John Huston | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘John Huston’

What Can Ya Buy That You Can’t Already Afford?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 11 Academy Award Nominations, A Few Good Men, Best Original Screenplay (Robert Towne), Best Original Screenplay Oscar, Burt Young, Chinatown (1974) — movie review, Diane Ladd, Evelyn Mulwray, Faye Dunaway, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Hollis Mulwray, Ida Sessions, J.J. “Jake” Gittes, Jack Nicholson, Jerry Goldsmith, John A. Alonzo, John Huston, Los Angeles, Lt. Escobar, Movie Reviews, Noah Cross, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Perry Lopez, Reviews, Roman Polanski on January 2, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Chinatown” (1974) — movie review
Today’s review is for the neo-noir mystery “Chinatown” (1974), directed by Roman Polanski and starring Jack Nicholson as J.J. “Jake” Gittes — a private investigator whose charm masks a growing vulnerability; Faye Dunaway as Evelyn Mulwray — a woman of elegance and tragic secrets; and John Huston as Noah Cross — a patriarch whose corruption and menace embody the film’s moral decay. Supporting roles include Perry Lopez as Lt. Escobar, Burt Young as Curly, and Diane Ladd as Ida Sessions. With cinematography by John A. Alonzo and music by Jerry Goldsmith, this film is often cited as one of the greatest American movies ever made.

Background: This film was recommended to me by several friends as a GREAT film in the “noir” genre and influential in their appreciation of “cinema”. “Noir” means: dark, cynical, and otherwise depressing. (LoL) NOT at all my kind of movie!! But I committed to watching it anyway… I am a bit concerned my review may be tinted by the fact I have never been a “fan” of Nicholson. I have liked him in specific films (“A Few Good Men” and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest“), but I am generally unimpressed by his acting. Released in June 1974, “Chinatown” was a critical and commercial success, earning eleven(11) Academy Award nominations and winning the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Robert Towne). It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Polanski), Best Actor (Nicholson), and Best Actress (Dunaway). The film grossed over $29 million against a $6 million budget. Historically, it is considered a defining work of the “New Hollywood” era, revitalizing the noir genre with a modern, morally ambiguous edge.

Plot: Jake Gittes, a Los Angeles private eye specializing in marital cases, is hired to investigate an apparent affair involving water commissioner Hollis Mulwray. What begins as routine surveillance spirals into a labyrinth of deceit tied to water rights, political corruption, and family secrets. As Jake uncovers layers of conspiracy, he becomes entangled with Evelyn Mulwray, whose guarded past conceals devastating truths. The climax — set in Chinatown — delivers one of cinema’s most haunting endings, where justice collapses under the weight of power and corruption.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes (in context); brilliant; atmospheric and meticulous; few; not really.

Any Good? Yes. “Chinatown” is a masterclass in noir film-making. Its blend of noir mystery, political critique, and personal tragedy makes it both timeless and devastating (well, emotionally tiring, anyway).

Acting: Jack Nicholson delivers one of his finest performances, balancing bravado with vulnerability as Jake. Faye Dunaway’s Evelyn is enigmatic, tragic, and unforgettable — her performance anchors the film’s emotional core. John Huston’s Noah Cross is chilling, embodying corruption with unsettling calm. The ensemble cast adds texture, but the triad of Nicholson, Dunaway, and Huston defines the film’s power.

Filming / FX: John A. Alonzo’s cinematography captures 1930s Los Angeles in sunlit hues that mask moral darkness. Roman Polanski’s direction is taut, emphasizing atmosphere and tension. Jerry Goldsmith’s score, composed in just ten days, is haunting and elevates the film’s mood. The production design evokes period authenticity, while the visual style redefines noir by contrasting brightness with corruption.

Problems: A few – minor and major. Some viewers (me for example) may find the pacing slow, and the bleak ending emotionally unsatisfying. Yet these elements are considered integral to the film’s impact (societal corruption and the wealthy avoiding justice). The narrative’s complexity demands attention, and (/ but) its rewards are (supposedly) enduring. My biggest “problem” was Dunaway’s character is shot from behind almost a block away and the exit wound is her (shown) eye socket. While I don’t doubt the wound “would” have been fatal, I doubt any police officer would be shooting (multiple times) at someone over 20 yards away in a crowded city at a moving target – and then be “lucky” enough to achieve a fatal head-shot. (The implausibility was compounded by an unsatisfying ending with no justice.)

