had much hope of matching the original. Comparison is of course always the cheapest form of criticism, but it's hard not to notice the holes in a cast substituting Harvey Keitel and Meg Tilly (an unconvincing femme fatale) for John Huston and Faye Dunaway, and Nicholson himself proves to be an only adequate director (under duress, to be sure).
Robert Towne's incredibly convoluted plot, involving oil swindles and real estate grabs in post-war Los Angeles, is only a shadow of his earlier, Oscar winning effort, with all the hard-boiled gumshoe narration added strictly for mood when it should have been used for clarification (viewers will sympathize with Jake Gittes when he's told, "you may think you know what's going on around here, but you don't.") Cameo roles (like oil magnate Richard Farnsworth) should have been major characters; some of the major characters (nymphomaniac widow Madeleine Stowe) should have been walk-ons; and the essential film noir villain (the other Jake, played by Keitel) ends up as a tragic hero.
The timing of the production was likewise all wrong, arriving after a decade of dumbed-down FX spectacles had made any notion of ambivalence all but extinct in a Hollywood drama. Perhaps the kindest thing to be said about the film is that it reinforces the classic status of the original.
Robert Towne's incredibly convoluted plot, involving oil swindles and real estate grabs in post-war Los Angeles, is only a shadow of his earlier, Oscar winning effort, with all the hard-boiled gumshoe narration added strictly for mood when it should have been used for clarification (viewers will sympathize with Jake Gittes when he's told, "you may think you know what's going on around here, but you don't.") Cameo roles (like oil magnate Richard Farnsworth) should have been major characters; some of the major characters (nymphomaniac widow Madeleine Stowe) should have been walk-ons; and the essential film noir villain (the other Jake, played by Keitel) ends up as a tragic hero.
The timing of the production was likewise all wrong, arriving after a decade of dumbed-down FX spectacles had made any notion of ambivalence all but extinct in a Hollywood drama. Perhaps the kindest thing to be said about the film is that it reinforces the classic status of the original.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
