This is where I’m at. The fact they took that labyrinthine novel and made a coherent film of it was a miracle. Plus the casting was inspired getting Spacey, Crowe and Pierce just as they were all on an incredible upward trajectory.10/10
Amazing film on every level. Not just one of the best of the 90s, but one of the best ever.
Which way are we supposed to vote for street cred?Must be a bunch of Elvis Costello fans in here.
Original choice for the role of Jack Vincennes, but scheduling conflicts.Elvis Costello
Same on both movies. Chinatown is a good comparison.The movie critic in me would give it a 9. The movie fan in me would score it a 10. It is totally in my wheelhouse. On par with Chinatown. LAC scored 99/94 on RT. Chinatown 99/93. Both are at 8.2 on IMDB.
Yeah, I just noticed that as well. Who is Ned? Did he mean nerds?Who’s Ned?
RYERSON!Who’s Ned?
Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
LA Confidential.
So many great scenes.
Best scene and one of the all-time greatest scenes in film history.
L.A. Confidential (3/10) Movie CLIP - The Interrogation (1997)
Second best scene, so many to choose from, could easily post a half dozen scenes.
L.A. Confidential (5/10) Movie CLIP - Shotgun Ed
So many great lines.
Best line.
"Av ya a valediction Boyo?"
L.A. Confidential(1997) - The Death Of Jack Vincennes
Second best line.
"Is that how you used to run the Good Cop/Bad Cop?"
L. A. Confidential Good Cop/Bad Cop
Spoiler tags from the pull-down 3-dot menu.So there ARE spoiler tags? When did we find this out? And why is it "ISPOILER"?
I get why, I just hadn't figured out how to do them on the new board. I know see the crossed-out-eye icon.Spoiler tags from the pull-down 3-dot menu.So there ARE spoiler tags? When did we find this out? And why is it "ISPOILER"?
I used spoiler in case someone hadn't seen the film.
L.A., especially during that time period, had so many rabbit holes that led to other rabbit holes that I wouldn't be surprised if writing 4 books about it led to his 'quirkiness.' Or, the only way he could have endured writing them was that he was crazy beforehand and the subject matter drew him like a moth to a flame.Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
Ellroy hated the movie but he’s also a serious weirdo. He said he doesn’t care about anything after May 1972. He thinks Raymond Chandler sucks. He doesn’t believe WW2 has ended. He’s just either totally out there, somewhat ill or a contrarian to the power of 10.
The article I read seems to indicate he’s always been bizarre (or at least that’s how he chooses to paint himself). He said ask a kid he would tell his mom WW2 was still going on. She would explain it ended before he was born but he refused to believe it.L.A., especially during that time period, had so many rabbit holes that led to other rabbit holes that I wouldn't be surprised if writing 4 books about it led to his 'quirkiness.' Or, the only way he could have endured writing them was that he was crazy beforehand and the subject matter drew him like a moth to a flame.Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
Ellroy hated the movie but he’s also a serious weirdo. He said he doesn’t care about anything after May 1972. He thinks Raymond Chandler sucks. He doesn’t believe WW2 has ended. He’s just either totally out there, somewhat ill or a contrarian to the power of 10.
My take on Ellroy is that he is a contrarian publicly but some of his takes he is just playing with people. Don't get me wrong, he's a strange guy but I don't think he's that disconnected from reality.Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
Ellroy hated the movie but he’s also a serious weirdo. He said he doesn’t care about anything after May 1972. He thinks Raymond Chandler sucks. He doesn’t believe WW2 has ended. He’s just either totally out there, somewhat ill or a contrarian to the power of 10.
His mother was murdered when he was 10 years old so IMO impossible to be "normal" after something like that happensL.A., especially during that time period, had so many rabbit holes that led to other rabbit holes that I wouldn't be surprised if writing 4 books about it led to his 'quirkiness.' Or, the only way he could have endured writing them was that he was crazy beforehand and the subject matter drew him like a moth to a flame.Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
Ellroy hated the movie but he’s also a serious weirdo. He said he doesn’t care about anything after May 1972. He thinks Raymond Chandler sucks. He doesn’t believe WW2 has ended. He’s just either totally out there, somewhat ill or a contrarian to the power of 10.
Terrible. I didn't know about his past. Hope writing was at least a little therapeutic.His mother was murdered when he was 10 years old so IMO impossible to be "normal" after something like that happensL.A., especially during that time period, had so many rabbit holes that led to other rabbit holes that I wouldn't be surprised if writing 4 books about it led to his 'quirkiness.' Or, the only way he could have endured writing them was that he was crazy beforehand and the subject matter drew him like a moth to a flame.Interesting. I love the novel (and the whole LA quartet) but I thought the movie streamlined a lot and found a nice coherent story. It’s not the book, not by any stretch but that book could never be adapted perfectly into a movie. There’s just too much going on. The movie is a perfect adaptation of something seemingly I adaptable.I read the book which is incredible. The layers of storytelling in the book was James Ellroy at his best.
The movie just was not going to live up to it and it didn't. It was definitely entertaining enough but just couldn't quite get it done for me
Ellroy hated the movie but he’s also a serious weirdo. He said he doesn’t care about anything after May 1972. He thinks Raymond Chandler sucks. He doesn’t believe WW2 has ended. He’s just either totally out there, somewhat ill or a contrarian to the power of 10.
His Wiki page includes some 'other' disturbing aspects of his childhood.His mother was murdered when he was 10 years old so IMO impossible to be "normal" after something like that happens
This is where I'm at too, at least from what I can remember. Been awhile since I've seen it. Definitely something I'd watch again.I voted 8, but it’s more like 8.5 for me.
One of the things I really liked was that the director was saying he had chosen songs for the movie, and they were able to really make the scenes fit because they knew which songs they were using. Personally, I am a bit shocked that doesn't happen more often.
I am basically the same. I watched it once.......probably a couple years ago. I didn't think it lived up to the hype. Maybe I need to watch it again.Watched once. Remember nothing about it.
Not real compelled to watch again but I know I probably should.
This is me.Watched once. Remember nothing about it.
Not real compelled to watch again but I know I probably should.
FWIW, it's free on youtube now.I am basically the same. I watched it once.......probably a couple years ago. I didn't think it lived up to the hype. Maybe I need to watch it again.Watched once. Remember nothing about it.
Not real compelled to watch again but I know I probably should.