IMDb user comments for
The Two Jakes (1990) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

38 comments in total

---

31 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
Just because it's no Chinatown, doesn't make this film bad, 2 January 2001
Author: Daniel J. Fienberg (d_fienberg) from Los Angeles, CA

The Two Jakes and The Godfather 3 were released in the second half of 1990 and both films proved that sometimes it's best not to tamper with classics. This is not necessarily because sometimes a sequel can't compliment a classic, but because no matter what you do, there's no way to avoid comparing the new versions to the old. And the final chapter of the Godfather trilogy is vastly inferior to the first two. And Two Jakes is vastly inferior to Chinatown. But since Chinatown and the first two Godfathers are among the best films every made, that's a pretty pointless comparison. Just as The Godfather 3 stands on its own as a very sturdy and interesting piece of filmmaking, Two Jakes also works on its own merits. It's confusing, overlong (a full ten minutes more than the original), and never fully gels, but it's also passionate, intelligent filmmaking. Go figure.

In his autobiography, producer Robert Evans refers to Robert Towne's script for Two Jakes as basically only half-finished. It was half-finished when they started shooting, half-finished when they made it half-way through the shoot, and it pretty much feels half-finished in the final product. This is a movie where characters wander in and out and a full two-thirds of the storylines go essentially unresolved. The grand climax of the film (and trust me, I'm not spoiling anything) is an evidentiary hearing, for heavens sakes! And I couldn't really explain the plot if I wanted to, but here's the quick summary: It's fifteen years after Chinatown and Jake Gittes Jack Nicholson) has become older, fatter, and a good deal more bitter. He's now an Investigator respected throughout LA, but he's still haunted by his experiences with the Mulwrays, especially the late Evelyn. The film begins with a jealous husband, Jake Berman (Harvey Keitel), storming into a hotel room and killing his wife's lover, with Jake listening in the next room. Of course, you know the crime probably wasn't entirely about love or lust and that money probably had something to do with it. Money, history, and oil, actually. And it spins in circles from there.

It's easy to notice that the film slacks off at around the half-way point. It's then that you realize just how tight Robert Towne's Chinatown script was. Even at a shred over two hours, every word counts, every gesture, every twist. Two Jakes is flabby in comparison. The dialogue is pleasantly hardboiled and the actors enjoy delivering it, but the resolutions of the various mysteries mostly fall flat. You either see them coming, or don't understand when they arrive. It's to Towne and director Jack Nicholson's credit that the film ends on a number of satisfying grace notes.

Nicholson's direction is almost never the source of the film's flaws. And this is legitimately high praise in a film as twisting and convoluted as this. Of course, he again makes you appreciate the brilliant economy of Roman Polanski's direction of Chinatown, a film with an immeasurable amount of class. Nicholson produces several wonderful moments including a beautiful pull shot from the ocean to a teatime conversation with Kahn (who Chinatown fans will avidly remember). Nicholson and director of photography Vilmos Zsigmond capture a Los Angeles of burnt out dreams, on the brink of overdevelopment and overexpansion. The film has noir stylings but it respectfully looks different from Chinatown.

Nicholson's performance is more a study of what has happened to the actor since Chinatown, rather than what has happened to the character. Because Jack was less of an icon when Chinatown was made, the original Jake Gittes is one of his least iconic performances. By the time he won his Oscar the next year for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest Nicholson had already become JACK (in all caps) and he hasn't looked back. In Two Jakes, Jake Gittes has become JACK. There's no getting around it. However, there's also no getting around the fact that Nicholson is a great actor and even if his performances are frequently variations on a theme, it's a pretty super theme.

Two Jakes is peppered with supporting performances of varying degrees of depth. Harvey Keitel has never been better as the second of the two Jakes. His character is emotionally complicated and perhaps the only person in the film (besides Gittes) who gets to go through a character arc. He plays it wonderfully. The femmes fatale in the film, as played by Madeline Stowe and Meg Tilly are less and more complicated than they seem. Ruben Blade, Richard Farnsworth, and Eli Wallach provide capable support when they're given anything to do.

The fact is that like the Godfather 3, if you came upon Two Jakes with a completely open mind, you'd find it a complicated thriller, vastly more substantial than most films of the genre. The fact that it's got its flaws that it'll never compare to Chinatown are the basis for a 7/10 rating.

