Annie (1982)

THE FILM:
In 1981, John Huston was strapped for cash. He needed a job, no matter what it was. He found one in the form of Annie. Annie was a hugely successful Broadway musical, based off of a 30's comic strip, that Columbia Pictures paid a fortune to acquire. Huston was originally repelled by the story, but he was forced to do it because of his lack of cash. There was a long period of trying to find someone to play Annie, and it took two years before they settled on Aileen Quinn, a spunky 10 year old from Pennsylvania.

In other roles, Albert Finney was asked to shave his head in order to be in the film. The making of the film was boring for Huston, and he had little interest in the final product. In the end, the film was to be one of Huston's most successful pictures, and it gave him enough credit to make his final three films.

THE PLOT:
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.

THE CRITICISM:
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, "Tomorrow". 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" dialogue.

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 stagey, 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-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
7. The Misfits
8. Beat the Devil
9. Fat City
10. Wise Blood
11. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
12. The Unforgiven
13. Under The Volcano
14. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
15. Annie
16. Prizzi's Honor
17. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

The Life and Times Of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

THE FILM:
In 1971, John Huston was feeling a little depressed. His last three films had failed both critically and financially, and his next project was a bleary boxing movie. He had met Paul Newman, and always wanted to make a film with him, but had never found the opportunity. A script by John Milius, based on the true story of a western legend, gave him the opportunity. A oddball western was bound to find some financial difficulties, but Newman's star power was enough for the film to get made.

The shoot was very relaxing, and Huston had a great time with Newman. However, on release the film underperformed, as a western wasn't exactly the most popular kind of film at the time of release, and the film faded into semi-obscurity. Today, the film isn't held in high regard, it has a 6.9 on IMDb, and a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes. It isn't hated, but it isn't loved. Which is really too sad, as it is a great film.

THE PLOT:
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.

THE CRITICISM:
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-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
7. The Misfits
8. Beat the Devil
9. Fat City
10. Wise Blood
11. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
12. The Unforgiven
13. Under The Volcano
14. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
15. Prizzi's Honor
16. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 
 

Fat City (1972)

THE FILM:
In the early 1970's, John Huston was right in the middle of what he would later call his "dry period". During this period, which lasted from Sinful Davey to The Mackintosh Man, he would make what he would later call some of his worst films. However, right in the middle of this period was a film that was odd for Huston. It was a critical hit after it's premiere in Cannes, and it's story about boxing and redemption seemed odd for Huston.

The cast was a bunch of unknowns, Huston originally wanted Marlon Brando in the lead, but when that came to nothing he turned to then unknown Stacey Keach. In the role of a young boxer he cast Jeff Bridges, fresh off his debut in The Last Picture Show. He also cast first time actress Candy Clark and Susan Tyrell. The shooting was uneventful and the film was critically praised upon release, but it did nothing commercial, and has faded into somewhat obscurity, which is really too bad, especially for a film that is so interesting for Huston.

THE PLOT: 
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.

THE CRITICISM:
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+)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Misfits
7. Beat the Devil
8. Fat City
9. Wise Blood
10. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
11. The Unforgiven
12. Under The Volcano
13. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
14. Prizzi's Honor
15. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 

Under The Volcano (1984)

THE FILM:
Under the Volcano is a kind of Don Quixote for filmmakers, that is until 1984. By that I mean, multiple filmmaker's have tried to adapt Malcolm Lowry's 1947 novel, including Ken Russell, Luis Bunuel and Jules Dassin. The novels complicated prose and structure helped all of those ventures collapse. That is until John Huston tried it. He had at least as twelve drafts written, but the novel had proven its legend to be true.

That is, until he had a brainstorm. He thought of the technique he would later use on The Dead. Film it straight, cut the fat, do it literally. The script was written, and Huston headed to Mexico for the third time, to make this film. He had originally wanted to cast Richard Burton as the central character, but Burton was occupied on stage at the time. Huston then turned to Albert Finney, whom he'd worked with on Annie to play the lead.

The shoot was uneventful, and when released reviews were generally kind. The film never made much of an impact, which is odd considering it's source material. This was to be Huston's third last film.

