Really Surprised!

Good concept, poorly executed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

When Ezekiel 'Easy' Rawlins loses his job he begins to worry how he'll make ends meet when DeWitt Albright offers him cash to help find Daphne Monet, the fiancée of politician Todd Carter. He takes the job as she is known to like Afro-Americans and will be easier for him to find. He gets information from a friend but is then framed for her murder. Stuck between the police and Albright's men, Easy has to uncover why Monet is so important to so many people and save himself from jail.Franklin's greatest achievement here is the way he brings the period to life, albeit with a certain amount of nostalgic love for the idea. The film has a great jazz soundtrack and a real sense of place and atmosphere to it. This supports the plot well and makes the film feel stronger and richer for it. The plot is a solid mystery that sees Easy pulled into a wider plot with the inevitable twists and turns. It is layered well without being too complex or difficult to follow, but neither does it allow itself to become too simplistic or easy. The film doesn't really play on racism or the race of Easy but it does make race an equal influence (with money, power and influence) on the plot and the characters.Washington plays Easy well, reacting well to things and being a good character. I don't know if it was ever planned that Easy would be a character than would allow for further adaptations, but I know I would like to have seen Washington take Easy further into his PI role. Sizemore is good in support, as are Kinney, Carson, Beals and Chaykin. The strongest support is given by Cheadle. His character may be extreme but he brings an energy to the film that it benefits from (although it didn't need it). The cast all ad to the rich feel of the plot and direction.Overall this is a solidly enjoyable detective story with all the twists and turns that you could expect from that genre. However it also benefits from a great sense of place and time that is all though the film – not merely painted on with sets or soundtrack. A class act from Washington and others just adds to the feeling of quality.

Devil in a Blue Dress (1995)I wanted to like this movie. A good friend pressed it forward as a belated view of the black noir experience, and there was such truth that the urban black world hadn't seen any attention in the classic noir days (post-War) I had to watch it.But this is more belated than anything. It's loaded with clichés without really moving them anywhere new (and a stale cliché is really deadening). The director AND screenwriter, Carl Franklin, is relatively untested—he's done a bunch of t.v. stuff, an African-American with talent as an a actor but a little stretched here, I think. The star does his best to hold it together, none other than Denzel Washington, but in fact even he is following old patterns a bit listlessly. This is really clear when a truly brilliant actor arrives on the scene—Don Cheadle—and in his moments there is finally a rising up and synthesis of intentions.The plot is almost a given—a detective on the outs faces a terrible crime, and a mysterious woman (call her a femme fatale if you want, but she's too plastic to work for me). He is hounded by a white man (or two) with truly dubious or evil intentions that he can't quite decipher. Until it really gets out of his control. The book is here is by the much lauded author Walter Mosley, and I only discovered this today (I saw them movie innocently). And I've read one or two things by Mosley and actually found the same problem as the movie: lots of tropes and worn out problems approached in the same old way. Except with black characters.Now this may be naive, but I think in fact the world of urban Blacks and their crime worlds in mid-Century America is really really ripe for some serious fictional writing. Something without myth making. There must be a black Bogart or Mitchum type out there for those inclined. There's another problem, though, looking back and wishing we had better movies about certain things than we did. Maybe that's just the way it was, and we need new movies about new things, not re-hashed themes that only half make up for what might have been. Or not. We weren't there, and we never can be.So all good intentions aside, give this movie a skeptical look. It's well enough made and has some tightly made moments, but as a whole it flounders and lacks one of the basics—originality.

"FRANK IS MY BROTHER" Talk about subplots of subplots...you really have to pay attention to follow the story. Great cast and great characters..The film has a great look and a very fast pace.I'm surprised it didn't do well at the box office but neither did The Black Dalia or Mulholland Falls. Gotta love Mouse....he just rolled in and then just rolled out...he had some perfect timingIt just wouldn't have been right if Luke(the crazy gardener) didn't check in near the end. Great sound track.It was rare a black man could win in the late 40's. Where there is politics, there is money and murder. Still true today.I'm glad Easy(Denzel) decided to become a private eye. How could he go back to a 9 to 5?

"You step out of your door in the morning and you're already in trouble. The only question is: are you on top of that trouble or not?" - Easy Rawlins "Devil In A Blue Dress" wants to be the African American "Chinatown", and director Carl Franklin comes close. All the noir ingredients are here - a gumshoe with a cool name (Easy Rawlins, played by Denzel Washington), moody cinematography, an LA location, a missing woman, femme fatales, a last act revelation, the genre's usual assortment of crooks, conflicts, seedy joints and crooked cops etc – but Franklin isn't strong enough a stylist to make his noir landscape come alive, isn't skilled enough a director to maintain the tension and isn't deep enough an artist to handle anything more than themes of racism and prejudice, though his film does address the white-centric view of 1940s LA which most noirs erroneously put forth.7.9/10 – This film would play better with stronger dialogue. As it is, it has no contemporary relevance or connection and exists only to satisfy a certain "noir nostalgia". Still, like De Niro's "True Confessions", this is a worthy second tier neo-noir. Makes a good companion piece to "Mulholland Falls", "Hollywoodland", "LA Confidential" and "Lonelyhearts", four other "not quiet successful" modern neo noirs set in the 1940s.Worth one viewing.