---

22 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
a worthwhile sequel that came too late, 21 October 2001
Author: dtucker86 from Germany

Jack Nicholson is certainly one of the greatest actors of this or any generation. Chinatown is perhaps his greatest film and he certainly should have won an Oscar for it. Sam Spade and Phillip Marlowe certainly have nothing on his Jake Gittes! The only problem with this sequel is that it came out many years too late. I read that Robert Evans originally wanted to make it in the 1980s but legal problems held it up. The Two Jakes was pretty much ignored at the box office and got some awfully bad reviews. I could not understand why because I thoroughly enjoyed it. So many films that come out are geared towards kids and make you feel like a kid again when you see them. Thats okay, but this film made me feel like an adult seeing it. The film is as good as Chinatown in so many ways. I love the props and the ambiance of the 1940s that they use. Jack did a great job directing this film and he deserves a lot more credit.

---

16 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't compare it to Chinatown, 15 May 2001
Author: qsm1965 from Bottomout, NV

If you compare this film to its predecessor then you will disappointed. However, if you examine it as a character study of Jake Gittes and what has become of him, then you have something to go for here. Mr. Nicholson does a good job of showing that he does not always need to play extravagantly drawn characters to connect emotionally with his audience. As for the script, I would have preferred not to hear the voice over narration, which is clearly derivative of Raymond Chandler, because the film noir cliches are wearing thin. Chandler's influence can also he seen in the fact that his pseudonym for Santa Monica, Bay City, plays a prominent role in the plot. As for the plot, it is not convoluted, just thickened with much local color and character of Los Angeles in 1948. Since twelve years has passed since this film was made, I would like to see what has become of Jake Gittes, say, twenty years later. A visit to the Los Angeles of 1968, which is clearly pre-figured in this film by the discussion of urban growth, would be a great forum for Mr. Nicholson to re-inscribe Jake Gittes in a faster and glitzier L.A., which he helped make but does not like. I realize that the people involved in the making of this film may have no stomach for such a project, but fans of Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Towne's work can always hope.

---

14 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
A wonderful film that had the misfortune of being a sequel to a classic film., 28 October 1999

Author: Mr Ghostface from London, England

Most reviews pull The Two Jakes to pieces, except for a very well-considered one by Roger Ebert (find it at the Chicago Sun-Times).

Of course, it's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a damned good movie. It's about the past, how it pervades our lives for the rest of our days, and how we assimilate it into our futures.

Many have complained that the film is convoluted, that when the key revelation comes (I ain't givin' that away) you miss the impact of it. I strongly disagree with this. I for one had actually figured out the revelation before it happened - this didn't bother me because I wanted so much for it to be what I had thought it was going to be. And when it comes, it's so subtle you could almost be forgiven for missing it. It's lovely, so comforting in a very ironic way.

All I'll say is, pay attention to the scene where Jake (Nicholson) goes to see Kahn (the unmistakable James Hong). Something about the flowers...

Anyway, I'm drifting. The Two Jakes is subtle, well-crafted, and when all is revealed, so very simple. The 'convoluted' events in the plot serve to illustrate what a single, simple desire can cause.

Just watch it. Bear in mind the events and characters from Chinatown, but only so that you have a backstory for these characters and not a standard to which they should be compared.

"It never goes away..."

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
It's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a very good movie., 17 August 2005

Author: gottogorunning from United States

Most reviews pull The Two Jakes to pieces, except for a very well-considered one by Roger Ebert (find it at the Chicago Sun-Times).

Of course, it's not the classic Chinatown is, but it's a damned good movie. It's about the past, how it pervades our lives for the rest of our days, and how we assimilate it into our futures.

Many have complained that the film is convoluted, that when the key revelation comes (I ain't givin' that away) you miss the impact of it. I strongly disagree with this. I for one had actually figured out the revelation before it happened - this didn't bother me because I wanted so much for it to be what I had thought it was going to be. And when it comes, it's so subtle you could almost be forgiven for missing it. It's lovely, so comforting in a very ironic way.

All I'll say is, pay attention to the scene where Jake (Nicholson) goes to see Kahn (the unmistakable James Hong). Something about the flowers...

Anyway, I'm drifting. The Two Jakes is subtle, well-crafted, and when all is revealed, so very simple. The 'convoluted' events in the plot serve to illustrate what a single, simple desire can cause.

Just watch it. Bear in mind the events and characters from Chinatown, but only so that you have a back story for these characters and not a standard to which they should be compared.

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
One Word Describes It Best: Convoluted, 6 July 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

Being a "sequel" to "Chinatown," I had high expectations of this film. I even gave it two looks - one on VHS and then one a few years later on DVD - because I wanted so much to like it....but it stunk each time. What a waste of money.

The only thing going for it is the beautiful film-work and the great 1940s atmosphere, as "Chinatown" had some 16 years earlier when that film came out. (Kind of long wait for a sequel, anyway, don't you think?)

