The Roots of Heaven (1958)

THE ROOTS OF BOREDOM

This movie is boring. Yes, I know that isn't the most substantive of criticisms, but it's the truth. And it's not the good kind of boring. A movie can be boring as long as when you think back on it, you still are not bored. I can give no such good tidings towards The Roots of Heaven, a film who's noble message is drowned in an ocean of it's own failure. Harsh, surely, but what makes it even more infuriating is that in trying to spread the word on an important issue, but no one is listening because the film's just not interesting enough.

Look, protecting endangered species is a basic component of being able to maintain our current ecosystems. And I know how this sounds like I'm just regurgitating a science textbook, but it is becoming more important each and every day. And, yet, in the 1950s, the subject of preservation was not nearly as mainstream as it is today. That is why when a big budget Hollywood production intent on taking the issue head on deserved to be commended. It deserved to be appreciated, and above all it deserved to be seen. But audiences did not deserve this. Turgid melodrama, drab imagery and a one note depiction of a rather interesting story makes the idea of preservation further from my mind than ever, despite Trevor Howard mentioning how much he loves "the elephants" every five minutes.

I'm not saying that the message should have come first, but it would have been nice if they had put forth some worthwhile film making along with it. Instead this just feels flat. Even Huston's return to Africa trips over itself. In The African Queen, you could really see the difficult shoot manifesting itself on screen. The beautiful lush scenery of Africa and the film's success, however, vindicates the shooting conditions and crafts something exceptional out of the madness. And yet, when he came back, the results couldn't have been more different.

Despite having the capability to showcase the wildlife and beauteous nature of Africa more readily than through the narrow river confines of The African Queen, nothing of the sort is achieved. Instead, the majestic images of elephants fall flat, the vast emptiness and expanses of the landscape is painted in atypically bland Technicolor. This is a black and white film shot in a place that demanded more than just simple framing and shots. Indeed, even though the film was shot in Africa for nearly five months, one can see green screen effects used on a few occasions, taking one both out of the film and out of the atmosphere which had been attempted up to then.

And in fact, the irony here is almost delicious. John Huston made a movie about protecting elephants when he proved so obsessed with shooting one during the filming of his previous African set adventure. But, despite this almost hypocritical move, there was the chance he could have had a change of heart, right? I have no idea, but if this film is any indication, probably not. Message movies only work when the director, the writer and the producers actually care about the message they are trying to promote. Here, it just seems like everyone involved (save perhaps the valiant Trevor Howard, though that could also just be him, you know, acting) is not interested at all with the issue. It just seems like they wanted to finish the film and move on.

And yes, I know it was a difficult shoot. Even without knowing the history, I could read it on the actor's faces. When Juliette Greco's character falls ill, she really does look more sick than any makeup artist, no matter how accomplished, could manage. Perhaps that's because she most likely was. Speaking of Greco, she is serviceable in a role that essentially just serves as someone to keep the men in the audience entertained. The "star", Errol Flynn is in about five major scenes and is drunk in nearly all of them, which, for some reason I am assuming was not all acting.

And the leading man, Trevor Howard, basically plays one note the entire film. The spotless, selfless crusader who will do anything for his cause is a great part, but not if you ignore a little something called "depth" and portray him as just a hero, everything just becomes bland. And bland is true of much of the film. It doesn't have the courage to tackle it's subject head on, and despite Howard's conviction, we are never shown enough of the elephants to know why exactly we are supposed to care so much. And despite Orson Welles's best efforts (yes, Orson Welles is in this movie. I know, I was surprised too), the media press storm that descends around Howard never really feels realistic.

Neither does his abrupt about face when he goes from petition waving pacifist to renegade eco-terrorist who hangs out in the desert a bit and then shoots people in the rear. And, in one of the strangest sequences Huston ever directed, he crashes a party full of evil, rich elephant hunters and then proceeds to pick a woman out of the crowd and spank her. Now, I know Huston was no feminist, but even this sequence is a bit too much. It's almost as if he presents it in a comical light, and though I know it was not meant to be taken this seriously, it is just an utterly bizarre way to go about exacting your "save-the-elephants" plan.

Now I know I must sound bitter, and truth be told, I am. I go into everyone one of these films (well, except maybe Phobia, but that one really had no chance anyways) with an optimistic attitude. This has helped me be both surprised and disappointed with many of the films I've reviewed. And it's not that I don't mind watching some terrible movies for the sake of this website (ahem, Phobia), but the fact that those are just movies. This one seemed to be destined for a higher purpose. It felt to me that it wanted to educate people, and that it failed makes me feel bitter.

