elevenangrymen Reviews

Victory (1981)

This is so campy, it's actually kind of funny

[6/10 · 23 March 2013]

We are introduced to Captain Robert Hatch and Captain John Colby, an American and a British officer stuck in a German prison camp in World War II. Colby was once a famous football (soccer) star back before the war. He holds a mutual admiration for Major Karl von Steiner, a former player, and now a German officer. Steiner sees a possible propaganda victory in a soccer team run by Colby, and challenges him to a friendly match. Colby agrees, while the officers around him try and convince him to escape sometime during the game.

It is after Hatch escapes and returns with the knowledge of a way out of the change room during halftime, Colby agrees to get him, and his ragtag team of soccer stars, out. But can they leave victorious as well...

My first thought when I heard of Victory was, "Wow, that sounds campy." After I saw it, I though "Wow, that was campy." As soon as you see Michael Caine and Max von Sydow as two former soccer stars, you can pretty much give up all hope for a serious film. Although that doesn't mean Huston doesn't try. Or at least he appears to try. Everyone involved takes it so seriously, it's actually kind of funny. There are points where you just start laughing at the absolute absurdity of the situation.

I mean really...a soccer game? The fate of World War Two depends on a soccer game? Well, according to this film it does. And the soccer game is so bad, it's actually entertaining. Don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan of soccer, but I know that no soccer game can have as many absurd kicks and slow motion goalkeeping while someone yells "Victory!" in the background. The soccer game is so cheesy, that it instantly becomes memorable. That is not to say that the film proceeding it hasn't the same absurd perks.

The opening hour is pretty much just a setup for the big game, with Michael Caine doing a lot of running and shouting while Sylvester Stallone breaks out of prison from the shower. I mean, really... And I'm not even going to mention the ending, which is so implausible that even a six year old could have said "That's impossible!" Stallone could be considered to be the main character, I guess (he is billed first). He does an adequate job, but I have trouble believing that the bulky Stallone and the potbellied Caine are starving POW's. Stallone gets the bulk of the film's most dramatic scenes, which isn't a bad decision, but this is an action film.

At times it appears that Stallone is having a hard time deciding what his character is all about, while reading his lines in the same tone. He can really dive for a ball in slow motion though... Caine, when contrasted with Stallone seems like he's doing Shakespeare. He gives the best performance of the film (meaning he doesn't suck), while actually giving, gasp!, depth to his performance. Caine has always been a great actor, but he still didn't catch onto the campiness of the film, so he plays it straight. This makes it even cheesier, thus making it more entertaining.

There is another actor involved who gives an average performance, Max von Sydow. Von Sydow has always been a great actor, and he may have been the only actor in on the joke. He also portrays the nicest doggone Nazi I've ever seen. He just isn't threatening, but he is entertaining. After Pele gives a slow motion bicycle kick, he stands up and claps with absolute reverence. Oh, and Pele plays for the opposite team than the one he is supposed to cheer for. Just thinking about that moment has me in stitches.

Speaking of Pele, most of the cast is made up of famous soccer players. Besides Pele, who is largely considered one of the greatest soccer players of all time, the film also features Bobby Moore, Osvaldo Ardiles and so on. They all perform greatly on the field, as they do a lot of kicking, and yelling at Germans. The script is an absolute mess, yet it is such an entertaining mess! It walks the thin line between bad and average skillfully.

The cinematography is nothing to write home about, but I must pay tribute to Bill Conti's bombastic score. It is overly patriotic in the best way possible, in someways foreshadowing his terrific score to The Right Stuff. Also bombastic are the sets, particularly the stadium where the pivotal game is played, and contribute to the over the top nature of the film.

And that about brings me to Huston's direction. I know that he was nearing the end of his life, but this film is so lifeless, so devoid of direction, that you could have literally changed the directorial credit to anyone else, and I would have believed it. I do not mean to harp on the same point in every one of these reviews, but it is so frustrating that the film is so languid and relaxed direction wise, it gets me every time. Overall, this film is so bad, it is incredibly entertaining. In a campy sort of way, you could call it a success, but as a film it is definitely lacking.

Oh, and by the way, at one point Sylvester Stallone speaks french. Just thought I'd leave you with that thought.

Victory, 1981, Starring: Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone and Max von Sydow, Directed by John Huston, 6.5/10 (C+)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

We Were Strangers (1949)

Good Premise, Bad Direction

[6/10 · 16 March 2013]

China is a bank teller living in Cuba in 1933. Her brother is working with a group of revolutionaries who are trying to depose the government. Her brother is caught handing out leaflets for their cause, and he is shot and killed. China grows upset (understandably) and joins the revolutionaries herself. She meets an American named Tony Fenner and he comes up with the plan to blow up all of the heads of government. To do this, they will use China's house as a base. They will tunnel under the ground to a nearby cemetery. Then they will kill a prominent politician and blow everyone at his funeral up.

The plan gets complicated when the man who murdered China's brother finds China and begins to suspect she is doing something shady. Also, China and Tony begin to fall for each other, all the while Cuba descends into a totalitarian state.

It is hard to watch this film without taking into account the revolution in Cuba in the late 1950s and early 1960s. That revolution, which put Castro into power, makes this film seem very outdated. Even though it is set in 1933, this film still feels heavily dated and unrealistic. That is not the only problem. This film tries to achieve two objectives, to be a political thriller and a romantic drama, and it fails on both accounts. It appears that Huston just couldn't direct a thriller. Both The MacKintosh Man and The List of Adrian Messanger were spectacularly thrill less.

It is not as if the film is a mess, but it just had no sense of direction. With a better director, someone who cared more, this could have been a pretty good thriller. But Huston's tepid direction is nothing short of boring. Even the veteran actors on display could not save the film. Jennifer Jones is a great actress, but here she is not good. Her role is so poorly written that it just screams cliché. Her Cuban accent is rough and unbelievable. Her line deliveries are stodgy, and her character is just boring. The revenge plot device runs out of steam quickly, and we are left with people digging a tunnel for an hour.

John Garfield is a good actor when given good material, which he is not here. His character is from average from the get go, and it hurts his performance dearly. He is not accomplishing anything new in this film, and his persona wears thin quickly. The one standout in the cast is Pedro Armendariz. His character's scenes are few, but he has one standout scene which he excels in. That scene is also the highlight of the film, due much to Armendariz's talent.

The script seems to never know what it wants. It jumps back and forth between political thriller and romance. The romance seems forced, and the political side seems dated. And of course, the thrills are non-existent. The script however could have been improved, and it could have made for a good film. That, unfortunately, was not the case.

The cinematography is actually quite good. It is shot like a film Noir, with terrific lighting. However, Huston's camera refuses to be original or move much. It stays completely still, bringing an air of stuffiness to the screen. The score is good enough to listen to, but you forget about it completely after the film ends. It is just like the film, unmemorable.

I have talked often about Huston's laid back style of direction. It can definitely work for some kinds of films, but you can not direct in a thriller in a relaxed fashion! The whole point of a thriller is to thrill, not to just show stuff that can be considered thrilling. You have to put your camera into the scene, you have to make audiences feel the stakes. This film does none of that. And of course, the film is so anticlimactic. **SPOILER ALERT** Just after they kill a politician and are having the bomb made, they find out that the funeral is being held somewhere else. All the work they did was for nothing, and that's it. That's the end. Then there is a shootout and the revolutionaries win! **SPOILER ALERT**

It feels so false, that it becomes hard to take the film seriously. Perhaps I am bashing this film too hard, but I can't help it. This kind of boring, thrill less exercise feels like a waste of my time. It is not that bad of a film, but it is definitely not as good as it could have been. It left me just as quickly as it came to me, and it is one film I do not think I will see ever again.

We Were Strangers, 1949, Starring: Jennifer Jones, John Garfield and Pedro Armendariz, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The MacKintosh Man (1973)

A Middling Spy Thriller

[6/10 · 3 March 2013]

James Reardon is a member of British Intelligence that is called by his boss MacKintosh, to infiltrate a spy organization. To do so, he puts on an Australian accent and robs a postman. He is convicted and sent to jail. There he is approached by a man who offers to help him escape, claiming to be part of an organization. He is helped, but at the same time he is distrusted. Back in London, MacKintosh is trying to tie a prominent London politician into the Soviet(?) scandal.

However, MacKintosh gets too close and is assassinated. Reardon too is in danger. MacKintosh's secretary and daughter (once again?) flies up to Ireland and together they track Soviet spies, but their own lives are at risk. Can they make it?

This is the film's tag line: "Only MacKintosh can save them now. And MacKintosh is dead!". Wow...when I first heard that tag line I doubled over laughing. Which is precisely one more laugh than I got from this film. There are so many things wrong without this film, I could make a list....hey I've got enough time! Paul Newman plays a British man playing an Australian, sounding like an American. It is hard to understand what Dominique Sanda is saying, and her line delivery can be awful (ex."No, he was my father".). MacKintosh is in the title, and he is in the film for...five minutes. The plot is deliberately confusing. I had no idea what was going on until I looked it up later. Even then, it made no sense. James Mason's villain is paper thin, and the whole Soviet subplot is just a mess.

However, the whole thing manages to break even. It is not the worst film Huston made (ahem, I'm looking at you Phobia), but it is far from his best. The whole cast seems incredibly bored, but no one is more bored than Paul Newman. This may very well be the worst performance I have ever seen Newman give. His rendition is so blank and oh so very boring, that at points you want to scream at him to show some of that famous Newman charm. Perhaps he was all charmed out, he made The Sting the same year. Still, he is one of the most dull and lifeless protagonists I've seen in a long time.

However he does not give the worst performance of the film. That honor goes to Dominique Sanda. I loved her in Il Conformista, but her performance her has me doubting my initial affection. She too manages to be effortlessly wooden, but with a French accent! Harry Andrews, who plays MacKintosh is charming, but he gives no idea why anyone would have a whole plot revolve around him. Perhaps the one saving grace here is James Mason, he is good. My god, how I longed for some kind of charm! His character is poorly written, yet he manages to be...average!

The script is entirely pointless. It makes no sense, and is unnecessarily confusing. It is fulled with pointless exchanges, and scenes were literally nothing important happens. There is a five minute sequence were Sanda and Newman talk, while they tan. That's it. But perhaps the greatest example of shoddy scripting occurs during the climax. Ahem, **SPOILER ALERT**. Sanda has been kidnapped, and Newman must save her from Mason's evil claws, because....he has to save her. So he goes onto a boat and knocks a sailor on the head, and demands to be taken to her, and then...he is. No chase sequence or exchange of dialog, that's..it. Then the sailor takes him to Sanda, and he talks to James Mason for a while, about...nothing. I'm pretty sure they bring up chess at one point. **END SPOILERS**

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't thrillers supposed to...thrill? If they are, than this is most certainly not a thriller. It may seem as if I am bashing the film relentlessly (I am), but the film is not without it's good points. It has some beautiful cinematography. The chase(?) scene through the foggy Irish lowlands is beautiful, even if it is more landscape than cinematography. The score by Maurice Jarre is also very good. It is cheerful and fun, something that Huston should have payed more attention to during the making of the film.

Speaking of Huston, he directed this? After all it contains no directorial input, it could have shot itself. It is so boring and uninterestingly shot, it seemed like Huston just gave directing and let the story play itself out. Bad move. It's plot isn't very remarkable, but it could have been at least a little bit thrilling. Huston said himself that he hated the film, and it isn't hard to see why. It is a tepid, middling entry in Huston's filmography, and one I hope to never revisit again.

