Edit
Storyline
A hardboiled aging private eye is hired to find and protect a missing government witness sought after by the gangsters. The witness is a beautiful French woman and even the cops can't be trusted. The case is tough, but so is Chandler.
Add Full Plot
|
Add Synopsis
Taglines:
Chandler is a private eye. It's a hard way to make a living... and an easy way to die.
Edit
Did You Know?
Trivia
According to "Uprising at MGM," a Time Magazine article of Dec. 27, 1971, director
Paul Magwood and producer
Michael Laughlin placed a black-bordered ad in the Hollywood Reporter apologizing for the movie, claiming that MGM studio chief
James T. Aubrey had severely re-cut
Chandler and added previously deleted scenes, in Aubrey's judgment, to simplify the plot. Aubrey also allegedly changed the film score from 1940s-type music to something more contemporary. The producer and director also claimed that Magwood was denied entry to the editing room while Aubrey revised the film.
See more »
Goofs
Taxi sign over the yellow car Chandler is waiting is waiting in, just before the chase scene; is probably supposed to look like the T tipped over. But, it's set to high for that to be true.
See more »
Quotes
Bernie Oakman:
Chandler! You're alive! I got a job for ya!
See more »
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.