Did I Enjoy the Film? No, not really. I guess, like any classic book which you can read and recognize as a classic, but still not “like” it, the same is true for films. …And this is true – for me – for this film. “Chinatown” is not just a simple mystery; it is a meditation on power, corruption, and human frailty – which lacks a resolving justice. Its unsatisfying conclusion lingers long after viewing, making it one of the most unforgettable (and least palatable) cinematic experiences I’ve had after watching an otherwise brilliant movie.

Final Recommendation: Highly Recommended (even though I personally don’t like the film). “Chinatown” is essential viewing — a landmark of American cinema, a defining work of the New Hollywood era, and widely considered one of the greatest films ever made – particularly in its genre. With its Oscar-winning screenplay, iconic performances, and historic significance, it is (remains) a cultural touchstone. Watch it for Nicholson’s Jake, Dunaway’s Evelyn, Huston’s chilling Noah Cross. You, too, may find it “great cinematic art“. That seems to be the “professional” reviewer’s consensus, anyway – just not mine.

.
Click here (2 January) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Kings, Crowns, And Crumbling Dreams In Distant Lands

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alexander the Great, Billy Fish, Christopher Plummer, Daniel Dravot, General Comments, India, John Huston, Kafiristan, Maurice Jarre, Michael Caine, Movie Reviews, Oswald Morris, Peachy Carnehan, Red Coats, Reviews, Rudyard Kipling, Saeed Jaffrey, Sean Connery, Shakira Caine, Strong Movie Recommendation, The Man Who Would Be King (1975) — movie review, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre on December 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Man Who Would Be King” (1975) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping adventure epic “The Man Who Would Be King” (1975), directed by John Huston and adapted from Rudyard Kipling’s novella. The film stars Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot (a bold ex-soldier whose ambition drives him to claim divinity), Michael Caine as Peachy Carnehan (his loyal comrade, torn between friendship and conscience), Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling (the journalist who frames the tale and bears witness to its tragic arc), and Saeed Jaffrey as Billy Fish (the interpreter who bridges cultures and loyalties). Notably, Shakira Caine (Michael Caine’s wife) appears as Roxanne, the pivotal figure whose presence tests the illusion of Dravot’s godhood and catalyzes the story’s collapse.

Background: I have seen this movie multiple times and each time it’s been associated in my mind with “Zulu” – probably because they both star Michael Caine, but also because of the British “Red Coats” worn in both. LoL. By coincidence, I bought both DVDs at roughly the same time – back around the mid-2000s – and I have tended to watch them in pairs ever since. …Probably every five years or so. Released in 1975, the film was a long-cherished Huston project and stands as a late-career triumph. It earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Art Direction, cementing its standing within the adventure canon and drawing comparisons to Huston’s earlier moral fable, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (review here).

Plot: Set in the late 19th century, Kipling encounters a ragged Peachy Carnehan, who recounts his journey with Dravot. Restless in colonial India, the two ex-soldiers set out to conquer Kafiristan, a land untouched by outsiders since Alexander the Great. Through cunning, courage, and audacity, they convince (conive) the locals of Dravot’s divinity and rule as kings — until human frailty intrudes. Dravot’s desire to marry, the disastrous exposure of his human mortality, and the erosion of faith lead to betrayal and death, leaving Peachy as the lone survivor and witness to their hubris.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; majestic and immersive; a few; absolutely.

Any good? Yes. “The Man Who Would Be King” is classic adventure — thrilling and cautionary. It balances spectacle with moral weight, reflecting on ambition, colonialism, and friendship without losing momentum or humanity.