The MacKintosh Man, 1973, Starring: Paul Newman, Dominique Sanda and James Mason, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The List of Adrian Messenger (1963)

A Great Idea, Which Failed in Execution

[6/10 · 24 February 2013]

Anthony Gethryn is enjoying a weekend in the country with an old flame, Lady Jocelyn, and her cousin Adrian Messenger. Then, after a fox hunt, Anthony is pulled aside by Adrian, and Adrian gives him a list of names. He tells Anthony to look into their names, but doesn't give any reason why. Adrian then leaves for America, but en route his airplane explodes, and he dies. Anthony begins to look into the names, before realizing that most of them are dead.

He then meets with a man who tells him Adrian's last words. Suddenly, he begins to realize that someone wanted him dead, and everyone on his list as well. Along with Jocelyn and a man named Raoul, Anthony slowly begins to realize that a massive conspiracy is underway, but it is too late?

In order to make a good thriller, one must have three components. A plot that contains an amount of mystery, a lead with whom you can cheer for, and a feeling of palpable dread. The List of Adrian Messenger has none of the above. Does that make it a bad movie? No, but it certainly doesn't make it a good thriller. It appears to be Huston just sitting back and resting. Indeed, when I read the plot summary, I thought the premise was very good indeed. It sounded exactly like the stuff good thrillers were made of.

Of course, it wasn't. Huston wasn't nearly involved enough to give the film any edge whatsoever. The entire affair felt as if Huston was just going through the motions. Despite the outstanding cast, Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Frank Sinatra, Dana Wynter, and George C. Scott, only Scott, Wynter and Douglas are on screen for any measure of time. In fact, most of the film rests on the shoulders of Scott.

George C. Scott is an outstanding actor, but here, despite the initial shock of "it's George C. Scott with a mustache!" he doesn't really do much with the character. The British accent is admirable, but even it soon wears thin (along with the mustache), and in fact his character is surprisingly dull. It doesn't help that he is given some really bad lines ("This is not the work of many men, but one man who is many men!"), but a veteran actor like Scott should have been able to flush out his performance.

Dana Wynter was perfectly suited to be furniture, and her performance is wooden as a board, but not because of her. It isn't fault that her character is perfectly useless. There is a connection between her and Scott's character mentioned, but it is dropped after a few lines. Jacques Roux, who plays Scott's sidekick also suffers from having nothing to do. The juiciest part of the film goes to Kirk Douglas, as the man who is many men, and he is good. The thing is, he isn't given enough time to show his evilness, and the film's lightweight tone doesn't help him either.

The celebrity cameos never elevate above gimmick, and the film doesn't showcase the cameos enough for the audience members to guess who is who. The script had promise, but under Huston's monotonous direction, the plot never really excites. In fact the film's tone is so light, one could mistake it for a satire, similar in tone to Beat the Devil. The first half really makes this seem as if it was actually what Huston wanted. However, when the second half begin, it is made clear that this is not a comedy, much to the film's detriment.

The makeup used to hide the celebrities is actually not half bad, but it makes the skin of the mask look very old, and plastic like. Still, it is convincing enough to hide many celebrities, and it makes for an interesting enough ending. The film's sets are really basic, and even the climax is kind of boring. The plane crash scene looks intensely amateurish, especially when compared to a similar scene in Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in 1940.

The cinematography is one note, and never becomes that interesting. The fox hunting scenes are the best shot scenes of the film, but the sport itself is rather confusing to me. Which brings me to the direction by Huston. Lax doesn't describe it. Anyone could have shot this film, and none of Huston's usual trademarks can be seen. It is a very boring exercise, only because no one seemed interested in the film, except Kirk Douglas. And even Douglas wasn't allowed to do much because Huston wasn't doing much.

In short, what could have been a great thriller falls short of it's target. It still manages to entertain, but not nearly as much as it could have.

The List of Adrian Messenger, 1963, Starring: George C. Scott, Kirk Douglas and Dana Wynter, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://www.everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Key Largo (1948)

Great Entertainment

[8/10 · 17 February 2013]

Ex-Army Major Frank McCloud travels down to Key Largo, in order to pay his respects to the family of one of his fallen comrades. When he gets there, the hotel they run is being inhabited by city men of the shady kind. He gets a drink from a woman at the bar, and then goes out to meet the family. At the same time, the hotel receives a storm warning, a hurricane is on the way. They shut up the hotel, and then it is revealed that the shady men are working for Johnny Rocco.

Rocco was a Prohibition era gangster, and he is in Key Largo to collect a payment. As the hurricane comes and the characters are all trapped under the same roof, danger ensues.

If Hollywood was good for one thing in the 1940s, it was making films like this. This kind of adventure film speaks to the masses, while still managing to entertain. This was the kind of action film you got back then, except less action and more buildup and talking. This is the kind of film they don't make anymore, and the kind I wish they did. A film like this doesn't need a good director, or a good plot, just good actors and great dialog. This film has all of the above.

The acting is consistently excellent. Humphrey Bogart plays his typical stoic hero, but that's okay because the part never gets old. Lauren Bacall does good work as the widow of Bogart's old army buddy, but her part is the most clichéd and uninteresting. Still, she holds her own against the rest of the cast. Lionel Barrymore is also quite good, a contrast to his despicable character in It's A Wonderful Life the year before.

However the two standouts among the cast are Edward G. Robinson and Claire Trevor. Robinson gives a performance that acts like a swansong to the gangster characters he cut his teeth on in the 1930s. He is crass, rude and evil, yet he has a bit of heart. You don't cheer for him, but you do feel sorry for him. However the pity you feel towards Robinson is nothing compared to that of which you feel towards Claire Trevor.

While Trevor mainly stays in the background for the film, she does come out in one terrific scene that definitely justifies her Oscar win. In the scene, she sings one of her old songs so that Robinson will give her a drink. Trevor makes the best of the scene and her rendition is pitiful. Robinson won't give her the drink, but Bogart gives it to her anyways. It's one of the film's best scenes.

While the performances are quite good, they wouldn't work if it were not for the great dialog by Huston and Richard Brooks. While not endlessly quotable like Casablanca, their writing does give the story it's edge, and it works perfectly, although there is one line that comes out of nowhere that doesn't quite fit. The last scene, borrowed from To Have and Have Not, is a thrilling end to the story, and although it may be called cheesy by some, I believe that it was the perfect way to end such a film.

The cinematography is rather simple, but for a stage bound film like this, it is perfectly adequate. The score is unmemorable, or maybe there was no score. If there was it was too boring to remember. The hurricane scenes are surprisingly well done, and the sets are well built and convinces. For a studio production, it sure tries hard to make it look realistic.

Now to Huston's direction. While this story really carries no directorial trademark, it is still very well done and thrilling. Huston keeps an iron grip over the story, and though his direction is lax, it still accomplishes what it needs to.

Overall, I found this film to be a nifty little thriller. It is very entertaining and still contains enough to think about afterwords. Definitely one I'd watch again.

Key Largo, 1948, Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Edward G. Robinson and Lauren Bacall, Directed by John Huston, 8.5/10 (A)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Night of the Iguana (1964)

A Great Film By Huston

[8/10 · 15 February 2013]

Reverend Shannon is a defrocked priest. He roams the wilderness of Mexico as a tour guide for a cheap bus company. He is a drunkard, and in his party he contains a bunch of baptist teachers from Texas. One girl in his party, Charlotte has a crush on Shannon. Her guardian is deeply suspicious, and Shannon tries to ward off her advances, but he is unsuccessful. He is caught, and when threatened by Charlotte's guardian the fear of losing his job becomes too much. He drives his party to an old hotel in the middle of the jungle, to meet Maxine, and old friend.

He keeps the tour group in the hotel until he can change their minds, and possibly save his job. At the same time, an old poet and his granddaughter also arrive in the hotel, and then day fades into night...

I do not like Tennessee Williams. I've seen A Streetcar Named Desire, Suddenly Last Summer and this film. While Streetcar is very overrated, it at least had great performances, and some kind of cohesive plot. Suddenly Last Summer is a plot less mess, and only Katherine Hepburn's performance made it bearable. However, this film is an exception. I genuinely enjoyed it, even on my second viewing.

The performance's are excellent, for the most part. Richard Burton gives his character a crazed energy that showcases exactly how good an actor he was. The material is putty in his hands, and he morphs it into a man whom could be deemed disgusting, and who becomes quite relatable. His character is pitiful yet entertaining at the same time, thanks to Burton's talent. Ava Gardener, whom one could deem as past her prime in this film, sparkles with a repressed sadness.

Gardner may have been popular in the 40s and 50s, but here she truly shows that she can act. Her Maxine is similar to Burton's character, she contains a repressed sadness that only bubbles out in the end. However, the true delight of the film for me was Deborah Kerr. I've always thought that Kerr was immensely talented, but here she shows exactly how talented. She never succumbs to being over the top, and dominating the film. Instead the exact opposite occurs. It is only later, when one reflects on the film that Kerr's true brilliance is revealed.

For example, there is one monologue that she gives that takes up about five minutes, but I never got bored. I did not because I kept watching Kerr's face and admiring her talent. It is only on re watching the film that I truly understand what drew me to Kerr's portrayal in the beginning. Sheer brilliance. Also excellent is Grayson Hall as the cloying chaperon, and Cyril Delevanti as the world's oldest poet. However, if there is a weak link in the cast, it is certainly Sue Lyon.

Fresh off her debut in Stanley Kubrick's Lolita, Lyon here does a lot of pouting. And flirting woodenly. Don't get me wrong, she certainly looks the part, but she doesn't act it well. Her line deliveries come off as flat, and uninteresting. She was good in Lolita, but perhaps it was the director that shaped her performance in that film. Here, she is the most boring character, instead of one of the most interesting.

While I do not like Tennessee Williams as a writer, he could certainly write great parts for actors. He was also a quick thinker, apparently. In Huston's autobiography, he states that a scene in the film was coming off flat, and then Williams told him to have Burton knock over a glass bottle, and have him walk over. That little thing immensely helps the film.

The writing is good for the most part, but the story is kind of soapy. Still, if you go with the flow, the end result is quite entertaining. The cinematography is vibrant and although the film feels stagey in some parts, the cinematography elevates it from the stage, and into the jungle's of Mexico. The score is also quite good, especially for a Huston film.

Speaking of Huston, his direction here is vibrant and it feels alive. It feels as if he just recharged his batteries and came out of the gates running. To be fair, it does appear as if Huston directed the film in his normal style, but I can't help feeling entertained. His relaxed direction is confident and it works well. While Huston mainly directed novels, after this film, I'd love to see him do another play.

While, it may be outdated and stagey, this film is still incredibly entertaining and the cast is uniformly terrific.

The Night Of The Iguana, 1964, Starring: Richard Burton, Ava Gardener and Deborah Kerr, Directed by John Huston, 8/10 (A-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)

An Odd Film, With Great Performances and Cineomatography

[7/10 · 10 February 2013]

Major Penderton is a closeted homosexual living in a southern Army base. His wife, Leonora, is repressed and lashes out on him by having an affair with their neighbor, whose wife is mentally disturbed. One day, Penderton sees a young private, and he becomes infatuated with him. The same private becomes infatuated with Leonora, and begins to break into the Penderton house at night just to look at her. In the meantime, Lt. Colonel Langdon, the man whom Leonara is having an affair with, begins to grow worried with his wife.

Meanwhile, Major Penderton's infatuation with the soldier becomes more and more intense, bringing them all towards the brink of madness...

I have never found Huston's films to show subtlety in any way, shape or form. So, when I heard he directed a film about a closeted homosexual, warning signs began to flare up all around me. I was worried that Huston would treat the subject tactlessly, and that perhaps Huston would show Penderton as a "bad" person for his sexuality. I did not think, however, who would be playing Penderton. Marlon Brando.

