Sinful Davey (1969)

THE FILM:
Sinful Davey would mark the beginning of John Huston's so called "dry" period. This period, which in Huston's eyes, would last from 1969 to 1975. He made many of his worst films during this area, and he blamed his decline on this film. It was basically forgotten after release, spending only a week in theaters. I had a devil of a time locating this film, eventually finding it on a limited release bare bones edition by MGM. The package it came in is so amateurish, I though in the beginning I was being duped. Anyways, there is a reason this film is little known. It was released six years after Tom Jones, and was generally thought to be a "rip-off" of that film.

The film cast a young John Hurt, ten years before he would break through in Alien and The Elephant Man, as the lead. The cast was filled out by a couple promising young actors and actresses, and Robert Morley, whom Huston had worked with on Beat the Devil and The African Queen. Huston had originally wanted to cast his daughter Anjelica in the lead female role. The producer disagreed, as Anjelica had only appeared in Huston's A Walk With Love and Death up until this point. Huston eventually agreed on Pamela Franklin, but this caused a rift between producer and director, a rift that widened even more when Huston refused to re-edit the film.

Today, where does this film stand? It has a 5.8 on IMDb (that's bad), and 33% on Rotten Tomatoes (also quite bad), and it is barely remembered, if at all. It is one of Huston's most forgotten films, and there's a reason for that....

THE PLOT:
Davey Haggart is a drummer in the British Army. One day, he deserts the army, and begins a life of crime. Davey is inspired by a man who may or may not be his father, an infamous criminal. Davey sets out to up his father, by committing the exact same crimes as him. He does this by dressing up as a Duke, and integrating himself into high society, while conspiring with a fellow pickpocket to rob the same Duke his father robbed. A small wrench is thrown into Davey's plans when Annie, a girl whom he befriended in his youth, is dead set on reforming Davey.

Annie also harbors a great love for Davey, an affection he does not return to her. While Davey seems to end up in bed with every girl he meets, he is still completely ignorant to Annie's love. Can Annie reform Davey before he suffers the same fate as his father, death by hanging?

THE CRITICISM:
....It's not very interesting. It's just an average film, through and through. There's nothing really special going on here, just your typical adventure film. The performances, direction, script, all are perfectly average, and they never excel beyond expectations. This isn't a bad film, but it isn't very good either. As Huston stated himself, it feels very dry. Some parts are exciting, and entertaining enough to light a smile on your face, but nothing here indicates any kind of genius whatsoever.

The best part is easily John Hurt. Hurt is a great actor, and he proves here that he charisma to spare, and was a great lead actor all the same. It's the kind of part that requires little acting, but heaps of presence. Despite being virtually unknown at the time, Hurt acts like he owns the place, and as a result totally owns the character of Davey Haggart. With a better script and director, this could have easily been awesome. However, we do get a glimpse of what could have been through Hurt. Despite the film itself, he excels. I could have easily watched just Hurt going around the country robbing people. That would have been a movie.

The rest of the cast is uniformly blah. We never really care for many of the characters, and the film's light tone makes it hard for us to really feel any stakes towards Davey's fate. Pamela Franklin is the wide-eyed do-gooder who tries to save Davey's soul. Every time she's on screen I checked my watch. She's just not that interesting, and her character's mission doesn't make much sense. I watched the film an hour ago, and she's already began to fade from memory. The rest of the cast, Robert Morley, Nigel Davenport and Ronald Fraser make little impact on the viewer and are easily forgotten, as is most of the movie.

I can't really offer any suggestions as to what would have made the casting better, but I can definitely describe what could have been done to improve the script. Make. It. Darker. I understand why the film wanted to be "light", it appeals to more people. But there is just no sense of danger here at all. Davey's escapades are very entertaining, but with a little malice, or stakes, they could have been much more interesting than what they are. The film feels very "cute", it never really wants to be more than it is. It is in that respect, one of Huston's most sincere films. However, sincerity doesn't equal a good film this time around.

The cinematography is certainly very pretty to look at, although the transfer to home video is very poor, rendering everything looking mute and dull. The film's locations are very nice indeed, and some of the scenes of John Hurt robbing people at a ball are very inventive and help to further the comedy of the situation. the score is rather unremarkable but it, along with the opening song are still quite effective within the movie itself, often helping with the light tone.

The direction is quite typical of Huston, it feels relaxed as if he is just letting the story take place at it's own pace.  It does help that the film has a relatively short running time. At 95 minutes, it certainly does not feel overlong. It could have benefited from a director who was more in tune with what he wanted from the film, but I can't bash Huston's direction completely, as there is nothing that really stands out as awful. There is also, however, nothing that stands out as good either, quite indicative of the film itself.

Overall, is Sinful Davey bad? No. Is it good? Not really. What it is is an hour and a half of John Hurt running around Scotland. You could do worse.

Sinful Davey,
1969,
Starring: John Hurt, Pamela Franklin and Robert Morley,
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. Victory
20. The List of Adrian Messenger
21. Annie
22. Prizzi's Honor
23. The MacKintosh Man
24. Sinful Davey
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  

The List Of Adrian Messenger (1963)

THE FILM:
Having just completed the exhausting film that was to become Freud, John Huston set his sights on a new project, The List of Adrian Messenger. The script had been written by Tony Veiller, whom Huston had worked with before. It was a little thriller, set mostly on an estate in Ireland, a favourite place of Huston's. It also involved a climax taking place during a foxhunt, one of Huston's favourite activities. It also seemed like the kind of slight thriller he could make quickly and with little expense.

He cast the American George C. Scott as the British Anthony Gethryn, the film's lead. As a marketing gimmick, he cast many famous actors in cameo, under heavy disguise. At the end of the film, each actor reveals themselves. The film was made quickly, and cheaply. It didn't set the box office on fire, however, and by then Huston was in Mexico shooting The Night Of The Iguana. Today, the film is barely remembered, and when it is, it is often the central gimmick remembered, not the film itself.

THE PLOT:
Anthony Gethryn is enjoying a weekend in the country with an old flame, Lady Jocelyn, and her cousin Adrian Messenger. Then, after a foxhunt, 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?

THE CRITICISM:
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 foxhunting 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-)

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. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror

Moby Dick (1956)

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 dialogue 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+)

RANKED:
1. The Dead
2. Moby Dick
3. The Asphalt Jungle
4. The Misfits
5. Wise Blood
6. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
7. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison

The Dead (1987)

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 dialogue 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. They feel like people you know, from Freddie the pathetic drunk, to Greta, the "perfect" woman. They don't beg any stretch of the imagination. The whole party reminds you of past experiences and perhaps with a hint of nostalgia. Then I bring you to the direction. In his last film, John Huston managed to create a truly awesome film experience. It doesn't have any explosions, or detectives, greedy prospectors or riverboat captains. It has real people.

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 is perfect. 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. I'll end this review by quoting from the last narration, a fitting end to a terrific film.

"Like everything around me, this solid world itself which they reared and lived in, is dwindling and dissolving. Snow is falling. Falling in that lonely churchyard where Michael Furey lies buried. Falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living, and the dead."

The Dead,
1987,
Starring: Anjelica Huston, Donal McCann and Donal Donelly
Directed by John Huston,
10/10 (A+)

RANKED:
1. The Dead
2. The Asphalt Jungle
3. The Misfits
4. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
5. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison