Huh. The names attached to this movie… Gina Lollobrigida, Peter Lorre, Humphrey Bogart, John Huston, Truman Capote… And I don’t remember hearing about this movie before? Is this one of those late-career white elephant kind of movies?
The cinematography is very post-Vittorio de Sica.
I’m not quite sure whether this is supposed to be a broad comedy or, like, a serious drama/heist movie?
I mean…
But I think perhaps Huston is going for a British comedy kind of thing? That is, “satire”, i.e., “not actually funny”?
I wonder what “colorist Sheri Eisenberg” did on this restoration, though.
John Huston has directed so many classics that it’s hard to grasp that the movie you’re watching might be a total dud.
I’m starting to think that this is.
Yeah, but that’s what a satire is… But it’s true — there’s no jokes here (that land).
This is starting to get excruciating.
The cinematographer is amusing himself, at least.
“Beat the Devil” went straight from box office flop to cult classic and has been called the first camp movie, although Bogart, who sank his own money into it, said, “Only phonies like it.” It’s a movie that was made up on the spot; Huston tore up the original screenplay on the first day of filming, flew the young Truman Capote to Ravallo, Italy, to crank out new scenes against a daily deadline and allowed his supporting stars, especially Robert Morley and Peter Lorre, to create dialogue for their own characters.
But the cinematographer didn’t always choose the right lens for the scene.
At first, I thought this was a ⚂ movie… and then I was so bored that I was going to go with ⚁… but it’s bad. It’s really bad.
Beat the Devil. John Huston. 1953. ⚀
Leave a Reply