My fears, however, were not verified. Huston not only treats the subject with tact, he allows Brando to give one of his most interesting performances. By giving Brando most of the weight of the role, he allows Brando to not portray the character as an innocent, or a bad guy. His character finds the moral gray area, and jumps straight in. Brando portrays a man who is disgusted by his very core, but one whom cannot resist his primal urge. Also, he totally nailed the southern accent, and even added his own mumble in the mix, to really make the character stand out.

Marlon Brando was one of the best actors of all time, and his portrayal is absolutely excellent. That is not to say, however, that he was the only one who gave a good performance. Elizabeth Taylor's floozy wife, is the exact opposite of Brando's introverted character. She is extroverted, unabashed and she speaks her mind. She seems like the perfect party girl, yet her moral core is even worse than Brando's. She doesn't care who she hurts, just as long as she gets what she wants.

Taylor worked a long time to get the film made, and you can tell she was made for the part. Also excellent is the always underrated Julie Harris. She seems to be a heartbeat from collapse in each scene, yet she strings herself along. Brian Keith is very good, but his part is the most underwritten. Although he says barely nothing, Robert Forster as the object of Brando's desire is a mystery. Why does he break into the Penderton house just to go through Leonora's things? Why does he always ride his horse naked, at the exact same time each day?

This mystery propels the current of foreboding that weaves itself through the storyline. I suppose this film could technically be called a mystery, the opening of the film features a quote from the novel it is based on. The quote states that there was a murder in the south. But who was murdered, and who was the murderer? The writing manages to propel this undercurrent in a way that is admirable. The pace is slow, but not languid, and the last few scenes rack up the tension, even though you have no reason to feel tension.

Reflections in a Golden Eye has been called a mixture of camp and mystery. While I cannot deny that the film does not contain camp, it actually works for the film. The film does not create a world that feels realistic. Rather, in the tradition of many Southern Gothic films, it creates a fantasy world that feels detached from reality. The cinematography does nothing but help this effect. From the opening shot, the film feels like a dream. Golden hues trickle down from the sky, and it is clear that at least some of Huston's tinting made it through to the final print.

While this dreamy effect is nice at the beginning, it slowly becomes more and more sinister. By the end, the golden hue has been replaced by jagged lightning. The effect works well. The score, is yet another weak link. It has moments where it is good, but in others it sounds over the top for such a film.

However, this does not mean the film is flawless. The price of originality is that it can become tiring at times, and this film is no exception. As well, the last shot is really cheesy, and it made me burst out laughing, when I probably shouldn't have. As well, the character Anacleto, Julie Harris's servant, is kind of annoying. Risking criticism, he seems to be the other end of the spectrum from Brando, meaning flamboyant as opposed to introverted.

Going back to the good points, Huston's direction is quite good. Instead of smashing the audience with a blunt instrument, his film does contain subtlety. By the end, it feels like a sick joke. That is in fact quite good. There is a deep, black satire embedded deep in the film, and it only makes the film more interesting. Huston's use of colour is also striking.

Overall this film, while flawed, is still one of Huston's most interesting films. Thanks to the great performances by Taylor and Brando, the film manages to not dumb down the issue of homosexuality, but also not to treat it in a negative light. Homosexuality is not what dooms Penderton, but in fact it is his inability to accept who he is that dooms him right from the start.

Reflections in a Golden Eye, 1967, Starring: Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor and Julie Harris. Directed by John Huston. 7.5/10 (B+).

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Red Badge of Courage (1951)

A Glimmer Of A Masterpiece

[8/10 · 4 February 2013]

A young Union soldier in the Civil War is getting tired of endless drilling. Finally he gets his wish, as their regiment is told that they are to be shipped out to battle soon. However, the news troubles him. He is afraid that during the fighting he will become scared and run away. He shares his fears with his cocky comrades, but they do little to quell his ever increasing doubts. Finally the next day comes when they all leave for the battle field.

As they march towards their destiny, the young soldier sees multiple bodies. He finally gets to the battle field, and he doesn't lose his cool during their first skirmish, but when the second wave comes he loses it and runs. Feeling guilty and saddened, he wanders throughout the forest aimlessly, witnessing first hand the gruesome truth of war.

This film would have been absolutely amazing. If it was it's original length. When I finished the film, I was fuming. Not because I didn't like the film, but because it was a butchered masterpiece. The studio mercilessly slaughtered the film, with no thought to it's creative integrity. The film lost so much continuity, that they had someone read quotes from the book to maintain some kind of balance. It makes it hard to review this film, not for what is there, but for what could have been. Perhaps someday someone will take control of the film and restore it to greatness (ahem, Criterion).

As it is, I'll focus on reviewing the film as it is. Simply speaking it is one of the best civil war movies of all time. The battle scenes are taught and suspenseful, the acting is top notch and the direction may be some of Huston's best. For starters, Audie Murphy gives a genius performance as the Young Soldier. Having been a war hero himself, Murphy completely immerses himself in the film, and the result is genius. In the earlier parts of the film, his vulnerability is outstanding, and in the later parts of the film when he rages across a bloody battlefield, the fierce determination in his eyes is stunning.

By casting unknowns, Huston allowed his film to be not distracted by star-power, and relying on performance only. As the Loud Soldier, Bill Mauldin displays the same vulnerability as Murphy, only on the outside, rather than in a contained fury like Murphy. All the actors give a great semblance of realism to the film, something quite striking for a film of the period. I wish to bring up one scene at this moment, the scene in which the Young Soldier meets an older comrade, who is wounded and dying. The scene where he dies is so aesthetically different from the rest of Huston's oeuvre that I found it hard to believe this film was made by the same man who would later make something so tonally different as The African Queen.

I have not read the novel by Stephen Crane (though I probably should), but from what I've seen I can see why the novel is famous. The screenplay, or what's left of it, is brilliant, and manages to be simplistic while still invigorating. The quality of the version I saw was not the best, but I saw enough of the film to be able to say that the cinematography is amazing. The black and white images contrast the bloodshed in the foreground against the clear gray sky in the background. This sharp, crisp, realistic images are incredibly detailed, especially for the period.

The way the film is shot reminds me of some period war films, and as Huston shot three I can see where the inspiration came from. The battle scenes are, as I said above, simply amazing. They show a brutal reality that few war films dare to attempt. The brutal combat, with an enemy that is never fully shown. Men die right next to you, and yet you carry on, oblivious to why you're fighting, and what you're fighting for. All of this against the clear American sky. It's not hard to see why the film bombed at the box office; it cut to close to the bone.

Huston obviously cared for this film, and he knew it would be special. His meticulous craftsmanship is most easily noticed during the battle scenes.

They resonate with a power no "lazy" director could accomplish. Despite the choppy nature of the 69 minute cut, Huston's calm direction is a constant guiding line throughout. No studio could fumble badly enough to lose the spark that the film contains. This brings me to my problem with the film. It feels incomplete, as if someone took scissors and cut out a bunch of random parts. To make matters worse, the opening narration explaining who Stephen Crane is seems like an attempt to elongate the film.

The running narration throughout is exasperating, as at many points the narrator will interrupt the flow of the film to quote Stephen Crane, while saying something that does absolutely nothing to help the viewer. This is distracting, and with the fact that the film is only 69 minutes makes the film end way too early, and you are left feeling shortchanged.

Overall, this film could have been amazing. As it is, it is only great. It is my hope that someday a restored version will be released, similar to Metropolis. However, as it stands, this is still one of Huston's best, no matter how many people tamper with it.

The Red Badge Of Courage, 1951, Starring: Audie Murphy, Bill Mauldin and Arthur Hunnicutt, Directed by John Huston, 8.5/10 (A-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Annie (1982)

A Rather Harmless Musical

[6/10 · 27 January 2013]

Little Orphan Annie is a spunky redhead living under the ruthless rule of Ms. Hannigan, who runs the orphanage she lives in. She and the other orphans are forced to toil endlessly under their drunk headmistress. One day, Annie escapes from the orphanage in a laundry basket and meets Sandy, a dog. She and Sandy are caught by the police and returned to the orphanage, where Ms. Hannigan locks them in a closet.

Then, Ms. Farrell shows up on the orphanage doorsteps. She is the billionaire Oliver Warbucks's personal secretary, and they are looking for an orphan to take care of for a week, as a publicity stunt. She sees Annie and is immediately smitten and manages to wrestle her from Ms. Hannigan's control. She brings her to Warbucks's mansion, where the staff falls in love with her. When Warbucks arrives, he isn't too pleased, but he lets her stay. Then when Annie and Sandy stop an assassination attempt on Warbucks, he begins to slowly give in to her charm.

If what I've written above seems to be gushing with cuteness, imagine it with singing. Yep, this film is very, very cute. But it can get very, very annoying. There is a scene where Annie and Franklin Roosevelt sing to each other. I'm not kidding, that actually happens. To be fair, it could have worked, but only with a director who actually cared about the film. Huston did not. A cute children's musical was the exact opposite of the kind of film's Huston enjoyed to make.

Despite the lively musical numbers, only one song is catchy enough to be memorable, "Tommorow". The rest are rather forgettable, for example there is a song called "You're Not Fully Dressed Without a Smile." Yep, I'm not kidding. As a musical, the film seems slightly half baked. The dance numbers are well choreographed, but that's about it.

As "Daddy" Warbucks, Albert Finney is pretty good and bald. It's really disconcerting. His head looks like an egg shell. As for his performance, it is a caricature, as most of the performances are. He is good, but it isn't his fault, the character is written like that. Carol Burnett goes way over the top, in a performance that is probably the best in the film. She even has a few funny moments, but a lot of the time her lonely Ms. Hannigan comes off as really creepy, or as a pathetic alcoholic.

Ann Reinking is okay as Ms. Farrell, but her character is rather one note. She does have a good voice though. Tim Curry and Bernadette Peters as a pair of bumbling con men are good, but not great as they too are rather one note. Finally, Aileen Quinn as Annie is very spunky, and lovable, but she overdoes it sometimes, especially when saying "grown up" dialog.

The screenplay isn't that bad, but it does feel rather wooden. It could have been done much better, as most of the musical could have been. When you have a story this well-worn, it helps to spice it up a little, maybe with interesting direction or a different approach. As it is, the cinematographer shoots it in a rather boring, uninteresting way. It feels very stagy, it comes off as rather boring. To be fair, it can be quite enjoyable at times, but at other times it can be too much, or too little.

The film seems to rely on Annie's charm and cuteness in order to make you root for her. To be fair, she is cute, but it can be overbearing at times. The scenes in the orphanage are not bad, but some of the other orphan's can be really annoying. There is one actress who kept saying "oh my goodness" in such an annoying way, it made me burst out laughing each time. The film also goes on for way too long, but it could have been worse I guess.

Huston's direction is not that good, you can tell it was a money job. His camera seems uninterested, and it drifts through the scenes as if it didn't really want to be there. I have often accused Huston of being laid back, but here he could have been sleeping and it wouldn't make the film worse. To be fair, Huston did have emphysema and would die within five years, but he still could have done a better job.

Overall, the film isn't that bad. It can be enjoyable at times, but it could have been much better. If you are looking for a childish musical, this will do. But still, you could do better.

Annie, 1982, Starring: Aileen Quinn, Albert Finney and Carol Burnett, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

A Wonderfully Irreverent Satirical Western

[8/10 · 25 January 2013]

Roy Bean, a notorious outlaw rides into a small town in west Texas, where the arm of the law does not reach. After he is beaten and robbed, Roy Bean retrieves his gun with the help of Maria Elena, a local who takes a liking to Bean. He then proceeds to shoot everyone, and take control of the town. When a local preacher stops by, Bean decides he is now a Judge, and they bury the dead men. Then Bean sets up a courthouse and hires a couple deputies, where he transforms the dusty town into a fully functioning town.

