Is Chinatown (1974) a good film?

Yes. It's the perfect film and my favorite movie of all time. Although, you may have to watch it more than once to fully understand it. At least I had to.

I also had to have multiple viewings Jarvis, but I think it was well worth it. I love complex twisty tales and Chinatown was all of that. Then there is the joy of John Huston and Roman Polanski playing different types of seemly guys. It's quite a film when Jack Nicholson is the principled character.

John Hillerman did his usual good job . He had a great run in the 70's.

The one disappointment for me was Faye Dunaway, and I'm sorry to say my critique here is entirely shallow. I didn't like the way she looked. Her hair color that colorless beige ,and tge style, plastered against her head , was just unflattering. I couldn't believe it was the same woman as the sleek beauty in Bonnie and Clyde and Thomas Crown affair. Then her voice ...it was as though she was already trying out her Joan Crawford impersonation.

I don't know if it was only her looks , but I had a hard time accepting her in the role. I didn't believe her as a woman of that era , although the others were perfectly believable. Since I have vivid memories of that time, I know what it should look like and she didn't fit. It was partly the script ,too. She was so mysterious, so full of complex motives, so hostile to Nicholson that when you finally understand her, it's too late to see her as empathetic.

As others have mentioned Chinatown takes at least more than one viewing to really grip, I know I was too young the first time I watched it and I thought it was long, talky and boring, with hardly any action. But that was then. Now I think it's one of the greats.
Robert Evans, according to him, wanted to make a classic film noir, but with a european touch, and choosed Polanski as the right man to direct it. Maybe not so strange since he had such a great success with Polanski directing Rosemary's Baby for him.

Farty, that's a comparison that never occurred to me. I started to say they are different types of dark , but they really aren't. It's sex ,money and power, driven by one power guy. It's a guy who seems clued up but is a naïf compared to his competition. It's great photography and set pieces, with a jaundiced world view.

As compelling as it is upon first viewing, Chinatown is a film that, for anyone interested in studying motion picture craft and the hundreds of elements large and small that contribute to success, gets better with each successive one. I've no idea how many times I've watched it in 43 years, and I still discover something new in it every time.

Like an intricately-woven tapestry, the workmanship of which is appreciable from either "big picture" distance or near-microscopic inspection, each strand connects to others with both artistry and purpose; nothing is wasted or superfluous even in a design of such complexity. And yet, among its most daring accomplishments is the way in which it leaves portions of that design abstract, allowing viewers to complete them for themselves with their own imaginations, but without compromising the integrity of the whole.

Take, for example, one of Chinatown's "unanswered questions:" how did Ida Sessions know of the land swindles and how they related to "those people" (the residents of the Mar Vista home)? Did she supplement her not-very-successful acting career with secretarial work in a Cross office, or as an assistant or attendant at the retirement home? Was it through "pillow talk" with Mulvihill, Yelburton or another unnamed member of the Albacore Club? Or...?

The answer is that it doesn't matter and, rather than a "plot hole," it represents one of the qualities that makes Chinatown so satisfying with multiple viewings. Even after the big questions have been answered, we - like Jake, through whose eyes everything is seen - can continue with more investigation on our own. And any explanation we settle upon is as good as another, rather like having a choice of routes leading inevitably to the same destination.

Equally daring is the way in which clues to the mysteries Jake sets out to understand are boldly dangled before us while being deftly distracted from, the explicit yet subtle foreshadowing of the shattering climax and repeated references to the literal Chinatown that ultimately coalesce in its metaphorical significance and symbolism.

And those are just some of its thematic virtues, without even addressing its technical ones, among which are its impeccable period detail, cinematography that's both elegant and visceral, razor-sharp editing, sure-footed construction and pacing and just-right scoring that's uniquely evocative without surrendering to slavish topicality or obviousness.

This being the Classic Film board, the subject of what defines a classic is one that invites revisitation, just as it did periodically on IMDB. Every once in a great while, a film comes along that qualifies as an "instant classic," and Chinatown is one of those few. From the first time I saw it at Westwood's National Theater in the summer of '74, it was clear that this would be a film whose appeal would endure, supporting and inspiring both appreciation and analysis for decades to come.       

             

 

    

Yes. Never loved it but it is good.

Short answer: nope
Longer answer: not really comparable

Chinatown is a complex, integrated script (often cited as a model for students) where each scene contributes to the story.

Touch of Evil is a ragbag of ideas and "set-piece" scenes thrown together. Great chunks could be omitted without affecting the story. The Marlene Dietrich scenes, while great in themselves, look as if they have wandered in from another (and better) movie. The abduction with teenagers scenes are an attempt to cash in on the then vogue for rebellious youth flicks and are an embarrassment. The final scenes of Heston stalking Welles under the boardwalk are so contrived as to be comical. Not to mention Heston's shoe-polish face which would cause an uproar today.

Lots of great stuff in it (it is Orson Welles) but could have used another six months in the scripting and editing areas and maybe a different leading man.

Great remarks, tommyrockarolla, especially as they relate to Quinn (who would have been quite interesting) and Montalban (for whom the role would have fit like a glove), and the purposes served by the Dietrich character.