THE PLOT:
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 CRITICISM: 

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 actor's 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 likeable, and he doesn't try to make him likeable. 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 teh 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)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Misfits
7. Beat the Devil
8. Wise Blood
9. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
10. The Unforgiven
11. Under The Volcano
12. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
13. Prizzi's Honor
14. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror

The African Queen (1951)

THE FILM:
The making of The African Queen is almost as famous as the film itself. John Huston moved his whole cast to the middle of nowhere in Africa, virtually the whole cast caught some sort of tropical disease. Huston was obsessed with killing an elephant. Katherine Hepburn wrote a book on the experience, which I have read. A fictional book has been written on Huston's obsession to kill an elephant, which in turn was made into a movie by Clint Eastwood, which I've seen. 

Bogart and Huston were the only two members of the cast and crew who didn't get dysentery, by drinking nothing but imported scotch. Hepburn, determined to counter their drinking, drank more water than anyone else on set, causing her to get dysentery multiple times. The shooting was hot, and during one of her scenes, Hepburn would vomit in a bucket the minute Huston yelled cut.

I could go on and on about things that occurred on set, but in short, it was close to disaster. Under those conditions, its amazing they made a film at all. But they did.

THE PLOT:
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.

THE CRITICISM:
There is one thing that can impede you from enjoying The African Queen: cyniscm. 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 judgement 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 cliched. Here it embraces the cliche, 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+)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Misfits
7. Beat the Devil
8. Wise Blood
9. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
10. The Unforgiven
11. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
12. Prizzi's Honor
13. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror

Phobia: A Descent Into Terror (1980)

THE FILM:
To be honest with you, not much history on the subject of Phobia has been written. The film was a low-budget, Canadian horror film, so what attracted Huston to the project cannot be explained. Perhaps he just needed the money, I am not sure. I try not to judge the film in this section, but I can't help but feel as if my point of view is becoming apparent, so I'll just skip to the next section.

THE PLOT:
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...

THE CRITICISM:
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 tagline.

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 back 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 onscreen. 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 soundbites. 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. I imagine it must have been something like this:

INT JOHN HUSTON'S BEDROOM -NIGHT

JOHN HUSTON lies asleep on his bed. The door to his room opens, and THE PRODUCERS  step in. They whisper to each other, and one approaches Huston, and knocks him unconscious. He goes up to the other producer.
                                             PRODUCER #1
                          Now all we have to do is smuggle him on a flight to Toronto,
                          and keep him drugged for the month we have to shoot, and
                          then bam! We have a movie!

                                             PRODUCER #2
                           No one will suspect our nefarious scheme! Even Huston 
                           will have to keep his mouth shut, or everyone will think
                           he's just making excuses for a bad film!

They both cackle with glee and drag Huston out of the bedroom.

THE END

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 Goin' 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)

RANKED:
1. The Dead
2. The Man Who Would Be King
3. Moby Dick
4. The Asphalt Jungle
5. The Misfits
6. Beat the Devil
7. Wise Blood
8. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
9. The Unforgiven
10. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
11. Prizzi's Honor
12. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror

The Unforgiven (1960)

THE FILM:
In 1959, Burt Lancaster and his production company decided they wanted to make a film called The Unforgiven. The original director, Delbert Mann envisioned a gritty, civil-war era western, like The Searchers, but Lancaster wanted to ensure the film was commercial. He fired Mann and hired John Huston to replace him. Huston originally wanted to make the film as a comment on race relations. Lancaster wanted to make it commercial. You can see where this is going.

There were conflicts everywhere during the making of the film. Lancaster and Huston were so at odds that at one point, Lancaster steamed off to play a game of golf. Huston hired an airplane, bought 2000 golf balls with Mexican swear words on them, and dumped them on the golf field so Lancaster couldn't play golf. At one point, Audie Murphy went boating and his boat capsized.  He was saved from death by a female photographer. That was not the end unfortunately.

Audrey Hepburn suffered a bad fall from her horse, and spent six weeks in the hospital. When she came back for shooting, she had to wear a back brace. Then she had a miscarriage. This was her only western.

THE PLOT: 
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.

THE CRITICISM:
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, and indeed, at the end SPOILER ALERT! they decide to get married. SPOILER ALERT! 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 can see why Huston would want to make this film a political allegory, especially for the times, with the civil rights movement and all the turbulence that would come along with it. However, getting back to the film, the racism is bad, and it doesn't sit well or the viewer to watch people being slaughtered. It isn't as if they are completely innocent, but they are not the scalping monsters the film makes them out to be.

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)

RANKED:
1. The Dead
2. The Man Who Would Be King
3. Moby Dick
4. The Asphalt Jungle
5. The Misfits
6. Beat the Devil
7. Wise Blood
8. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
9. The Unforgiven
10. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
11. Prizzi's Honor