Bean names the town Langtry, after the object of his dreams, eastern stage actress Lillie Langtry. Then one day, a man named Gass comes by, and asserts that he owns the land Bean is ruling over. Bean proceeds to put him in a cage with a bear and have Gass feed the bear beer. Bean decides to let Gass live, but this action has it's consequences. Gass begins to undermine Bean using the local female populace, and soon Bean finds himself in a tough spot.

I'll make one thing clear, this is a strange film. It is eccentrically comedic in the first half, and very dramatic in the second. I know little about the real Judge Roy Bean, but I doubt his life was as strange as this film. In the paragraph, I made the plot sound almost like a thriller, which it definitely isn't. So what is it then? I truthfully have no idea. This film should not work, the comedic first half becomes dramatic in the second, and the film's pace is all over the place.

It works though. Huston pulls a fast one on you, using the first half to get you to like the characters, and then making you root for them in the second. It's certainly strange, but the result is a flat out masterpiece. I don't mean masterpiece in the technical sense, the film has flaws. But somehow, I was completely oblivious to them. Perhaps it was the performances. Paul Newman turns in some of his best work ever as Roy Bean. The character sparkles with wit and determination. He makes you like this man so much that when the last twenty minutes come up, you are firmly on his side.

He plays against type, but Newman does it with ease. It's an excellent performance. In supporting roles, Anthony Perkins, in his one scene as a priest is absolutely wonderful. His character is such a contrast to his role in Psycho, that soon that comparison leaves your mind as quickly as it came to it. There is a scene when he is talking to Newman about where to put a woman he wants to live with. Perkins uses the Bible to keep her from hearing what he is saying. I don't know why, but I found it hilarious.

Also good is Victoria Principal. She doesn't match Newman, but she is still quite good. Ned Beatty turns in a good performance, to be fair he doesn't have much to do. John Huston and Stacey Keach both have one scene, and they make they best of it, turning in great comedic performances. Roddy McDowall plays the villain Frank Gass, and does it with ease. Jacqueline Bisset isn't as good as she was in Under the Volcano, but she was still good here.

Finally, as the coveted Lillie Langtrey, Ava Gardener turns in a virtuoso performance. To be fair, she is only in one scene, but the build up she gets is off the charts, and she matches it deftly. You can tell Huston picked Gardener himself, he wrote her debut film The Killers in 1946. As the aging Langtry, she is perfect for the role. And she doesn't disappoint.

The screenplay by John Milius is excellent, as it somehow manages to balance the eccentric first half with the more dramatic second. The score by Maurice Jarre is a big highlight, especially for me. I've always found that Huston has a lot of scores in his films that, for lack of a better word, are really quite awful. However, here the score is just excellent and the song that was written for the film also fits in well. The sets are beautiful and capture the legend of the west well.

The cinematography is terrific, and the scene where Newman and Principal take a walk at sunset is almost as beautiful as anything in Days of Heaven. I found the films tone to be quite satirical. The film is an unabashed western, and it doesn't mind exploiting all the typical traits of the genre for comedic purposes. There are no gunfights, but there is a set up to one, and it fails hilariously.

The direction by Huston sparkles with wit and humanity. By that I mean that despite all that occurs by the end you feel quite good indeed. I have often criticized him for being too laid back, but here the exact opposite occurs. The direction feels laid back, but in the way of a master cruising towards something he knows he'll achieve. However, that's not to say the film doesn't have flaws.It goes on for a little too long, Newman's obsession with Lillie Langtry is never explained and the character of Gass seems a little too patient.

However if you are willing to overlook these flaws, as I was, you'll be in for a fun ride, straight through to the end.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, 1972, Starring: Paul Newman, Victoria Principal and Ava Gardner, Directed by John Huston, 8.5/10 (A-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Fat City (1972)

One Of Huston's Most Atypical Films

[7/10 · 20 January 2013]

Billy Tully is a broken down boxer approaching his thirtieth birthday, and one day he goes to the gym to work out, when he meets Ernie, a young boxer. He tells the boxer to go see his old manager, and he does. Then Billy goes to a bar, where he meets Oma and Earl. Oma is a loud mouth, and she is drunk. Then Billy goes home and Ernie goes to meet Ruben, Billy's old manager. Ruben sees talent in Ernie, and immediately signs him on.

Meanwhile Billy, unable to hold a job, goes out to pick onions, looking for some work. After work, he heads to a bar and meets Oma. Earl has been sent to prison, and she is all alone. They talk for a while and then Billy convinces Oma to let him take her home. They start to live together, and Ernie begins losing fights. Then Billy goes to Ruben, as he has decided he is going to box again.

This is an unusual film. Up until now, I've always been able to pinpoint Huston's style, maybe it isn't continuous, but usually I can identify a film as a Huston. This is an exception to the rule. When I was watching this film, I could find no link at all to Huston. The closest cousin to this film's style would be an early Scorsese. It is the grittiest of the gritty, and the whole thing sparkles with 70s grime. It feels nothing like a Huston.

In the lead role, Stacey Keach must have known this was his shot, and he plays it like it. His portrait of a down on his luck boxer is intense, especially with his scenes with Susan Tyrell. Their scenes are frighteningly realistic. Keach fills his role with great gusto and life. Billy Tully feels like a real guy, and Keach doesn't make him sympathetic either. No, that job belongs to Jeff Bridges. Bridges is certainly very good, but his character seems very one note.

However, his scenes with Candy Clark are well done, and he is certainly a good actor, but Ernie is really a one note guy. Nicolas Colestano as Ruben is excellent, and his manager is full of life. However, aside from Keach, the film's greatest performance comes from Susan Tyrell. She is excellent as Oma, a bundle of nerves who alienates everyone she loves, it's a great performance. Her scenes with Keach are some of the film's best.

The film was written by Leonard Gardener, adapted from his own novel. The film isn't breaking any new ground with a story of a down on his luck boxer, but Gardener fills his script with enough interesting scenes to keep it from being tired. The score is good, and the opening song sets the mood nicely. Earlier I spoke about the scenes between Keach and Tyrell as being some of the films' best. That is true, but the films best scene is definitely the ending. It speaks volumes without saying much.

The cinematography by Conrad Hall is very spare, shot in brown, dingy hues. It succeeds at showing a world that exists, but no one wants to admit exists. This brings me to Huston's direction. It's very interesting. As I said earlier, the film seems more like it was directed by someone else, but what does that have to say about Huston's direction? Well, for one, it shows exactly how much range Huston had as a director. To compare this to something like The African Queen seems odd, but that they were directed by the same man shows exactly how much talent he had, and how he wouldn't conform to a single genre.

The film is certainly very well made, but it can be hard to watch. I don't quite know how to describe it, other than to say that it just feels too gritty and depressing. It gets hard to watch after a while, until near the end. Then there is the film's subject. It is about boxing, so there are scenes were characters box. To be fair, this isn't exactly Raging Bull, so the boxing scenes aren't outstanding. They are well shot, and because you care about the characters, you have some investment with them, but they go on for a little to long and they could have been cut.

Overall, this is not a bad film at all. It's quite good actually, but it feels draining despite how excellent the performances are. If you feel like a boxing movie, this is one of the best. If you feel like a Huston, this is about how atypical it gets. If you like a good movie, you're on the right track.

Fat City, 1972, Starring: Stacey Keach, Jeff Bridges and Susan Tyrell, Directed by John Huston, 7.5/10 (B+).

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/).

Under the Volcano (1984)

Not Bad, Finney Is Terrific

[7/10 · 13 January 2013]

Geoffrey Firmin, alcoholic ex-British consul to Mexico, is drunk on the day of the dead in Cuevernica Mexico. His wife has left him, his brother is in Mexico City, and he is lonely. He attends a party, where he gives a drunk nonsensical speech, before going to a bar to drink. It is then that his ex-wife arrives, she misses him, and he misses her.

He invites her back into their home, where they talk, and Geoffrey drinks. His wife, Yvonne, goes to take a bath, and Geoffrey goes off in search of liquor. His brother Hugh arrives and sees Yvonne, he is surprised to see her. Geoffrey comes back, and asks his wife and brother to come with him to see the sights. Geoffrey constantly interrupts their trip with drinking. Eventually, Geoffrey goes on an alcoholic rampage, and Hugh and Yvonne look for him, as night falls on the day of the dead....

The entirety of the film rests on one thing, the performance by Albert Finney. Since Huston's shooting method is to utilize no tricky camera positions, or flashbacks, Finney's performance has to knock it out of the park in order to sell this story. And it does. In the history of film, the character of the drunk has always been an interesting one. Overplay it, and it can seem comedic, underplay it and it can seem non-existent. To strike the perfect balance is hard, and with little nifty camera tricks out of the question, the film rests on the actors performance.

It is generally accepted that the three great dramatic drunk male performances were portrayed by Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend, Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, and Jack Lemmon in Days Of Wine and Roses. No offense to any to the above, but Finney blows it out of the water. His Geoffrey Firmin is a force of nature. He is so incredibly into character, that halfway through the film I was not thinking in terms of Albert Finney, but in terms of Geoffrey Firmin.

He delves into the depths of a character that really isn't that likable, and he doesn't try to make him likable. He plays it like a real drunkard. When he meets a British man after lying on the road, he gets up and begins to mock the man. The man doesn't know of course, but we do. Finney's drunkenness is done to the tee. When Firmin runs out of alcohol he plows through his typical hiding spots in a rage, until moving into the backyard, where he find his bottle. It's a bravura performance.

However, Finney is not the only actor who gives a great performance. Jacqueline Bisset, playing Firmin's long suffering wife, gives a wonderful performance. She still loves him, after all of those years, and she thinks she can help him, not knowing he is beyond help. Bisset was quite good in Day For Night, but here she gives a better performance. It's great. The same, however, cannot be said for Anthony Andrews as Hugh Firmin.

To be fair, Andrews isn't given the same opportunities as Finney and Bisset, but his character is kind of bland, so it is hard to create a great character out of this. As Huston lived in Mexico, he certainly knew his surroundings, and the cinematographer strikes a great balance between Firmin's surroundings and his drunkenness.

I do not like the score, although many people do. I find it sounds almost comedic at points, certainly the wrong kind of atmosphere for this kind of film. The screenplay does a great job of condensing an "unfilmable" novel into a film. Huston's direction is laid back, he lets the story take its course, and lets the actors do their thing. I know why Huston would choose to film in such an uninspiring way, but I do wish he could have made his camera just a little more involved.

You can tell he is in control of his film, but it could have been shot in a more involving way. This brings me to my main issue with the film. It is just kind of boring. It moves along at a slow pace, and with characters that are unlikable. This makes it very hard to get into the film. No offense to Huston (or books), the film seems so literary. It never really becomes a film, it feels like an adaptation, all the way down the line.

To be fair, that is Huston's style, but I can usually overlook it, most time I don't even realize it, if the plot is interesting. Here the film feels like a showcase for Finney's amazing performance, with the plot being pushed to the side, much as the novel must have been, with Lowry's thoughts instead of Finney's performance. Overall, this is not a bad film. The performances by the two leads are terrific, and it is a fitting third last film for Huston.

Under the Volcano, 1984, Starring: Albert Finney, Jacqueline Bisset and Anthony Andrews, Directed by John Huston, 7/10 (B)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The African Queen (1951)

A True Masterpiece In Every Way Possible

[10/10 · 12 January 2013]

Charlie Allnut is a rascal. He is also a boat captain in Africa, who ferries things up and down the river in 1914. One day he stops at a missionary, where prim Rose Sayer is preaching along with her brother. Charlie has tea with them, but to say they get along is an overstatement. Charlie leaves, but not before telling the English Rose and her brother that Germany has declared war.

