Neo-Noir Watch: Sea of Love (1989)

Watched:  07/24/2026

Format:  TCM on DVR

Viewing:  First

Director:  Harold Becker

Sea of Love (1989) is very much what I think of when it comes to the notion of Neo-Noir.  Well, this and grittier stuff like To Live and Die in L.A.  

This movie is just before we moved into the 90's and neo-noir = erotic thriller for a lot of movies.  And I'd argue this movie probably put the notion of the erotic thriller into the skulls of some creators.  

This is a cop-finding-a-killer movie, and that initially had me not terribly excited.  But I'd always heard good things, and this movie has tons of talent in it that I dig, not least of which is Ellen Barkin.   And I'll be honest - as big as Barkin is, I'm shocked she wasn't everywhere after this movie.  

But, yeah, the movie stars Al Pacino as the cop hunting down our killer, John Goodman playing probably a full 15 years older than he was at the time (his adult daughter is getting married, and I think Goodman is 37 if he's a day in this movie).  Michael Rooker is in a bit part.  William Hickey shows up for a scene.  Richard Jenkins plays a detective who is now married to Pacino's ex-wife.  Christine Estabrook, one of those "that lady!" actors, appears.  And a pre-fame Samuel L. Jackson appears in an opening sequence.

The movie also very much reminded me how, in 1989, I became hyper-aware of how we were living in a world owned by the Boomers (and they have not yet taken their foot off the gas on that one monetarily, politically or driving-us-over-a-cliff-wise).  

Culturally, in 1989, Boomers were celebrating Woodstock's 20th Anniversary and relishing how great they'd been as a Generation just for existing.  You know, real Millennial vibes.  And movies were full of the soundtrack they grew up with on TV, commercials and in movies.  Because Boomers grew up in the second real Mass Media age of television and coast-to-coast radio programming, you could put on something like Phil Phillips' "Sea of Love" - and that cultural touchstone of a single everyone had heard once a week since, like, 1959, could be turned into a haunting callback and clue in a movie.

It is, in fact, embarrassing, that they have to have requisite lines about people saying "oh, yeah, I remember that song".  My guy, you heard that probably every time you entered a Walgreen's back then.  But I don't know how you make a movie about a song in 2026 and think everyone currently living has heard it as we've all gone down our personal algorithmic niches.

The movie has a *lot* of set-up and takes a while before Barkin even shows up, but once she does, the pay off is pretty great.  And during that set-up - which includes a plan to identify the killer by placing a singles ad and then showing up for *all* of the dates, we get some commentary and a lot of insight into Pacino's Det. Keller, from how he is with other people (spoilers: bad) and his drinking.

But in addition to chasing down a killer, while it doesn't point to it with neon "here's our story" signs, the movie is about a guy realizing what's gone wrong in prior relationships and mending his ways for a specific woman who makes him want to change.  

Some things in the movie don't quite make sense  - but I'm chalking it up to the drinking.  Pacino can't seem to remember that Barkin's character has a young daughter - and plans to ask Barkin to move in with him *immediately*.  The case isn't even solved, which indicates our leads have only known each other for a few weeks when Pacino determines he would like for Barkin to move in with him.

And it's here that I talk about Ellen Barkin in this movie, because, yes, she's gorgeous - this is not news.  But because she's really f'ing good.  In other hands, I don't know how this role would work.  She's utterly buyable as the woman who doesn't want to put up with bullshit, but also lets herself follow her animal attraction.  And there's an unspoken bit that when Pacino is playing his role in the sting/ stake-out, she doesn't like him, but when he's himself, she can't keep her hands off.  And there's a bit at the end where Pacino wonders how she could have been attracted to her ex, and you kind of want to say "you weren't exactly a bucket of flowers, my guy".  But mostly, Barkin really sells the role, making you completely understand why Pacino is asking her to move in way, way too fast - she feels grounded.

I will admit, I was totally wrong about where I thought the movie was going - guessing a twist that would have been more of a mid-90's sort-of-thing.  My guess was that John Goodman would turn out to be the killer, getting close to Pacino to find out what he knows.  

Anyway, I had the experience of not being terribly into the movie at first, getting more interested and then genuinely digging it by the film's end.  A movie absolutely for adults, and given movie treatment.  Not in the way of a Netflix thriller you'd forget existed as the characters sleep-walk through a boiler-plate murder mystery and no one dares talk about, like, actual topics other than TV cop murder exposition in hushed tones.