Yes, I know, I'll get back on track. This movie likes to be preachy, but the way it goes about spreading it's word is so lackluster and underwhelming that it's gospel just gets tuned out. And that's too bad, because this film was right.

The Roots of Heaven,
1958,
Starring: Trevor Howard, Juliette Greco and Errol Flynn,
Directed by John Huston,
5/10 (D-).

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean

10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City

14. Victory
15. Wise Blood
16. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
17. Under The Volcano

18. The Unforgiven

19. Across the Pacific
20. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

21. The List of Adrian Messenger
22. Annie
23. Prizzi's Honor
24. The Barbarian and the Geisha
25. The MacKintosh Man
26. Sinful Davey
27. In This Our Life
28. We Were Strangers
29. The Bible: In The Beginning...

30. The Roots of Heaven
31. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

The Bible: In The Beginning... (1966)

 ...AND GOD SAID: "I HEREBY DECLARE THIS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST BORING FILMS IN EXISTENCE." AND SO IT WAS.

I cannot review this film without offending someone. You see, I am not a religious person, so in order to review a movie about the Bible, I really can't quite sympathize with those who, what's the word...associate closely towards the stories in the book. I don't want this review to be all about religion, so I guess I'll just address it here. I will try to focus on the aspects of the film and not on the source material, but if I have to I will voice my opinion on the issue.

That aside, this film kind of sucks. The main problem I had with the film is such, it's incredibly boring. Similarly to most other biblical epics, the pace is languid, the film wooden and the length overlong. This film tells four stories. First is Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve frolic in the garden of Eden for a while, but then Eve eats a magic fruit and god gets pretty mad because he told her not to. As a result, he banishes Eve and Adam from the garden and they form their own life. They have two sons, Cain and Abel. One day, Cain kills Abel and then god banishes him. Next is the story of Noah and his big ark where he takes a bunch of animals and rides out god's giant flood which destroys everything else on earth.

Noah builds a giant ark after god asks him to, because god wants to kill everyone else. Then Noah and his family take many animals and ride out the storm. This lasts for about forty minutes. Then it gets really boring. God sends Abraham into the desert with his family and stuff, and Abraham establishes a colony there. God speaks to Abraham and gives him advice, gets his wife pregnant, after god advised him to sleep with his maid instead, and then sends three angels to destroy the nearby city of Sodom. Then god gets Abraham to almost kill his son, but then he doesn't.

Okay. Where do I start? Perhaps a little history would be helpful. This film was started with Robert Bresson directing, but then Dino De Laurentiis, the producer, got fed up with Bresson's original and artistic style. He replaced him with John Huston, an atheist, and Huston took the job. For the money, of course. Huston also played Noah, and the narrator, and at points, god. I'll get to the acting in a minute, but first I just want to say one thing. This film may be among the few films I have ever had the violent urge to yell at the screen "get on with it!".

Anyways, the acting. The film has a lot of great actors, and a lot of unknowns. They all share one common thread, they suck. I don't want to seem harsh, but oh my, are they bad. Their dialogue is taken directly from the bible, and thus it feels wooden and forced coming out of their mouths. The only actor who seems at ease with it is George C. Scott, who goes completely method in the role of Abraham, in a way that seems incredibly fake. I'll do a list here: Michael Parks as Adam+ Ulla Bergryd as Eve= wooden, forced, completely naked for the first half of the film. Richard Harris as Cain= over the top, wooden, over dramatic. John Huston as Noah and God= good voice, bad acting, seems incredibly bored, says lines in a mocking and uninterested tone. George C. Scott as Abraham+ Ava Gardener as Sarah = one is too much, one is too little, one seems to young, one seems too old, one is not bad, the other isn't good at all. Peter O'Toole as The Three Angels = easily the best performance in the film, he is actually not that bad, but he does blow up a building by staring at it furiously. Final Verdict= pretty bad acting, most of the cast doesn't establish their characters in any way that makes us care for them at all.

Well, there you go. The acting is pretty bad. But one can put the majority of the blame of the screenplay. Christopher Fry is a well regarded playwright of the time, but you couldn't tell by this film. His dialogue is stodgy and old fashioned. He never develops the characters in anyway, and his view point is incredibly one sided. He just transfers the bible to the screen, there is no innovation here at all. He never put his own spin on it, or tried to make the material more viewable, he just wrote it, in a very boring way actually. This is the root of all the film's problems. If the screenplay had been just the tiniest bit innovative or creative, than perhaps the film might have been better than the final result.