Soon after he leaves, the camp is taken over by Germans, who burn the huts down and leave Rose and her brother to fend for them selves. Her brother catches the fever, and dies. It is then that Charlie comes back. He helps Rose bury her brother, and then asks her along to wait out the war in the jungle. Soon after, they find a place to hide, when Rose begins to look at a map.

She asks Charlie why they can't go up the river, and he tells her that there are rapids, a German fort, waterfalls, and at the end, a big German steamer, patrolling the lake so the British can't move down. Noticing Charlie has a lot of explosives, that he was carrying for the mine, Rose asks if they can't ride to the lake, and then blow up the German steamer. Charlie says no, but Rose persists, and you can see where this is going.

I know it sounds dark, but it is really anything but.

There is one thing that can impede you from enjoying The African Queen: cynicism. You cannot look at this film from a cynical point of view. You'll hate it. That said, you can going into it being cynical, but you have to drop it after five minutes. Okay, got it? Good, we can move on. Three films have been called Huston's best: The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of The Sierra Madre and The African Queen. At least, from what I've heard.

I did not like The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, and as I have not reviewed The Maltese Falcon, I'll hold judgment until then. So what is Huston's best film? The African Queen, from what I've seen. Many people have tried to describe the essence of this film. Is it Bogart, Hepburn or Huston? Is it the shooting on location? Or maybe the story? I cannot pinpoint the film's greatness. It is like a cozy den, that once you've entered, you never want to leave.

The only other film I've had such a reaction to is Casablanca. It is a great film, but why? The performances by Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn are certainly part of that magic.You only have to see them on screen for a second, and you are instantly with them. Bogart plays the kind of character only Bogart could play, and likewise with Hepburn. They inhabit their characters with an energy that cannot be defined. You do not think of them as Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, but as Rose Sayer and Charlie Allnut.

The characters are that memorable. It is the kind of love story that feels alive and fresh, despite how in a different film it would seem clichéd. Here it embraces the cliché, and is better because of it. The development feels like a natural extension of the plot. Speaking of plot, the screenplay by James Agee and John Huston achieves that perfect balance of giving you a plot that keeps you interested, and two leads you cannot help but love.

Agee had a heart attack before he could finish the screenplay, so Huston brought it down to Africa to finish it. He brought Peter Viertel to work on it with him, and sometimes they would write the next scene the day before it was shot. Shooting on an actual river in Africa must have presented a massive challenge for the cinematographer, but he succeeded admirably. The film is neither a walking travel ad, but it doesn't forget about it's landscape either.

Perhaps the only weak link is the score, but even that can not impede the film from greatness. This brings me to Huston's direction. He has often been accused of his films looking staged, with no amazing cinematic tricks employed. I cannot defend him, but I can say this. Huston is a director. He is not an actor's director, a cinematographer's director, or a screenwriters director. He is truly a director, he oversees all aspects of production with the same wise gaze. He is not an auteur.

He trusts the people he works with to do a good job, and just oversees them doing it. This kind of film making is the only kind that would work for The African Queen. And it does, Huston delivers yet another beautiful adventure film. If you are feeling low, this is the kind of film that can make you feel better. When I gave The Dead ten stars, it took me a while to make the decision. Here it took me a second. The African Queen is an indisputable masterpiece, for now and for always.

The African Queen, 1951, Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Morely, Directed by John Huston, 10/10 (A+)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Phobia (1980)

Boring and Undeveloped

[2/10 · 4 January 2013]

Dr. Peter Ross is a well-known psychologist, operating in Toronto. He is trying out a new experiment, to try and cure his patient's phobia's. His patients have all been given to him by a jail, and are all criminals. They all suffer from various phobias, from fear of falling to fear of snakes. His radical new treatment involves making them face their worst fears, in order to overcome them.

Unfortunately trouble comes his way, when his patients begin to start dying mysteriously, according to their various phobias...

This film is bad. Good, just wanted to get that out of the way. So why is it bad? It had an interesting premise, but the actors look bored to death in their roles, including Paul Michael Glaser in the lead. The direction is sloppy, especially for an old pro like Huston. The plot chugs along at a snails pace. There is no horror, and barely any laughs. Even seeing a city I know and love like Toronto in the early 80's wasn't enough to hold my attention. They even give the ending away in the tag line.

I find that when writing a positive review, I have more fun. I had no fun writing this review, just as I had no fun watching this film. Don't get me wrong, it has its good points. The score is well done, especially for a horror film, and it holds make where most composers would go for a screeching violin, an admirable move. The plot is intriguing, even if it isn't carried out well. I did have fun recognizing some landmarks that I know from the city.

Unfortunately that's it. So I guess I'll start with the actors. The cast is pretty no name. Glaser, as I mentioned above seems bored, and his character is very one note. Susan Hogan, playing his girlfriend, really isn't given anything to do, so to criticize her to harshly would be unfair. John Colicos gives a performance as the stereotypical red blooded cop, that can only be defined as uninspiring and unoriginal.

The cast that patients are all good at reacting to their horrific fears in a cheesy way that, unfortunately, brings neither laughs nor fears. The screenplay by a trio of writers is dull and lifeless, at least that's the way it was portrayed on screen. It is neither horrific nor cheesy. The film would have been best made as a psychological drama, but unfortunately the way it is carried out is not as such.

The score, as I mentioned above, is one of the few saving graces of the film. It isn't great, but it's better than the rest of the film. The cinematography is ordinary to say the least, and the copy I had was full of dull colors and popping sound bites. It may not be the cinematographers fault that no one has taken the time to remaster the visuals, but it did hamper my viewing experience.

And now to the direction. I have no idea how Huston ever came to make this film. Yes, It's that bad. Huston's direction is so laconic and uninvolved, that it doesn't surprise me that this was his only horror film, he was far better adept at dramas. There is a scene when Glaser reaches out to stop a patient from jumping, Huston just keeps the shoot wide the whole time, infuriating me by not adding any close-ups. Maybe it's just me but I found that scene lacking for that very reason.

Overall, this film has the reputation of being John Huston's worst film. That is so, at least for now. I won't deny that I felt like nodding off during the film, but I kept myself awake so I could write this review. It is a truly terrible film, and as a Canadian, I feel sorry for anyone who watches this film. Please, if you want to watch a good Canadian film, watch Mon Oncle Antoine, or Going' Down The Road. Don't watch Phobia.

Phobia: A Descent Into Terror, 1980, Starring: Paul Michael Glaser, Susan Hogan and John Colicos. Directed by John Huston, 2.5/10 (F)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Unforgiven (1960)

A Clash Of Visions

[7/10 · 2 January 2013]

The Zachary's are a proud family of five on the Kansas frontier. Mattilda is their mother, and she rests easy. Ben is the eldest son, he is charming, and well respected within the community. Rachel is his adopted sister, who is carefree. Cash is quick and easily made angry. Andy is still a boy, yearning to experience manhood. Their father was murdered in a Kiowa raid, so they hold a grudge against the tribe. One day, Rachel sees an old one eyed man, who stares at her peculiarly.

When the man visits her home, her mother picks up a shotgun, and threatens to kill him. She doesn't, and in no time, her brother Ben comes home from a cattle drive to Wichita. They hold a dinner for a neighboring family, and Ben's partner in the cattle drive. Flirtations abound, and Charlie Rawlins, a neighbor, asks Ben permission to date Rachel. He begrudgingly agrees, as he loves his sister.

Then one day, a local Kiowa tribe shows up on the Zachary's doorstep, claiming that Rachel is one of their tribe. The racist town quickly begins to turn against the Zachary's, and even the family itself begins to question their loyalties.

As you read above, the film had a tough time making it through production, and Huston and Lancaster were constantly at odds. One meant for the film to be a straight up western, while the other meant to make a serious commentary on racial relations in America. Obviously their visions clashed. This could have made for a very interesting hybrid, but unfortunately, it was Lancaster's vision that reigned supreme, and the film was a pretty ordinary western, stylistically.

I do wish that Huston could have had his way with the film, and created something different. However, some of Huston's vision still remains. These parts feel stylistically different from the rest of the film, which made the film a little muddled. However, it is still an interesting film.

I am a big Hepburn fan, and this was a very interesting performance. She gave her typical charm in the first half, but in the second half she showed her shame, and confusion at her circumstances. It reminded me of a similar performance in The Nun's Story. Lancaster has always been an interesting actor, at least for me. At his best, he shows man ferociously in love with his sister, and yet ashamed of her roots. At his worst, well, he is stilted and his delivery feels forced. Thankfully, he is at his best for most of the film, especially during the thrilling climax.

War veteran Audie Murphy gives the best performance of the film, however. Cash is a force of nature, his blithe hatred of the "injun" runs deep. He is the most fully realized character in the film. Lillian Gish is good as well, and her performance reminds me of her similar character in The Night Of The Hunter. The cinematography perfectly captures the sun-baked landscape of the west, as most westerns do. I found nothing particularly special in the way it was shot, nor in its overall look.

The score is over the top on strings in the way all Tiomkin scores are. It is unmemorable to say the least. Huston's direction is good, but I feel as if he was holding back a little. The film was certainly ambitious, for a western at the time, and I cant help but feel as if the film had great potential, but it wasn't carried out in the way it should have been. I really do wish that Huston could have had his way, it would have made a much more interesting film.

There are of course two things that some may find shocking. For one, Ben's love for Rachel. It goes farther than brotherly love. I understand that they are adopted siblings, but I find it shocking that this kind of taboo subject was seemingly okay in 1960. Still, that was the year of Psycho...

The other concern of mine applies not only to this film, but most westerns of the period as well. The racism is so rampant and seemingly accepted, that I felt incredibly sorry for the native Americans who are killed because one of them wants to see his sister. Indeed the prejudice is so shocking, that it even surpasses The Searchers, which is incredibly racist as well. I don't want to seem all PC, but at points it can be shocking. Cash threatens his sister, whom he loved and grew up with and knew all his life, just because of her origins.

I do wonder what the title has to do with the film. Who is The Unforgiven, is it Rachel, can she not be forgiven because of her roots? Is it the town, for rejecting a respected member just because she was born of native American parents? Is it Ben, for wanting his adopted sister? I guess given the date and context, the first explanation is the one that is most applicable. Or perhaps they just thought the title sounded really cool (it does).

Anyways, I am not saying the film is bad. It is quite watchable, even entertaining. It is suitably dramatic, at points and light at other. The climactic shootout and the first hour are a bit too long, but it gives you time to meet the characters. It may not be Huston's best film, but it is interesting enough to hold your attention for 121 minutes. It sounds like a failure, but it feels like what it is: a western.

The Unforgiven, 1960, Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy Directed by John Huston 7/10 (B)

This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review ever John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Beat the Devil (1953)

An Entertaining Adventure

[8/10 · 31 December 2012]

Billy Dannreuther and his wife Maria are in Italy, planning to take a steamer to Africa, with four conniving criminals. They plan to buy land in Africa rich with uranium to exploit, and get rich off of it. When Billy wakes up one day, he finds that a man who had helped them with the plan was mysteriously killed in London. Going downstairs, he meets future fellow passengers, the Chelms; Gwendolen and Harry. Harry seems to be a stuffy Englishman, but his smart, attractive, blond wife is taken with Billy, and he invites them to dinner.

They arrive at the restaurant a confused sort. Gwendolen is smitten with Billy, while Harry doesn't care much for him. On the other hand, Harry is smitten by Billy's seductive wife, Maria. Their steamer is delayed constantly, by a malfunctioning oil tank and a drunk captain. When Billy and one of his four acquaintances watch their car fall over a cliff, they are presumed dead, and one of the criminals lets Harry in on the secret, and Gwendolen confesses her love for Billy.

When Billy and his acquaintance arrive back, everyone is confused, and then they get the call to board the steamer. It only gets more confusing, so I'll save you the trouble.