Acting: Connery delivers one of his finest performances, embodying Dravot’s charisma and tragic pride. Caine grounds the film with wit, warmth, and loyalty; their chemistry is electric, their banter sharp, and their parting devastating. Plummer lends a quiet gravitas as Kipling, while Jaffrey adds texture and cultural fluency. Shakira Caine’s Roxanne is crucial — both a test and a turning point — humanizing the stakes and exposing the fragility of manufactured divinity.

Filming / FX: Oswald Morris’s photography renders mountain passes, temples, and deserts with muscular clarity and mythic sweep; Maurice Jarre’s score amplifies the grandeur without attempting to dominate it. The production design builds a tactile world of stone and ceremony, and the practical stunts — especially the bridge sequence — remain gripping and credible even by modern standards.

Problems: Minor. The pacing can linger, and the portrayal of native characters reflects the colonial vantage point of its source. The imperialist framing feels dated (racist), yet it’s accurate and therefore inseparable from the tale’s critique of hubris and the ethics of conquest. Unrelated to any readers of this review, the price of this film has not come down to my “price point” yet, so I watched it on DVD. The interesting point is the film was in an older format and I had to flip the DVD over mid-film for part two. LoL!!

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s exhilarating and sobering. Huston delivers spectacle with consequence; Connery and Caine make the myth intimate; and the final image stays with you long after the credits.

Final recommendation: Strong recommendation. “The Man Who Would Be King” endures as a landmark of adventure cinema — majestic, morally resonant, and historically significant for its awards recognition and Huston’s masterful late-career craftsmanship. If you’re drawn to tales of empire, brotherhood, and downfall, this is essential viewing.

.
Click here (28 December) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Stinkin’ Badges

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Academy Awards, Best Director, Best Picture Nomination, Best Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Bob Curtin, Bruce Bennett, Fred C. Dobbs, General Comments, Hamlet, Highly Recommended Movie, Humphrey Bogart, John Huston, Mexico, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Sierra Madre Mountains, Tampico, TCM, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) — movie review, Tim Holt, Turner Classic Movies, Walter Huston on October 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948) — movie review
Today’s review is for the classic moral parable “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948), starring Humphrey Bogart as Fred C. Dobbs (a down-and-out American drifter in Mexico, increasingly consumed by paranoia), Walter Huston as Howard (a grizzled prospector with wisdom, energy, and a toothless grin), Tim Holt as Bob Curtin (a fellow drifter, younger and steadier than Dobbs), and Bruce Bennett as Cody (a late-arriving outsider whose fate tests the trio’s fragile alliance). Directed by John Huston (who also wrote the screenplay and won two Oscars for it), the film explores the corrosive effects of greed, isolation, and mistrust against the backdrop of Mexico’s rugged Sierra Madre mountains. It’s a story that begins with hope and ends with dust — both literal and metaphorical.

Background: This was my second viewing of the film in its entirety — the first was decades ago, likely on a Turner Classic Movies binge. I didn’t remember Bogart’s descent into madness, but I did remember the famous “badges” line, but not the full arc or emotional weight. This time, I came to it with fresh eyes and a deeper appreciation for character-driven storytelling. I’ve seen Bogart in many roles — noir, romance, war — but this one feels like a departure: not suave, not noble, just unraveling. Walter Huston, the director’s father, won Best Supporting Actor for his performance, and the film itself won three Academy Awards: Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor. It was also nominated for Best Picture but lost to “Hamlet.”

Plot: Dobbs and Curtin are American drifters in 1920s Tampico, scraping by on odd jobs and handouts. After a brief stint in construction, they meet Howard, an old prospector who regales them with tales of gold and the madness it breeds. The three pool their meager resources and head into the Sierra Madre mountains to search for a hidden vein. They find it — and for a while, things go well. But as the gold piles up, so does suspicion. Dobbs begins to unravel, convinced the others are plotting against him. When Cody arrives, seeking to join the group, the trio faces a moral test. Violence follows. The film builds toward betrayal, murder, and a final twist that renders all their toil meaningless. The gold — painstakingly mined and guarded — is lost to the wind. Howard survives, Curtin limps away, and Dobbs… well, Dobbs doesn’t.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; rugged and immersive; a few dated moments; yes — deeply thoughtful.

Any Good? Yes. “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a morality tale disguised as an slow developing adventure film. It’s not about gold — it’s about what gold does to men. The pacing is deliberate, the tension slow-burning, and the payoff philosophical rather than action-driven. It’s a film you remember — not because of spectacle, but because of character and consequence.

Acting: Bogart is riveting. His Dobbs starts as a relatable “everyman” and ends as a twitching, delusional wreck. It’s one of his most unglamorous roles — and one of his best. Walter Huston is phenomenal — his Howard is earthy, eccentric, and oddly joyful. He dances, cackles, and delivers wisdom without preaching. Tim Holt’s Curtin is the moral center — steady, loyal, and increasingly horrified by Dobbs’s descent. Bruce Bennett’s Cody is likable and tragic. The ensemble works because each character feels distinct, flawed, and human.

Filming / FX: The cinematography is rugged and immersive. Shot partially on location in Mexico — rare for the time — the film captures dust, heat, and isolation with tactile realism. The Sierra Madre feels vast and unforgiving. There are no flashy effects, but the visual storytelling is strong: shadows, sweat, and the slow erosion of trust.

Problems: Minor. The pacing in the first act may feel slow to modern viewers. Some of the dialogue is dated, and the portrayal of Mexican villagers (and bandits) leans into 1940s stereotypes (if you ignore the last ten years of Trump’s racism). The violence is mostly implied, which works thematically but may feel muted. Still, these are minor quibbles in a film that’s more interested in psychology than special effects. LoL.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes — and I respected it. “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a film that doesn’t flinch from showing humanity. It shows how easily trust erodes, how greed isolates, and how nature — indifferent and vast — swallows human ambition. It’s by no means a feel-good movie, but it’s a feel-something about human nature movie. And that’s a treasure rarer than gold.

Final Recommendation: Highly Recommended. “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a classic for a reason. If you’re interested in character studies, moral dilemmas, or the slow unraveling of human decency, this film delivers. It’s rated PG for thematic content and mild violence, but its real intensity is psychological. Watch it not for the true price of treasure and for the toll taken seeking it. And remember: “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.”

.
Click here (29 October) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

It Feels Like A Western Shakespeare

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Arizona, Blazing Saddles, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, Captain Joseph Blocker, Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk, Christian Bale, Clint Eastwood, Comanche, Dances With Wolves, General Comments, Highly Recommended Movie, Hostiles -- movie review, John Huston, Master Sergeant Thomas Metz, Montana, Movie Reviews, New Mexico, Reviews, Rory Cochrane, Rosalee Quaid, Rosamund Pike, Silverado, Spaghetti Westerns, The Lone Ranger, The Outlaw Josey Wales, U.S. Cavalry, Unforgiven, Wes Studi, Wyoming on July 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Hostiles” (2017) — movie review
Today’s review is for the western / drama film: “Hostiles” (2017) starring Christian Bale as Captain Joseph Blocker, Rosamund Pike as Rosalee Quaid (a traumatized widow), Wes Studi as Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk, and Rory Cochrane as Master Sergeant Thomas Metz (Blocker’s longtime friend and fellow soldier).

Background: I like Bale, Pike and Studi, so I thought I’d pick up this film to check it out. That was about 2021 (COVID era), and then I just never quite got around to watching it. It’s been popping up on my “get around to watching list” lately, so now I have. This is my first viewing of the film. Like most kids of the late 50s and early 60s, I played a lot of cowboys and Indians. I also loved viewing the movies and TV shows. Then, around 1971, I read “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee” and my whole perception of “America” changed… Yes, I watched the “Spaghetti Westerns” / Clint Eastwood trilogy, but the shine of the “American Western” was gone. It REALLY died with the satire of “Blazing Saddles” and it’s taken me a slow feed of Westerns over the decades to get my interest back in appreciating the genre as an “art form”.