If ever a movie could be called "convoluted," it's this one. It made Chinatown as simple as "Bambi." Even the mainline critics all agreed this was incoherent in its storytelling. It's less confusing, but not much, if you know the characters from Chinatown since there are references to "Kathryn Mulray." However, it's just too frustrating to watch and try to follow what's going on.

I know lots of people who loved "Chinatown" but not one who likes this film.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Incoherent & disappointing, 26 February 2006

Author: Michael_Cronin from Sydney, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Two Jakes is probably the most perfect example of why no one should ever make a sequel to a masterpiece 16 years later (Godfather III, anyone?). It's very easy to say that it suffers unfairly in comparison to the masterpiece that was Chinatown, & that one should take it on its own terms. Fair enough, but to anyone who hasn't seen Chinatown, the plot of The Two Jakes is completely & utterly incomprehensible, as opposed to extremely confusing to those who have. The film can only be understood as an addition to the story that began in Chinatown, & as such, can't avoid savage comparisons when placed alongside such a vastly superior film.

It picks up the story of Jake Gittes ten years or so after the events of Chinatown. He finds himself embroiled in another seemingly straightforward infidelity case gone wrong, which leads to corruption & treachery in the highest corridors of power, this time over oil, rather than water. The twist, such as it is, involves Katherine Mulwray, the incestuous offspring of Evelyn Mulwray & her father, the vile Noah Cross, the heroine & villain from Chinatown.

Sounds good, but this interesting idea is buried within a labyrinthine mess of a plot that jumps all over the place, with real estate scams, terminal diseases, petty hoodlums, earthquakes, gay bars, & most irritating of all, Jake's over-demanding fiancé.

What buries the film is the fact that it doesn't ever really know what sort of film it actually wants to be. Chinatown was a twisted detective story that got darker & darker every minute, & left the viewer in a world where evil triumphed, nothing was certain, & no one could be trusted. The Two Jakes, however, is constantly veering between Jake's depressing musings over the past, screwball sex comedy with Madeleine Stowe's loopy widow, vague hints at conspiracy theories over who really runs Los Angeles, & a general air of cuteness around the character of Jake Gittes. Rather than being regarded by his peers as the disruptive & sleazy bedroom peeper that he is, he tends to be popular among just about everyone, cop & criminal alike. You can just hear them saying, "Oh, that Jake, he's such a character, tsk, tsk..."

There's no terrifying villain to even approach the demon that John Huston created with Noah Cross - no real villain at all, come to think of it. Harvey Keitel's Jake Berman is the architect behind the whole scam, but ends up as some sort of hero/victim who was acting with good intentions all along (despite shooting a man in cold blood), Mickey Nice (Ruben Blades) is more like a cartoon character waving weapons around & never using them, & Earl Rawley (Richard Farnsworth) is never exactly made out to be doing anything REALLY immoral or illegal, despite being the man who seems to be in charge of absolutely everything (i.e. the successor to Noah Cross).

The great twist regarding the identity of Katherine Mulwray is the final nail in the coffin. Given Jake's obsession over the past, & over her in particular, it's not convincing at all that he wouldn't have recognised her immediately, even though he meets her 'alter-ego' several times before finally realising her true identity in one of the most poorly executed revelation scenes I've ever seen. You're left thinking, "Um, so who's she really meant to be? Oh, that's right, Katherine Mulwray - but wouldn't he have known anyway, er, are you sure she's Katherine Mulwray, he didn't actually say, maybe she's someone else..."

For the psychotic Chinatown fan (& yes, I do count myself as one), there's plenty of cameos & references - Joe Mantell as Jake's offsider Walsh, Perry Lopez as a handicapped Lou Escobar, James Hong as Kahn, Evelyn Mulwray's butler, the snotty clerk in the hall of records makes an appearance, the same orange groves are used as a location (complete with the exact same 'No Trespassing' sign - it just happens to be lying around), old photos & newsclippings are used ad nauseam, despite the fact that they're stills from Chinatown that couldn't possibly have been taken as photos, & even Faye Dunaway pops up, in a brief voice-over.

Plenty of things to remind the fans what it's a sequel to, & there are some wonderfully haunting echoes of the past that constantly torments Jake Gittes, but ultimately, The Two Jakes is just a big, disappointing mess. Loads of talent, no direction.