When I finished Wise Blood, another Huston film, I was terribly perplexed. On one hand it was a very interesting film, on the other it left me cold, and confused. I didn't know how to review it, properly at least. I promised myself that if I ever came across a similarly perplexing film, I would think for a while before I wrote a review. When I first heard of this film, I immediately thought I would come across a similar situation. I mean, come on, have you heard the plot! Critically, it is also divisive.

Roger Ebert placed it upon his Great Movies list, a list of the best films of all time, yet it has a 6.6 on IMDb. I was worried I would be overly confused by the plot and turned off by its craziness. What a surprise I found when I finished watching the film, and had a review already planned in my head.

This film has been called a satire, but a satire of what? I cannot classify this as a satire, so what is it? The answer is very simple, it is an adventure film. I found myself laughing at many points, although it is not a comedy. It is certainly an odd film, yet it is entertaining to say the least and the tricky twists and turns of the plot are actually quite easy to follow.

It seems like the whole cast is having a ball, with Bogart turning in the kind of cynical performance he is the master of. Jennifer Jones is blonde, and loving it. I haven't seen many films with her, so I can't quite judge her quality as an actress, but she is excellent as the devious Gwendolen Chelm. The typical English exterior is betrayed, as she reveals herself to be a scheming little devil with a voracious appetite, for love out side of her marriage.

Peter Lorre, Robert Morely and Edward Underdown are all also excellent. The odd man, or should I say woman, out is Gina Lollobrigida. Her role as Bogart's young, sensuous Italian wife is certainly fine, but she seems to be in the wrong film. This may not be her fault, as it seems as if no one on this movie knew what they were going for. Her performance is a bit one note, which is never good, even in a adventurous romp like this film. To be fair she is never really given any stand out scenes.

The screenplay seems incredibly muddled, yet it works in a very strange way. It seems that even working nights wasn't enough to stop Truman Capote from putting his own spin on the proceedings, and the dialog is one of the films strengths. Capote and Huston manage to keep the screenplay tight and lean, but some scenes could have been cut, and some are just unnecessary.

This film can be found in the Public Domain, so the transfer isn't of the best quality. The cinematography is fair, but nothing truly stands out. The same can be said of the score, it works, but you don't find yourself humming it later on. The locations are beautiful and they work well for this type of story.

Huston's direction reflects the tone of the story, relaxed, smooth and in control. It flows naturally, showing that Huston wasn't afraid to take it easy, while still remaining in command of his film.

Overall, is it amazing? No, not really. Is it entertaining enough to serve as an enjoyable experience for 90 minutes? Yes, of course. It isn't thought-provoking. It isn't deeply psychological. It is entertaining, fast paced and likable. So yes, it's not bad.

Beat the Devil, 1953, Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones and Robert Morely. Directed by John Huston, 7.5/10 (B+)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

They Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To...

[9/10 · 16 December 2012]

THE FILM: In the mid 1950's, John Huston picked up a copy of Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King. Huston felt the story would make a great film. He approached both Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable for the lead roles, and they accepted. Unfortunately, due to Bogart's death in 1957, the project stalled. Interest was regained during the making of The Misfits, when Clark Gable expressed his desire to do the film. Unfortunately, due to Gable's death in 1961, the film was once again shelved.

It would be brought up in conversation now and then, with names like Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas attached. Nothing came of it, and the project was yet again shelved. Finally in 1973, during the making of The Mackintosh Man Huston approached Paul Newman about doing the film, with Robert Redford. Newman thought the film sounded excellent, but if the film was to be about British men, British actors should be cast. Newman mentioned Sean Connery and Michael Caine as possible leads.

Huston thought the idea excellent, and immediately contacted the two. Both agreed, and the shooting commenced in Morocco. It would be the last large scale epic Huston would ever tackle.

THE PLOT: Rudyard Kipling is the author of a newspaper in Victorian era India, and one night as he types the next day's paper, a figure in rags approaches him. It comes with great shock to him when he realizes that this is a man he had befriended years prior. Indeed, it is Peachy Carnahan, whom Kipling had met when Peachy stole his watch. Carnahan begins to tell the story of his adventures, with fellow rogue Daniel Dravot.

Years earlier, they had the idea to walk to the mystical land of Kafiristan, where no man has been since Alexander. The idea was to make peace with the warring tribes, and set themselves up as kings. After many sidesteps, they reach their destination and kick their plan into action. After Dravot is hit with an arrow, blocked by an ammunition belt, the local populace think him a god. After a great coincidence, he becomes the ruler of the land, and people worship him.

Unfortunately, Dravot begins to think himself an actual god...

THE CRITICISM: If ever the phrase "they don't make 'em like they used to" is applicable, this is a shining example. This kind of epic, big budget swashbuckling adventure is distinctly old Hollywood, but also incredibly entertaining. The film balances drama with comedy, adventure and greed, and does it flawlessly. This film hits all the right buttons, and then even more. Caine and Connery have tremendous camaraderie and their friendship is one of the most believable of all time.

Indeed, in their performances, they exude a remarkable charm and drama. Caine, as Peachy Carnahan is charming, dangerous and greedy, while the same can be said for Connery's Daniel Dravot. Those who know Connery only as James Bond will be in for a shock when they see this film. He proves that he can not only act, but act well. For those who know Caine as an old man, will be surprised to see that in his youth he was an excellent actor.

Christopher Plummer, in the role of Kipling is absolutely excellent. He is the lens through which you observe the story. The many years, and drafts of the screenplay, definitely show. All of that time in pre-production result in a perfectly realized script, and film. The score, by Maurice Jarre can be too much at points, but is still quite moving, especially in the last scene. The cinematography is beautiful, although it might feel slightly old school at points, so is the film.

Too many epics find that with a big budget, the film must be intense and brooding drama. As Huston realizes here, that is not the case at all. With a big budget, he manages to craft an excellent, drama that doesn't mind verging on the comic at points. This is but one of the many literary adaptations Huston would tackle throughout his long career. As is the case with almost all of those films, I have not read the source material. From my understanding Rudyard Kipling was an actual British writer, who at one point did live in India.

I am once again bring light on Huston's direction. He brings a masterful touch to the proceedings, crafting what could even be considered satirical by some. The film comes together through his direction, and indeed I cannot think of many directors whose range extends as far as Huston. If there was ever a running theme throughout his films, it is greed. This is no exception.

As I wrap up, I call attention to the last scene of the film. To those who have seen it, and those who haven't, I believe you might be able to sympathize with me when I call attention to the incredibly moving nature of the ending. The singing was an incredibly sad and fitting end to this, one of the greatest epics ever made.

The Man Who Would Be King, 1975, Starring: Michael Caine, Sean Connery and Christopher Plummer, Directed by John Huston, 9.5/10 (A)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston film. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Prizzi's Honor (1985)

I Really Wanted To Like It....

[6/10 · 10 December 2012]

THE FILM: John Huston is in his late 70s. He isn't what you'd normally call hot stuff. Richard Condon wrote a book about the mob, it was a comedy. Condon decided he would make his story into a film, so he approached Huston, despite Huston not having made a comedy in some time. Huston went through an impressive roll call of names for the various parts, but he made his mind up in the end with Jack Nicholson playing Brooklyn mobster Charley and Kathleen Turner playing the seductive Irene.

Huston even cast his daughter Anjelica in the juicy part of Maerose. The film was not expected to perform well, but it became such a massive sleeper hit that when it came out on VHS, it was still in theatres. Critics loved it, and it nabbed Huston his last Oscar nomination for Best Director, at the young age of 78, a record that stands even today. So it would make sense for this film to be regarded as a classic these days, right?

Wrong.

THE PLOT: Charley Partanna is born into the mafia, so when he becomes of age he becomes a contract killer for the Prizzi's, one of the most famous of the New York mafia families. At a family wedding, he notices the beautiful Irene Walker. He is immediately smitten, but he loses her and can't find her. Afterwards he gets a call from her, she's in California and she wants to meet him. The next day Charley flies out and they fall immediately in love, and so does she.

He flies back home bursting with happiness, and he gets an assignment. Someone stole money from the Prizzi's casino in Vegas, and they aren't happy. It was a husband and wife job, apparently and they are in California, so Charley flies back out. There he shoots the husband, and then waits for the wife to come home. The wife is Irene, and she gives him the money, only there is half of it missing. In doubt over weather to kill or kiss her, Charley flies back to New York (again), and consults his former fiancée, after they have sex on the carpet.

Charley decides to kiss her, and flies (seriously, they use the same airplane each time, it's really annoying) back to California and marries Irene. From there, the newlyweds go back to New York (guess the method of transportation) and begin to work on a new job. It turns out that Irene is a contract killer and she and Charley plan to kidnap a bank manager for ransom, only they are forced to shoot a cops wife, turns everyone against them, even each other.

THE CRITICISM:

I really wanted to like this movie, but I think you can tell by my annoyance over the constant air travel (seriously, it's like an ad for United) that I didn't love this film. I didn't hate it though, because Nicholson is just so entertaining while trying to pull off a Brooklyn accent, though it almost works. It is a black comedy, but I did not laugh once or cringe. I sat there and saw the movie.

Above, I wrote that this film has mostly been forgotten, and that is true. it was apparently a big hit in the 80s and I can see why. But it has been partially forgotten. Maybe because 1985 was such a weak year for film, this was regarded as good enough. Nicholson looks a little old, but he and Turner had sufficient box office appeal to pull it off. I had been told that this film was amazing and really bad. Personally I did not enjoy it, but it was entertaining enough.

With the performances, Nicholson is so completely over the top that his Charley Partanna almost works, the accent is enough to make me smile, but unfortunately for a two hour long film, a smile is not enough. Kathleen Turner certainly has an abundance of sex appeal, but I found Irene to be incredibly similar to Turner's work in the outstanding Body Heat. She had me confused about whether she was a hero or villain, up until the last few minutes I did not know. Some would sat this helped the performance, but I personally just found it confusing.

Anjelica Huston won an Oscar for her work as Maerose Prizzi, but like I said above, it must have been a weak year. Huston was good, but again I couldn't figure out weather she was good or evil. It just ended up confusing me. The rest of the cast does good work, but nothing jumps out. The cinematography can feel rather old school at some parts, but I guess that's just the way Huston interpreted the story. Alex North's score can feel clawing at some points, but the covers of popular Italian music can be entertaining.

I felt as if the film was Huston taking a break. It certainly didn't feature any amazing shots or scenes, I cannot comprehend the film's multiple Oscar nominations, it seems to me like a really average film. That is not to say that it wasn't entertaining, Nicholson was enough to save the film from mediocrity. The end result is not the boring film it might have been without Nicholson's presence and Anjelica certainly injects life into her scenes, but in the end, despite the wicked satire of the plot the film never really goes anywhere you want it to and you are left feeling empty.

But I guess that's better than nothing.

Prizzi's Honor, 1985, Starring: Jack Nicholson, Kathleen Turner and Anjelica Huston. Directed by John Huston, 6.5/10 (C+)

(This review is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Moby Dick (1956)

One Of The Best Literary Adaptations

[9/10 · 3 December 2012]

THE FILM: One day, famed science fiction writer Ray Bradbury got a call out of the blue from John Huston. Huston asked Bradbury to help him write a film adaptation of Herman Melville's Moby Dick. Bradbury confessed that he had never managed to finish reading the book, but Huston handed him a copy and told him to read what he could. Then Bradbury headed over to Ireland with his wife to write. Even after the screenplay was completed, it took Huston two years before financing could be arranged.