This is a movie, set in 1892, about a battle-hardened U.S. Cavalry officer (Bale / Blocker) who is reluctantly carrying out orders to escort a dying Native American Chief (Studi / Chief Yellow Hawk) and his family back to their homeland in Montana. Blocker, who has spent most of the last two decades fighting and killing Native Americans, refuses the assignment, but under threat of court martial and loss of his pension (he is set to retire), he accepts the detail. The film emphasizes Blocker is a man of duty and he has killed because it was his job and not because he “enjoyed” it. This is why he initially hates the Chief. He feels the Chief and his tribes enjoyed butchering in the name of war. In the end, Blocker realizes many of his side (and under his command) misinterpreted his actions and they (as he imagined the Indians) DID enjoy the slaughter.

The journey begins and along the way, Blocker’s party encounters Rosalee Quaid, whose entire family was slaughtered by Comanche raiders. Blocker buries her dead and then gently prods her to join the group. Quaid wants to die and be buried along side her family, but in the end chooses life. As the group faces ambushes, internal tension, and moral conflicts, Blocker begins to see the humanity in the Chief (and his family) he once called enemy. Likewise, Quaid finds that not all Indians are the same and some can be loving families, too.

So, is this movie any good? How is the acting? The action scenes? Is it entertaining? Did I like it? In short: yes; very good; okay to good; so-so; and, yes – very much!

Any good? Well, it didn’t win any Oscars and it didn’t even get nominated for any, but I felt it was every bit as good as “Dances With Wolves“. The actual filming is beautiful and the “roughness” of the journey is emphasized by the caked on dirt and muck the characters acquire on their face and clothes. This is a “subtle” realism I (perhaps strangely) enjoy seeing in film.

How’s the acting? Very good! Again, all the characters – but Bale’s in particular – are “deep”. Even the “bad-guys” look and act the part. Possibly the sole exception are the Comanche warriors who are completely lacking in background development. They’re simply presented as butchers / savages.

How’s the action? Within reason, it’s actually pretty good, too. The gun fights are “mostly” realistic for effects and for tactics. And, where they are not realistic, they are “mostly” at least possible. I could quibble, but it’s “just” a movie…

Is it entertaining? Yes, but not in the traditional sense (except at the VERY end). This is “Unforgiven” or “The Outlaw Josey Wales“, not “The Lone Ranger” or “Silverado“. Although there is quite a bit of graphic violence, this movie is more about the character’s changing than the typical Western shoot-em up. So, introspection over gunfights. It needs to be added that if you substitute the towers of John Huston’s Arizona / New Mexico for the plains of Montana and Wyoming, you have an idea of the visual beauty of the vistas / landscapes captured in this film.

And did I like it? Yes, very much. Bale continues to impress me with his performances. All, I can say is I’ve yet to see him in a comedy or funny role, so “intense” may be all he can do. I also continue to like Pike’s acting even if it seemed a little “uneven” in this film. The film says the group has enough provisions for a month, but it’s not at all clear how long the trip actually takes – it felt a LOT longer. Pike’s character just seemed to me to get over her family’s slaughter a little to quickly. Okay, a LOT too quickly. But I still liked her performance. The supporting cast (especially Studi and Cochrane) add depth and a surprising amount of realism and profound dignity.

Is the ending realistic? Who cares! It’s what I was rooting for and I’m happy it was in the film. (Now, you’ll have to see the film to find out what I’m talking about… LoL)

Problems? I said I wasn’t going to quibble, so just one… NO experienced military person is going to shoot / injure someone at 10 yards, shoot them again at twenty (-ish) yards and then put down his firearm to get a knife to walk out to the injured guy “just” to gut him. He might still have his firearm, or if you’re sure you saw him drop it, he might have a second one which he pulled out while you turned your back to get the knife. You approach with the knife (your firearm still in hand and ready to shoot). IF both hands are empty, then you can holster your firearm and “gut” him. There were a couple of other “details” like this, but again, I’m quibbling about Hollywood.

Final recommendation: highly recommended! If you’re into films that challenge their genre’s tropes and explore the emotional toll of being human – feeling hatred, loss, and (sometimes) eventual forgiveness, this is a very good film – and a great Western. But, remember, it’s NOT a feel-good film. It’s a feel-something about others / discover-something about yourself film. It asks: “Can you learn to forgive?” And, of course, given the violence and implied sexual assaults, this is not a movie for young children.

.
Click here (10 July) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.