Moulin Rouge (1952)

"WELL, GEE, I WONDER WHAT WE CAN DO TO JOSE FERRER NEXT?"

This is a quasi-musical effort, featuring everything that defines those classic pictures, from lavish costumes to other-worldly lighting, directed by a man who's name is about as far away from the genre as you could hope for. Indeed John Huston, the man behind such pretty and frothy films such as... Annie and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, may not have been my first guess as the helmer of a film like Moulin Rouge, but to my surprise, the result isn't half bad. Of course, there are pacing issues, the montages of Toulouse-Lautrec's run on for far too long and Zsa Zsa Gabor's (dubbed) singing voice is incredibly harsh and grating.

But, I am happy to say, those few things comprise the bulk of my criticisms. So, let's move on to the good stuff. The best part of Moulin Rouge is the art that went into it. Every costume is opulently decorated, while all the sets nearly pop out of their walls with exuberance. The film uses the streets of Paris and the carefully decorated sets of Shepperton Studios to create an atmosphere that embodies the period perfectly (though with almost more reverence for the era than I have seen in quite a while). Indeed, from Ferrer's apartment to the dancing halls of the Moulin Rouge itself, every set seems carefully thought out and planned to the highest degree.

This reverence for decoration is perfectly translated towards the clothing aspect of the film's characters. From the creative dressing shirts which accompany the different male characters, to the sumptuous dresses which seemingly keep getting better and better the further into the film progresses. I normally pay no mind to this aspect of filmmaking, but the sheer quality on display here struck me more than it ever has. For a film revolving around the life of an artist, to see him surrounded by such art (albeit of a different medium) is quite the fitting tribute.

But, ah, I'm getting ahead of myself, aren't I? I haven't told you the plot yet! Okay, here we go. Moulin Rouge is the story of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, a painter in Paris around the turn of the century. As a child, he was poised to inherit his father's noble title, until an accident led to him breaking both of his legs. Misfortune follows him yet further as his legs are unable to grow, and he is left disabled. This disability has left him seemingly shunned from romance, until he meets tempestuous Marie Charlet, an impoverished woman of the streets. He protects her from the police, and then falls in love with her. Despite her seemingly loving him back, her destructive nature and alcoholism drives them apart. Will they find a way to stay together, or will Henri follow a path of addiction and heartbreak?

The standout performance in the film belongs to Colette Marchand as Charlet. Her cooing voice and mannerisms make her instantly endearing, and gives the viewer quite the whiplash when she goes on one of her mood swings. Despite some over the top moments later on in the film, her first few scenes are a masterclass in acting, and they serve to bring the (up until that point) frigid Jose Ferrer out of his shell. Ferrer is, unfortunately, bland for much of Moulin Rouge, only really coming to life in various pockets of the film. Zsa Zsa Gabor is a touch annoying, though her arc does have undeniable merit, and Suzanne Flon gives life to a mostly thankless supporting role.

Now, I'd like to take a second to talk about lighting. Every now and again, I'll be watching a film, and suddenly a streak of light, perhaps a slightly different shade of green, will flash across the screen and leave me breathless. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I really begin to get into the film, at a much higher level. It is a way of having atmosphere just roll off the screen and into my eyes, and a way for me to appreciate what I'm seeing more than I could have ever possibly otherwise. That happened to me during Moulin Rouge, and that subtle shift in lighting got me more intrigued by the film than anything else could have. I know, it's strange.

Moving on then, the cinematography is the kind of exuberant Technicolor that you really don't see anymore. It renders every frame with a kind of dreamlike (almost as if the images were coloured with pastels) air, and it makes it much easier to accept the "studio" touches. The score has fits of harmony, but is for the most part discordant with what is happening on the screen. The special effects employed to make Jose Ferrer much shorter than he is in real life are a tad rough, but they accomplish what they are tasked to.

But, and this was to both my surprise and my delight, the ending is perhaps the best part of the film. Without giving anything away, I must say that I was expecting to see a typical "studio ending" where everyone lives happily ever after, and so I was dumbstruck by how casually and slyly Huston slid in the actual ending. It's a knockout, in terms of impact and guts, as I'm sure at least a few producers grew red with anger when they saw the final print. It's also the perfect ending for the material, and I must applaud whoever wrote it for sticking with it.

And so, despite my initial reservations, Huston's direction is quite nice here. It accomplishes what must be done with enough style to keep you interested. You can really tell he was enjoying breaking his mold by making this film, and it shows. It's not perhaps his best film, but it's a very solid entry into an increasingly solid filmography.

Moulin Rouge,
1952,
Starring: Jose Ferrer, Colette Marchand and Suzanne Flon,
Directed by John Huston,
6.5/10 (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 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. Moulin Rouge
16. Wise Blood
17. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
18. Under The Volcano

19. The Unforgiven

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

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

30. The Bible: In The Beginning...

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

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 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

Beat the Devil (1953)

THE FILM:
In 1953, Humphrey Bogart was looking to make a film out of the novel Beat the Devil. His wished for his longtime collaborator John Huston to direct the film, but Huston was involved in post-production on his film Moulin Rouge, and was committed to making another film with Katherine Hepburn. Bogart was then forced to go with two-time collaborator Nicolas Ray. However, before the cameras could start rolling, Huston manged to fit the film into his schedule.

The shoot was eventful, shooting on the Amalfi coast in Italy. The script was constantly being rewritten, often the night before shooting, by Huston and Truman Capote. Bogart was involved in a nasty car accident, and his speech ability was made limited. In post-production in England, Huston hired a skilled mimic to dub some of Bogart's lines. His name was Peter Sellers. Beat the Devil would be the last film Huston and Bogart would make together, as Bogart died in 1957.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
10. Prizzi's Honor



 

Prizzi's Honor (1985)

THE FILM:

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I guess that's better than nothing.

Prizzi's Honor,
1985,
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Kathleen Turner and Anjelica Huston.
Directed by John Huston,
6/10 (C-)

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
8. Prizzi's Honor

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)

THE FILM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison,
1957,
Starring: Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr
Directed by John Huston
6.5/10 (B-)



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