The cinematography looks appropriately epic, but I never really got anything from this film in terms of scope. I just couldn't feel it, I couldn't feel that quality that makes or breaks this kind of film. That isn't due mainly to the cinematography, but it wasn't quite as creative as I had hoped. The film certainly looks good, but it does not feel "good". It just lacks that quality that makes this film a success. The film's failure does not have to do with the cinematography, but it certainly has to do with a few other major things.

The score, in all it's bombastic "epic" glory, is perhaps one of the most annoying parts of this film. It never gives the film an edge at all. It just plays out with little to no innovation, and all it's musicality in itself is also kind of boring. It just chugs along, never feeling quite that special or interesting at all. The sets are quite nice, they give the film a false sense of grandeur, but it certainly makes things look good to the eyes.

This brings me to another subject, and perhaps the most interesting one to me. Huston's direction, in itself I find it a really intriguing idea. An atheist directing a movie on the bible. Was Huston going to add something, or try to approach the subject matter in a way that expresses skepticism? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Huston did something worse here than giving the film his point of view, he gave the film his sense of boredom. It increasingly appears that Huston just took the job for the money, and like Annie, invested it with empty promises. The scope and spectacle is all here, but where is the heart of this film? To be honest, it doesn't have any. For all it's preaching and showcasing of god's magical abilities, this film ultimately has nothing to say, and even less to show.

It's just there.

The Bible: In The Beginning...
1966,
Starring: John Huston, George C. Scott and Peter O'Toole,
Directed by John Huston,
4.5/10 (F)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
25. In This Our Life
26. We Were Strangers
27. The Bible: In The Beginning...
27. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 

In This Our Life (1942)

NOTE TO VIEWERS: Cinema Stripped Down will now only show the sections "The Plot" and "The Film" when the author deems that these sections are relevant enough to be featured. If the film has a boring, or uninteresting history, THE FILM will not be featured.

WELL, THAT WAS MELODRAMATIC 

There we go. There's that word: melodrama. Hold on, let me say it again: melodrama. Has it sunk in again? Well I really can't stress it enough, this film is so melodramatic. I mean, I can handle melodrama as much as the next man, but this is just too much. This is pretty much the definition of melodrama, there's fighting, drama, cheating, romance, crying, insanity, murder, heat and a southern Gothic sense to it. And what makes In This Our Life bad? The fact that at every moment of plot you almost want to roll your eyes, and that some of the things that happen make you want to heckle the characters into oblivion.

What can the actors do? Well, pretty much nothing. Bette Davis and Olivia de Havilland were unfortunately bestowed with the ability to overact in increasingly melodramatic ways. Here, that point is proven. Katharine Hepburn once said of Meryl Streep, " Click, click, click," while referring to the wheels turning inside Streep's head. She meant to say that Streep never inhibits a character, just acts. Here, I believe that quote would be much better bestowed upon Bette Davis. Yep, it's that bad. Sometimes I can tolerate, and even enjoy Davis. But here, she goes way too far.

Her character is that of a woman who ditches her fiancee for her sister's husband and then wants her fiancee back again. She inhibits this shallow, over the top caricature with more over the top. She really overdoes it, and leaves the audience really despise her. Not the character, but Davis. When Davis "acts", she makes the audience really hate her for putting us through this shameful display of pure insanity. That sounds harsh, but I really can't express how I am feeling in any other way. I just got incredibly fed up while watching this film, and Davis was part of that. I'm not saving that Davis was bad, some would say she is amazing, but her style is just not for me, and this film is a great example of why.

Olivia De Havilland also got on my nerves. She just seems to play the same character in everything. She plays the fragile woman who can be counted on roughing it out when it counts. In Gone With The Wind she does this, in The Snake Pit she does this, and in In This Our Life she does this. What I find aggravating about the whole thing is that she recognizes this, but she keeps doing it! Was she typecasted in this role, or was this just who she was? I know for sure that she was not such a saint, so perhaps this is all she was thought to do. I am sure she had great versatility, but here it just isn't recognized.

In the supporting roles,George Brent and Dennis Morgan play two men who were in love with both lead actresses at one point. While both their portrayals were soapy and over the top, I did really reel that Morgan was the best part of the film. His portrayal actually felt more than slightly realistic.  He offered up a believable performance in a very unbelievable film. He seems like a desperate soul, a lost person who can't quite find his place, and also misses his chance when he does strike something goal. Though he has limited screen time, I would have most definitely rather seen more of him than anyone else.

The film also has a subplot involving racism (Slight Spoilers Follow). Bette Davis hits and kills a little girl with her car and then blames it on the black family friend. He goes to jail, and the people are very prejudiced against him, and only our heroic team of Olivia De Havilland and George Brent can save him from Davis's careless accusation. This part of the film is actually handled quite well, and Huston treats the subject with grace, something I've never called him before. Indeed, it's heavy handed, but compared to the rest of the film it's To Kill a Mockingbird.

Although the actors really make this a complete and utter melodrama, they wouldn't be able to do anything without a truly terrible script. And boy do they get one. Every plot point is handled clumsily, and it makes the whole thing feel like a huge soap opera. This film is so over the top that it's one technicolour camera away from Sirkian heights of melodrama. Indeed, the script gives the film some pure and utter soap. It's not even funny, it's barely enjoyable (yes, I can easily see how one can enjoy a soap opera). A lot of this is mainly due to the script.
And oh god the score! It is so anonymous and uninteresting. It is almost as if someone held a jam session with a string quartet used to playing on "As The World Turns". It could have been worse, but if there is one thing I've picked up from Huston, it's that almost none of his films feature a good score. The cinematography is also quite anonymous. Unlike Huston's previous effort, which was full of great shots, In This Our Life is content with a couple close ups, but mainly just relies on a master for the whole film. It is the very definition of substance over style.

And now when I get to talk about Huston. In his sophomore film, John Huston turns 180 degrees away from his first film: "The Maltese Falcon". That film was interesting, and created a mood unlike anything seen here. Oh sure, this film has a mood, the kind of mood you expect to see on daytime television. The only two main reasons Huston made it was to help his friend Howard Koch, as this was one of his first screenplays (and then he wrote Casablanca), and to keep close to Olivia de Havilland, whom he was entangled with romantically at the time, and whom he later beat up Errol Flynn on the behalf of.

Overall, what is this film? Well, to tell you the truth, it's pretty bad. It has it's moments, and for that it isn't terrible. But still, it's pretty bad.

In This Our Life,
1942,
Starring: Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland and Dennis Morgan
Directed by John Huston
5.5/10 (D+)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
25. In This Our Life
26. We Were Strangers
27. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 

Victory (1981)

THE FILM:
John Huston was nearing the end of his life. Having just finished the under seen, horrifically bad Phobia, he set his eyes on a project that looked incredibly commercial. It was the story of an allied soccer team who played Germany to escape. Having originally been written as a drama, the project Huston overtook was fluff. However, it was commercial fluff, and Huston was short on cash. The film was to star Michael Caine, Sylvester Stallone and Brazilian soccer player Pele.

As soon as filming began, it became clear that Stallone had the biggest ego on set, through his insistence that he score a goal, despite being the goalkeeper (that's impossible in soccer). The film went on to become a modest hit, grossing close to $11 million, and it soon disappeared. Today the film is mostly found in bargain bins and double disks with similar films. It has a 6.4 on IMDb, and a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes. It is essentially a product of it's time, but that doesn't mean it is without perks.

THE PLOT:
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...

THE CRITICISM:
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+)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. We Were Strangers
25. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror  

The MacKintosh Man (1973)

THE FILM:
Paul Newman and John Huston had a blast filming The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean. They had so much fun on that film, that they instantly tried to duplicate it. The result was not only unsatisfying, it also marked the end of Huston and Newman's short partnership. The film was The MacKintosh Man, and it was a middling failure. It failed to ignite the box office on fire, and it has been virtually forgotten. It's not even Huston's most famous spy thriller. 

There really is not much to discuss about the film. It was the last Huston made in his beloved Ireland, just before he left. It boasted Dominique Sanda's first English turn, and a villain portrayed by the terrific James Mason. It also contained a screenplay by Walter Hill, who would go on to do much better things. It was Huston's last film in his self proclaimed dry period (which lasted from Sinful Davey to this film). It was by all counts, a failure.

THE PLOT:
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?

THE CRITICISM: 
This is the film's tagline: "Only MacKintosh can save them now. And MacKintosh is dead!". Wow...when I first heard that tagline 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 honour 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 dialogue, 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-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Red Badge Of Courage
7. The Night Of The Iguana
8. Key Largo
9. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
10. The Misfits
11. Beat the Devil
12. Reflections in a Golden Eye
13. Fat City
14. Wise Blood
15. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
16. The Unforgiven
17. Under The Volcano
18. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
19. The List of Adrian Messenger
20. Annie
21. Prizzi's Honor
22. The MacKintosh Man
23. 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