Indeed the film lacked a female star, and was about a bunch of men hunting whales. As part of the film's financing arrangement, Huston was forced to cast a big name in the part of Captain Ahab. He chose Gregory Peck, who no one thought would work in the role, including Peck. The shoot was plagued by production issues and multiple "Moby Dick's" were lost. Indeed Peck almost drowned during a scene. On release the film made next to nothing, and critics were generally indifferent to the film. It has yet to make it's budget back.

THE PLOT: Any English major could tell you the plot, Ishmael is a stranger who takes a need for the sea. He heads to the town of New Bedford, where he rooms for a night with a mysterious stranger with whom he later befriends, named Queequeg. Together they strike out on a whale-hunting voyage on the Pequod. The Pequod's captain, is the mysterious Captain Ahab whose leg was taken by the infamous white whale Moby Dick, and whose is rumored to have half a heart.

It is Ahab who clarifies the Pequod's true mission. They are not to hunt whales, they are to hunt Moby Dick.

THE CRITICISM: I have not read Moby Dick, although I have tried. The story was not as familiar to me as it is to many, so I will just clarify something. This is the definitive screen adaptation of Moby Dick. Huston gets everything right. Peck, who has been criticized as wooden in many things, is magnificent in this. His Ahab is an intensely foreboding portrait of evil. Richard Basehart may have been a little old, and his performance may be average, but he allows you to reflect your own feelings and opinion through the character of Ishmael.

I hope I do not alienate literary fans who dismiss this as an inadequate adaptation when I say that the film does a great job of condensing the story into an enjoyable film experience. Ahab has been corrupted by the whale, and he has lost more than his leg. He has lost his soul. This is brilliantly conveyed in the performance by Peck, his foreboding glance and scars make him visually scary, but I never found myself to be afraid of him. He most certainly is not 'wooden', the dialog is old fashioned, and I am sure that part of it must have come from the novel.

Baseheart does good work, but we never really focus on his character. His character is the lens through which we observe the tragic story of Ahab. The film can feel like an ensemble in parts, and we get time to explore some of Ishmael's shipmates. However, in one of the best scenes in the film, Orson Welles delivers an absolutely sterling monologue containing a parable. Welles dominates in that one scene, although apparently he was so nervous before delivering the monologue, that Huston had to hide a bottle of Brandy on set for Welles to sip from during nervous spells.

The screenplay is terrific, melancholy and dark, while containing a mysterious edge that Bradbury and Huston exploit terrifically. Credit must go to Melville's novel, for giving us a beautiful story. However it is the screenplay that condenses the novel without losing it's edge. For some reason I found the film to be slightly satirical, although it is certainly very darkly satiric if this is the case.

The cinematography is incredibly interesting. It looks and feels like no other Technicolor film. The colours are not garish as is the case with many films of that era. In fact, even the scenes at sea look like they are actually taking place at sea, and not in a tank or against some kind of backdrop. The film invokes a somber melancholy tone, through the muted pallet of colours. I have heard that the day for night (shooting in day, and darkening the image to make it look as if it takes place at night) technique was used, and it certainly makes sense.

Finally to the direction. Huston once again delivers a great film. While the direction may not be as energetic as Wise Blood, or relaxed like The Dead. His direction is key to the success of the film. It's a good thing he does well, admirably. The tone is slow, though not nearly as slow as the novel. It certainly feels that by the end someone is winking at you. That someone may very well be John Huston.

Moby Dick, 1956, Starring: Gregory Peck, Richard Baseheart and Leo Genn Directed by John Huston, 9.5/10 (A)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie, you can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Wise Blood (1979)

Feels More Like The Work of a Young Curiosity, Than That of an Old Master

[8/10 · 26 November 2012]

THE FILM: In the late 70's John Huston was approached by Michael Fitzgerald to find out if Huston was willing to direct an adaptation of Flannery O'Conner's Wise Blood. Huston agreed if Fitzgerald could get the money together. He did, and they shot it quickly, using no big name stars on a minimal budget. To play the lead role of disillusioned would be preacher Hazel Motes, Huston cast Brad Dourif, who had come off a major success playing Billy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest in 1975.

The rest of the cast was rounded out by multiple low-profile relatively unknown actors, with Harry Dean Stanton and Ned Beatty playing two of such parts.

THE PLOT: Young poor, ambitious and uneducated Hazel Motes returns to his southern town to look for his family. They have gone, and the house of his youth stands unoccupied and rotting. He then buys himself a suit, and heads for the city. There he meats Enoch, a clinger who takes a strange liking to the stoic and anti-social Motes. Motes also encounters Asa Hawkes, a "blind" preacher who goes around on the streets and begs for money with his promiscuous daughter Sabbath.

Hawkes's preaching of Jesus and god sets Motes off on an anti Jesus tirade, and it is then that Motes decides to create a church, but one without Jesus. He buys a banged up car and goes around preaching on the streets.

THE CRITICISM:

This may be one of the strangest films I've ever seen. Each scene adds a layer of disbelief upon the last, and Dourif's performance just gets more and more strange and interesting. Hazel Motes is a man so confused by life that he can only see one thing, God. But God is the thing that blocks him from doing anything. Due to childhood trauma at the hands of his preacher grandfather, Hazel Motes doesn't know anything about life, except that he is afraid of God.

When he hears someone preaching Jesus, this childhood trauma manifests itself in the form of anger, and he decides to preach, but not Jesus, but rather a form of anti-Jesus. In this form Brad Dourif manages to suspend your disbelief as you wonder exactly what this man is all about, his motives and ambitions. As Huston said himself, Hazel is a one note guy, and that one note is god. Weather it be the fear of God, or the fear of the possibility of God, religion is Hazel's life.

The film has been called many things, but cult film pretty much wraps it up. On release, there was little to no impact made, but over the years the film has garnered a sort of reputation. It is an odd little curio, and a strange film stylistically. It feels like the work of a young beginner, than the work of an old master. The film feels uniquely fresh, and is quite entertaining as a result. However I cannot give it a great mark because it is not a great film.

It is certainly entertaining, but there are too many flaws with the film for me to call it a masterpiece it is an incredible piece of off-kilter entertainment. The performances are quite good, and the direction is stupendous. However I have a major quibble. The ending. I am still trying to process it (SPOILERS follow).

Hazel's car is stopped by a policeman who pushes it into a river. Hazel blinds himself, and then keeps inflicting various forms of physical punishment to himself (barbed wire on the torso, rocks in the shoes). Huston explains the ending by saying that the whole film is Hazel's fight with Jesus, and in the end Jesus wins. The ending is certainly very effective in this message, but it was intensely hard to predict. But then again, Hazel Motes is a very unpredictable young man. (SPOILERS END)

I will spend my last paragraph speaking of an odd side story that occurs. Enoch becomes obsessed with a man in a monkey costume, and with shaking his hand. He then takes the suit (it is unclear what he does with the man), and walks around shaking people's hands. He is pathetic, but he comes off as scary. The same way Hazel comes off. Like a boy who doesn't know what do do when he grows up, drifting aimlessly from place to place just looking for something to latch on to. Enoch latches onto Hazel, and Hazel latches onto religion.

Wise Blood, 1979, Starring: Brad Dourif, Harry Dean Stanton and Ned Beatty, Directed by Jhon Huston, 8/10 (B+)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Dead (1987)

A Perfect Final Effort

[10/10 · 19 November 2012]

THE FILM: The Dead was John Huston's last film. He was very sick at the time, and probably knew that his next film would be his last. So when choosing his project, he had to choose wisely. He chose The Dead, an adaptation of the James Joyce short story. It was very much a family affair, with his son Tony writing the screenplay and daughter Angelica playing the female lead. It was during the making of the film that his health deteriorated.

He died four months before it was released, and during the film making he suffered innumerable challenges. He relied on an oxygen tank to breath, and he couldn't go 20 minutes without it. Sometimes Huston would get stuck in his car, and be unable to get to the stage, and he would have to relay direction through his assistants. Despite these challenges, Huston made the film, based off a supposedly "un-filmable" story. It was only after multiple revisions that Huston found the right approach, and with it, one of his finest films.

THE PLOT: Greta and Gabriel Conroy are married, and they like each other, in turn of the century Ireland. They go to a party being held by three spinsters on January the 6th. After the party, they return to their hotel. That is the plot, seriously, that's it. To go into more detail would be frivolous without critical commentary, so that brings me to it.

THE CRITICISM: The Dead is without a doubt the finest last film of any director with a sizable body of work, that I have seen. What Huston accomplishes in 72 minutes is what most filmmakers try their whole careers to accomplish. The film is so simple, yet its simplicity is its finest asset. Huston here manages to try something new, and for a man in his 80s, who is dying, that is quite a risk. And he pulls it off, of course. Some directors, like Hitchcock and Wilder have tried this approach, and the results aren't generally amazing.

If you read the plot, you'll see that the film's plot is quite thin, I could sum it up in five seconds, so Huston relies on characters and mood to set it up. In order to do that you need two things: good actors and a good script. And he has both. Some might say that The Dead was an act of nepotism, and yes, Huston draws on his family. John cast Anjelica in three of his films, and under his direction she won an Oscar. Here she gives a performance that doesn't seem to amount to much, for the first hour.

Then, near the end, she is walking down the stairs when a tenor from the second floor begins to belt out a tune. I can't name it, but she stops and closes her eyes, swaying gently to the sound of his singing, almost in a trance. Then she goes home and tells her husband of a past lover, who came to her one night, having suffered a terrible sickness. He died, and she believes that she caused him to die, wandering in the rain. But I'm, getting ahead of myself.

The performances, Huston (Anjelica, that is) is absolutely terrific. She puts up a facade for the first hour, but then she slowly lets it slip, and you glimpse her. Donal McCann is absolutely terrific in the role of Gabriel, her husband. I hadn't heard of him before this film, and its a shame, his ending monologue is close to perfection. The supporting cast is flawless, consisting mainly of people that I hadn't heard of before, which helps you to believe that they are their respective characters.

The screenplay does the wonder of turning what has been called the greatest short story of all time into a motion picture. Tony Huston is more than up to the challenge. It has been said that John Huston had been trying to get the film made for some time, but he couldn't find the right approach, and one day it came to him. The story doesn't need to be jazzed up with flashbacks and unnecessary additions. The best way to adapt the short story is to just tell the story.

No embellishes, nothing. Tell it straight. It works. I haven't read the source material, but I want to now, based on the final scene alone. The score perfectly complements the film, striking a melancholy but optimistic chord. Indeed some of the lengthy dialog scenes can be frustrating, especially when they harp on singing and turn of the century Irish-British relations, but for some reason you are still compelled. I feel that what really makes the film work are the characters, they feel real.

Huston manages to weave his camera through a scene so well, that it makes you feel that you are almost eavesdropping on someone else's party. By the end, you almost feel as if you know these people, and in a way you do. As the crisp snow falls on a forgotten Irish graveyard, we are reminded that we are all alive, but then we die, and time will pass us by. That brings me to my final comment: the title. It sounds as if the film is a horror film, but it is truly about the passage of time, how the dead can haunt the living from beyond the grave, but not in a scary way.

The dead hold a power over the living no matter how old and wise you are. They still cast a shadow over our lives, and we remember them until, perhaps, we join them. I debated giving this film a 9.5, but my sentimental side won over my few small problems.

The Dead, 1987, Directed by John Huston, 10/10 (A+)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can find this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)

Limited in Scope

[7/10 · 7 November 2012]

THE FILM:

In 1957, Robert Mitchum is in Tobago, filming Fire Down Below. He arrives back in the United States, and he finds out that he has another gig. A marine and a nun stuck on an island. The island: Tobago.The film is called, Heaven Knows, Mister Allison. The plot alone draws comparisons to The African Queen. And there is Deborah Kerr, playing a nun. Again.

