BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

dougdoepke On the whole the movie strikes me as an unusually cynical take-down of the historically white-washed 1950's. Set in the early part of that conformist decade, the styles, costumes, and general milieu are well done. The screenplay, however, is too convoluted to provide much impact, while character development is sacrificed to plot devices. Thus the movie provides more interest than involvement.Instead of adding to the much discussed formal elements of the movie, I want to briefly outline one way of unifying the narrative's meandering and often confusing narrative. There is, I think, an underlying theme that can bring these elements together into a unifying focus. And that key theme has to do with the unquestioning popular reverence for authority that was on high during the early 1950's. After all, that was a formative period of the emerging Cold War, and established authority was taken as an unassailable line of defense. In my view, the movie casts corrosive doubt on that popular reverence, even if 50-years later.Note first how brutally the Hat Squad enforces their own version of the law. There really was a Hat Squad in the LAPD during that period, but you won't find them portrayed in Jack Webb's hugely popular and carefully sanitized Dragnet series that defined law enforcement for the 50's. Note too, how the Hats' extra-legal methods sometimes amount to murder and are tolerated not only by themselves but by police higher-ups. Now I don't know if the real Squad was that thuggish, but the movie can be taken as an iconoclastic look at Dragnet's defining version of the LAPD.Note too, how J. Edgar Hoover's supposedly incorruptible FBI is portrayed. Hoover himself is even portrayed as not above making evidence squelching deals with LAPD officials in order to protect federal higher-ups; that is, when his agents are not trashing cop Nolte's suburban home. Needless to say, this too is a long way from how the Agency was portrayed in movies and TV of the time (The FBI Story, {1959}). But here, agents are just one more gang of well-dressed thugs.And finally there's the atomic testing program on which the safety of the Free World was popularly thought to rest. In the movie, however, mutilated soldiers are shown collapsed on their collective death beds, victims of the same radiation testing. Of course, the film shows this to be the most carefully guarded authority abuse of all, since it involves a vital national priority. Recalling that time, I remember rumors of what happened to soldiers sent into the detonation field and the sicknesses that emerged as a result. Still, what was the use of such weapons unless they could also be used in battlefield conditions, instead of just wiping out cities. Thus three key institutions of both then (1950's) and now are portrayed as corrupt, at best, and murderous, at worst, their authority thereby put into question. Of course, General Timms (Malkovitch) presents what can be taken as the overarching justification for such dubious authority. It's more or less a utilitarian rationale when he states that "some must die before their time, so that others can live. It's a cornerstone of civilization." In short, some innocent folks must be sacrificed for the betterment of all. I suspect versions of this 'greater good' have salved the conscience of many a higher-up regardless of time period.Now I don't claim that the makers of MF had this debunking theme in mind when devising the film. I do, however, think it's one way of drawing together the various threads of an unwieldy narrative. As to the movie itself, it comes across as generally interesting, sometimes atmospheric, but most of all, a good advertisement for tobacco brands of the 50's.

richiefsp I couldn't pick a better movie to make you feel warm and cold all over. The youth of LA really captivated me as well as mixed up my emotions from the innocence of the hotel pool parties, to the lustful yet elegant high end dinners. Before the plastic and neon billboards, there was class in la, and this movie portrays that, from what I know about cinema, this film carries itself with an easy to follow plot and high engaged characters. Accompanied by beautiful jazz, these actors are amazing, love, lust, sin and sorrow all mixed almost turns noir into color. From a personal experience, turn the movie on at sunset, fill your glass with wine, maybe scotch, and let the film roll.

maxdaddytj I've never understood why this movie was so underrated and overlooked. Perhaps because I live in Los Angeles, I found the settings compelling. Parts of town, like the Los Feliz Hills where Nick and Melanie lived aren't that changed. A word here about Melanie Griffith - this is possibly the best thing she ever did - amazing - did NOT deserve the Razzie - that was just mean-spirited! Nolte is stunning, Palmantieri is great, Connolly was so lovely and heart-breaking - this was early on - many of us had not yet heard of her! Louise Fletcher is only in a couple of tiny scenes - but has what is perhaps the best line in the movie. And of course, the whole atomic testing thing was so far-seeing. I have had to watch it more than once - the first time was almost too much to take in. Now I get it. And personally, I felt the movie ended the way it had to.

jjnxn-1 Wanna be L.A. Confidential was surprisingly released the year before but everything that that film got right this one gets wrong. The sets and costumes are pristine, not a single crease or smudge, that's the problem with them, everything looks new-not lived in. The actors some like Nolte and Madsen who would seem to be ideal for the period are as at sea as the miscast actors like Andrew McCarthy, who gives a fussy unconvincing turn, all are stiff and give no sense of actually living in the time period, everything feels very staged. The main fault lies with the director who doesn't seem to have a real feeling for the material and just wants to create pretty pictures. Adequate but nothing more.