Chinatown's writer & creator, Robert Towne, had originally envisioned a trilogy of J.J. Gittes films chronicling the history of Los Angeles, one set in the 1930's about water, one in the 1940's about oil, & another in the 1950's about the freeway system (apparently to be called 'Cloverleaf', after a type of freeway exit configuration). He, along with Robert Evans & Jack Nicholson, set up a company in the 1980's called TEN (Towne, Evans, Nicholson) to continue the endeavour, & Towne was slated to direct The Two Jakes, but he walked away long before the production actually started. The one reason that's most often cited was his objection to the original casting of producer Robert Evans as Jake Berman. Roman Polanski wasn't available to direct for obvious reasons.

So, much like Jake Gittes' own thoughts, The Two Jakes is largely a collection of "what if?"s. Had Towne still been on board, & had Polanski been available to direct, who knows what might have been?

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A major disappointment, 23 April 2008

Author: steveinillinois from United States

Although "Chinatown" is one of my favorite movies, I had put off seeing "The Two Jakes" for years because I kept hearing how bad it was. I finally summoned the courage to watch it, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. It was actually worse than I expected.

The best thing about "The Two Jakes" is the production design, which immerses us in a convincing re-creation of 1948 Los Angeles. Nothing has been overlooked, although some details seem forced (such as when J.J. Gittes carefully tunes his car radio to an episode of "The Whistler," but arrives at his office just seconds later). I've heard that an ATM is visible somewhere but I didn't catch it.

Unfortunately, period details aside, the film is just not very interesting. Towne's screenplay feels like a retread of "Chinatown," with oil substituted for water. Even some of the characters seem recycled (there's a sadistic gangster and a rich, powerful old guy). In contrast to the tight storytelling of "Chinatown," "The Two Jakes" is meandering and unfocused, with scenes and characters that serve no apparent purpose. Jack Nicholson's direction is thoroughly bland and unimaginative; it's easy to see why his directing career hasn't been successful.

By far the worst thing about "The Two Jakes" is the music score. "Chinatown" has a brilliant, haunting score by the legendary Jerry Goldsmith; his music is an integral part of that film's success. "The Two Jakes" was scored by Van Dyke Parks, whose previous credits include "Sesame Street Presents Follow That Bird" and (surprise!) another Nicholson-directed film. His insipid score gives the film a made-for-TV feel.

With a more creative, disciplined director and a better composer, "The Two Jakes" could have been far better. However, the story has almost nothing new to tell us, and the same probably would have been true of the never-produced third film, "Cloverleaf." So it's probably a good thing that the failure of "The Two Jakes" killed off any chances of another sequel.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Nicholson and writer Robert Towne revisit old haunts..., 29 February 2008

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

Long-delayed follow-up of sorts to 1974's "Chinatown", which was directed by Roman Polanski and featured Jack Nicholson as 1930s private detective J.J. Gittes, was written by returning screenwriter Robert Towne and directed by Nicholson himself, who also stars. Despite a certain patchy swagger and style, it will certainly be a let-down to anyone who fondly recalls the previous film, and a yawner to latter-day Nicholson fans who might be expecting some combative, belligerent fireworks. Jack's gumshoe delves into an infidelity scandal which quickly leads to dirty doings in the oil business (it was water the first time). Confusing and deadly slow, with the irritating, gravel-voiced narration by Nicholson failing to supply the proper mood. There are a few arty camera set-ups and good players in the cast (including Meg Tilly, Harvey Keitel, Eli Wallach, and a nice 'bit' by Faye Dunaway), but it fails to intrigue on even a sentimental level. * from ****

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Has real potential, but in the end, it's just too convoluted and long-winded, 3 December 2006

Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark

This sounded pretty good... Nicholson is mostly fun to watch, and I enjoyed Chinatown immensely(Towne returning to write this sequel was a treat, as well). I enjoyed it for a while, but not too far past the half-way point, I realized that it had run out of steam... the film kept rolling, but it no longer kept the viewers' attention. Jack Nicholson is no director, and it shows... while he is a skilled actor, he should stay in front of the camera instead of trying his hand behind it. The cinematography is close, but doesn't quite make it to being good... we have shots that linger, and wasted opportunities aplenty. Polanski's loose, involving camera is sorely missed here. The pacing is also off... the film ends up seeming heavy as a result. The writing is quite good. The acting varies, but is mostly on the positive end. The tone isn't entirely sure what it wants to be, but does create some great "noir" moments. Jake's monologues are occasionally spot-on. The mystery varied some... parts of it, I had figured out before the lead, whereas others only became clear to me just as they were revealed. This is a hit and miss scenario... and unfortunately, it misses more than it hits. This is worth watching as a continuation of Chinatown for those that want more of the plot, and can compromise with the drop in style and finesse of the film-making values. I recommend this to big fans of Jack Nicholson and those interested in seeing what occurred after the events of Chinatown. 6/10

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history