THE PLOT: Corporal Allison was boarding a raft on a scouting mission, off of a submarine in 1944's Pacific. The Japanese bombed him, and he was left alone in the raft. When he came to, he was alone in the raft, in the middle of the Pacific. After a while, he drifted to an island. After checking out some abandoned shacks, he found Sister Angela, a nun, in the church. He falls asleep, and when he wakes up, Sister Angela is praying.

After initially meeting awkwardly, the two soon become comfortable together, and come close to being friends. It is when the Japanese land on the island, that the strange relationship is put to the test.

THE CRITICISM: Just to make myself clear, I thought that this film was a pale imitation of The African Queen. It's not a bad film, just not as good as that film. That said, it does have it's entertaining moments. I feel that it lacks that magic that was captured with The African Queen. Kerr and Mitchum have absolutely terrific chemistry, so the blame rests rather on the screen play. The film has a terrific setup, and then after a while, there is only so much you can do with a Marine and a Nun, without delving into some nasty business.

Unfortunately, because of the production code, you can only go so far. So then we are fed multiple moments of Mitchum acting macho while Deborah Kerr gets to sit on the sidelines and pray. There are only two characters for the whole film, and if they begin to get tiresome, you have a serious problem. Don't get me wrong, Deborah Kerr can act the part, and Mitchum is certainly very macho, but again, only to a point until it becomes tedious. Then the Japanese decide to make the island a base, and Mitchum falls for the nun. She of course, is engaged to Jesus.

The film is beautifully shot, in Colour and Cinemascope (widescreen). The lush island of Tobago never looked better. I spoke of the performances above, but to recap, Mitchum and Kerr were good, not great. The screenplay was awkward, and it felt forced at points, but the problem was the limitations of the production code.

Huston's direction was good (notice good, not great). I couldn't help but imagined how he felt whilst directing it. It feels rushed, the shots get the story told, but he doesn't add much visually. Overall I feel that it felt kind of like he was doing it for the money, and he was frustrated about it. You can tell that he was limited, and it made him frustrated.

It was not bad, but not great. Overall, the word I would use to describe the film is limited. Limited in plot options, performances, direction and screenplay.

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison, 1957, Starring: Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr Directed by John Huston 7/10 (B-)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca)

The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

The Definition Of Noir

[9/10 · 5 November 2012]

THE FILM: 1950. John Huston isn't exactly "hot stuff". His new project has no big name actors, and a plot that could have depressed anyone. It is about a bank robbery, and it's after effects. Not exactly box-office gold. Another problem. Star Sterling Hayden was a communist, and both him and Huston are on The Committee for the First Amendment. It seemed as if the studio just wanted to see what would happen. Good thing Huston pulled it off.

THE PLOT: "Doc" Riedenschnieder has just been released from prison. He is considered one of the foremost criminal masterminds of the time.Immediately after his release he is itching to pull of another heist, his last. Then he plans to retire to Mexico, he recruits heavy Dix. It's a Jewellery store robbery, and he knows he can do it, he just needs someone who will be able to sell the Jewels after the Robbery. He turns to Emmerich, a rich family man, who runs little things on the side, like having an affair with a beautiful blonde.

Unfortunately for Doc, Emmerich plans to double-cross him after the heist, and Doc knows it, but he goes on anyways. He recruits some other men, and at the same time Dix finds himself in a relationship with a woman whom he doesn't love, but who is devoted to him. SPOILERS. The heist doesn't come off the way Doc planned and he is faced with multiple double crosses and the cops on his trail. In other words, it's a typical Noir.

THE CRITICISM:

John Huston was born for Noir. He defined the genre with The Maltese Falcon, and his sharp wit and attention to detail was a perfect match to that film's sharp and direct dialog. Here he works in the genre, but not in the tradition of films like The Big Sleep or Falcon, where there is some happiness. No, here no one is happy. They are greedy and selfish, and perhaps only Jean Hagen is the only non-cynical character, yet even she has an unhealthy selfish desire to nurture, to love Dix.

There is no hope in The Asphalt Jungle, it is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. It is also one of the most realistic films ever to come out of Hollywood. The gritty, hopeless city presented here could be any major city in the US. New York, Los Angeles, Miami, it could be set in any of those. These characters have been rotting from the inside out, and their insatiable greed and lust can only lead to their destruction.

Yet you feel sorrow, you want them to have some kind of happy ending, and that is one thing that these people will never have. That brings me to the performances, uniformly excellent. Huston had a great knack for getting great performances out of actors, and this is no exception. Hayden has always been a unique actor. On his face is etched the pain and suffering of thirty odd years in the crime racket. You get the sense that he is running on fumes.

Hagen is, as I mentioned above terrific, she is one-minded in her obsession with Dix. Louis Calhern is slimy and, despite his good-guy act, he is rotting from the inside. His affair with Marilyn Monroe is just a way for him to embrace his true slimy nature. When he is questioned by the police, you can see him desperately trying to get himself out of the situation, lying until he can lie no more.

Also good is Sam Jaffe as Doc and James Whitmore. The film barely has a score, which may be due to artistic intent or laziness, but the lack of score reinforces the gritty reality of the film. The cinematography is amazing, delving in the shadows and murky depths that define Noir.

And finally the direction. As I mentioned above, Huston keeps it realistic, with little to no artistic flourishes, and it works completely. Huston was the perfect match for the material, and it certainly pays off.

The Asphalt Jungle, 1950, Starring: Sterling Hayden, Jean Hagen and Louis Calhern Directed by John Huston 9.5/10 (A)

(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie, you can find this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Overrated, But Still Interesting To Watch

[7/10 · 25 October 2012]

THE FILM: 1948. John Huston hasn't made a movie since the ill-fated 1946 documentary "Let There Be Light". The last narrative film he made was 1942's Across The Pacific. So when Huston chose B. Traven's bleak novel to be his next project, studio heads were noticeably worried. Adding to the worry was the fact that Huston refused to shoot his film in the studio. He wanted to shoot it entirely on location, and he refused to budge. Add into the mix a balding Bogart and a faded star in Walter Huston, and it seems almost incredible that the film was made at all.

But it was.

THE PLOT: Fred Dobbs, a down on his luck American drifter in Mexico, gets by by begging passerby's for money. He sleeps on the streets, and in a homeless shelter when he can. It is there that he meets Curtain, a fellow down on his luck drifter. Together they hear of old prospector Howard's tales of gold and fortune out in the desert. Hatching a plan with Howard, the three set out for the Sierra Madre, hoping to strike it rich.

Dobbs and Curtain learn the tricks of the trade from Howard. It isn't long before local outlaws begin to cause trouble, and at the same time they manage to find a vein of gold, but nearby prospector's come into balance. The weather plays a part in setting them further and further away from their goal. Then of course there is greed.

THE CRITICISM: I'll be honest, this film is overrated. I don't like as much as a probably should, but it is a very intriguing film. Bogart is excellent, and I did feel that he became kind of hammy at the end, but that was typical of the time. His performance strikes a great balance of being innocent, yet smarmy at the same time. That is until, he completely throws out the balance and beats it to a bloody pulp. That is not a criticism, but it can't surprise you that much, thanks to the layers to Bogart's performance.

Tim Holt, as Curtain isn't amazing. He provides the calm in between necessary, but he doesn't have much of a commanding presence, which doesn't help him, but it does suit the character. However, the main acting achievement on display is that of Walter Huston. Huston owns every scene he's in, and he totally dominates the film. His son John's decision to cast him isn't nepotism, he is a great actor, and he proves it. In every scene.

The visuals are bleak and as desolate as can be. The scenes in the desert have a certain rugged beauty to them, and this makes the setting perfect for the scenes of greed and corruption that follow. Speaking of greed, that could have been the film's title. Greed is what drives the plot, and is what dooms the characters from the start. In the beginning, Bogart keeps asking the same white suited American (played by John Huston, of course) for money. He doesn't stop this, and eventually the man in the white suit confronts him.

If you watch Bogart's eyes, you see him not paying attention to what the man is saying, but the coin he is holding in his hand. Greed drives Dobbs to the treasure, and also to his end. Huston's direction is terrific, he lets his observe the scenes passively, yet never being showy. However, as I stated above, the film is overrated. It is very interesting, but easily boring at the same time. It is great for discussion, but hard for enjoyment.

I will say one thing for the film, it has a terrific ending. From all the Huston's I've seen so far, I've noticed that they all have great endings. From The Maltese Falcon to The Misfits, with The Night Of The Iguana being perhaps the only exception, so far, the endings have been standouts. I won't ruin it, but it is a great ending to a good film.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948, Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Walter Huston and Tim Holt Directed by John Huston 7.5/10 (B)

(This review is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. This and other reviews are available on http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

The Misfits (1961)

Clark Gable's Best Performance

[8/10 · 16 October 2012]

THE FILM: Made in 1960-1961, The Misfits is a very unique production. It was both Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe's last completed film. It was written especially for Monroe, by her last husband Arthur Miller, at the end of their marriage. It also starred Montgomery Clift, who was notoriously unstable following his car accident, and relatively unknown character actor Eli Wallach. Perhaps the only stable part was Thelma Ritter, a well-known, reliable character actor. Even the director, John Huston, was a wild card. The production seemed doomed.

THE PLOT: The Misfits opens in Reno, Nevada, where young divorcée Roslyn is staying, while waiting for her divorce to come through. She is with her friend, Isabelle, and they stop in a café. There, they meet Gay Langland, a cowboy who has seen better times. Roslyn decides, in the spur of the moment, to accompany Gay to his ranch, in the desert.

To avoid giving away too much, I'll describe the rest of the plot in much broader strokes. They spend the rest of the film mainly in the desert, where we also meet Guido, a younger ranch hand, with an instant infatuation to Roslyn. The film also includes Pierce, a Rodeo man, who's gone way past his prime, but continues despite this.

THE CRITICISM: I'll begin with the actors. Marilyn Monroe was not a great actress, but she fit certain roles. This was not a 'typical' Monroe role, but she does well. I can't help but feel that her performance was desperate, and it works well at times, while failing at others. It is an average performance, but it certainly ranks among her greatest. However the main acting achievement on display here, was that of Clark Gable, in his last performance.

Gable was always cast as a matinée idol, and he indeed has great looks and a wonderful screen personality. Unfortunately, he always played the same character, almost. Even Gone With the Wind dosen't fully break the mold. Here, from the start, it's something different. The charm and wit are still there, but buried underneath are layers of sadness. You get a sense that his time is passed, and he can't cope. The scene that shows this best, is when Gable, elated at seeing his kids, comes back to bring Roslyn to see them.

They've already left, and he breaks down in drunken agony. It's his best performance. Also we have Thelma Ritter, bringing her usual amount of wit and pathos to the film. Eli Wallach is very slimy and completely one-minded in his obsession for Roslyn. Montgomery Clift is unstable and shaky, playing an unstable and shaky rodeo clown. It's his last great performance.

Now to the writing. It is not Arthur Miller's best, he wrote it with the purpose to provide his wife with a good role. The plot is interesting however, and the film itself is well done, so this is not a major problem. The cinematography is equally as desolate, and captures the feeling of time lost, and a world that has moved on, and left you behind. Now, for my last criticism, I turn to the direction.

Here, Huston tones it down slightly, and gives us a more subdued film, which is perfect for the subject. He was really a man who knew when to make his film experimental, and when to make it conventional. Here he goes the safe route, while still retaining the beauty of a film about loss. It works. In Huston's career, this may rank as a minor achievement, but the talent on display is undeniable. It is a beautiful film, that ends with one of the most moving moments in Huston's entire catalog.

That's pretty much all I have to say.

The Misfits, 1961, Starring: Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe and Montgomery Clift. Directed by: John Huston 8.5 out of 10 (A-)

(This review is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can view this site, and read other reviews at the following address: http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca )