Cast:
Eileen Brennan (Tess Skeffington), Truman Capote (Lionel Twain), James Coco (Milo Perrier), Peter Falk (Sam Diamond), Alec Guinness (Bensonmum), David Niven (Dick Charleston), Elsa Lanchester (Jessica Marbles), Peter Sellers (Sidney Wang), Maggie Smith (Dora Charleston), Nancy Walker (Maid), Estelle Winwood (Nurse), James Cromwell (Marcel), and Richard Narita (Willie Wang) Directed by Robert Moore.
Review:
Admittedly, the appeal is in how much you are invested in mystery characters being spoofed. No, not Sherlock Holmes (that was a deleted scene), but characters such as Sam Spade and Nick & Nora Charles (as created by Dashiell Hammett) to go alongside the works of Agatha Christie in Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. Oh, and Charlie Chan (as written by Earl Derr Biggers). Neil Simon, playwright and screenwriter of previous ventures such as The Heartbreak Kid (1972) and The Sunshine Boys (1975) wrote the screenplay for this film. This was the first film for director Robert Moore, who had done a handful of productions in the theater such as The Boys in the Band in 1968 and Promises, Promises the following year (Moore did a number of television shows and three total films as a film director before his untimely death). Falk, who is imitating Sam Spade that was notably portrayed on screen by Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon (1941), returned with Moore and Simon to play a parody of Bogart with The Cheap Detective in 1978 alongside Brennan, Coco, and Cromwell. So yes, here are with a movie that wants to have fun with the "old dark house" genre that was pretty big in the early part of the 20th century, complete with plenty of name actors to go around, which includes two actors making their final appearance in Winwood and Walker and one in Cromwell making his first.
You know, for the most part, it is a pretty good time for 94 minutes. Sure, not every joke is bound to land, and it probably lingers a bit in being too smart and silly for its own good, but it does generally work the points it wants to do when it comes to in the realm of the mystery spoof. It is breezy without laboring hard within its one setting and one eventual punchline to outdo the setups done prior to the climax. It's interesting to watch Falk here in a role that makes light of a hard-boiled detective, mostly because a considerable amount of time has been spent by me (in the past few months) watching him in probably his most famous role as Colombo. But he is a talented actor, playing to the hard-nosed expectations of the spoof role and exceeding it quite well in generating chuckles without playing it as just an easy buffoon, which basically means dry warmth, and Brennan clings with resourceful timing that fits for a genre riff. Guinness seems to be having fun with this role, which mostly has him stumble around for effect with a few offbeat lines and play a blind man. Sellers is in prosthetics to play a character that most famously had been played by Swedish-born actor Warner Oland, much in the same way that Sellers did a decade earlier when playing an Indian in The Party (1968), which is easily the most dated aspect of the film. He does bring a few chuckles, if only because the lines seem so intentionally corny to begin with, one who seems intentionally out of date with the times to make laughs. Of course, Sellers would (in)famously have his last role end up being the title role of The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu in 1980 (one year after that film, Peter Ustinov (another non-Asian actor) played Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen (1981), and since that film, neither of the two characters have been portrayed on film). Niven and Smith make a decent pairing in the expense of The Thin Man that namely involves them playing the role to pleasantries. Capote is, well, a writer brought in to play against the other mystery spoofs in his first and only major role in a film. It has been said that Simon and Moore thought about replacing him with an actor but that it never came to pass. Eh, he does what is needed in parts, since it isn't really his movie to steal the scenery as is the case with the others. Coco and Lanchester prove fine in the mildest sense of comic relief. The cliche elements of old are lovingly utilized to chuckles, whether involving an old dark house or hired help with more on the mind than housewares or convivences stacked upon conveniences (which makes for an amusing ending). As a whole, the movie takes a familiar presence with familiar detective types (be it the rough detective or general sleuth) and has a fun time with it, finding a clear balance between ribbing the dynamics that come with trying to play around with an audience and not simply just tearing the dynamic to shreds. It is good fun without being wrapped up in annoyance for its audience, which on the whole makes for a solid recommendation.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Next: Creed III.
