The Coen Brothers are filmmakers who have a long established track record but are so idiosyncratic that it is unwise to assume anything about their new works without confirmation. They are extremely inventive and original and also have an extremely dark sense of humor. I was a big fan of their work until I saw “No Country for Old Men.” Although I consider that movie a very good film the nihilistic story line coinciding with the state of affairs in the world in 2007 created a visceral reaction in me such that I avoided all of their subsequent films. This continued until they produced True Grit. At that point, because of the subject matter, curiosity got the better of me and I watched it. Well it was a very enjoyable film and for that reason I decided to give this other western film from the Coen Brothers a chance.
Last night I watched the Ballad of Buster Scruggs and true to form it was completely unpredictable. Or rather, in a predictably Coen Brothers manner it was extremely inventive and original and also had an extremely dark sense of humor. The movie is made of a series of six vignettes that share an Old West theme.
“The Ballad of Buster Scruggs”
“All Gold Canyon”
“The Gal Who Got Rattled”
“The Mortal Remains”
Because they’re all short stories I won’t spoil any of them by narrating them. None of the stories are related and the only recurring theme is the cruel irony that fate weaves into every story. Mixed in with this bleak picture are varying portions of humor, absurdity, cruelty, sadness, warmth and even affection. But the overarching impression is bitter humor. Several of the character sketches are intricate and appealing. Others are caricatures. But each of them is appropriate to the story in which it occurs. In one story having to do with a gold prospector, “All Gold Canyon,” the cinematography is extremely fine and the landscapes striking. In one story, “Meal Ticket,” there are grotesque aspects that are a bit off-putting so those who don’t care for such things should be forewarned.
Maybe because 2019 isn’t as depressing as 2007 I don’t find myself repelled by this movie as I was with their earlier one. Maybe it’s the historical separation that allows me emotional immunity from the dark content. I will recommend this movie for those who have a strong bent for darker content. Don’t look for any affirmation of life in this film. A sardonic leer is what it seems to offer in my estimation.
Hell or High Water is a movie about two brothers in West Texas, Toby and Tanner (played by Chris Pine and Ben Foster), that plan and carry out a bank robbing spree. Jeff Bridges is Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton who along with his partner Alberto are investigating this carefully planned series of robberies. The movie follows both sides of the story. We get into the heads of all four protagonists and understand their motivations and idiosyncrasies. I won’t spoil the plot details or the ending but I would say this is one of the better movies I’ve seen in a few years. It’s not a big movie and there is nothing very surprising about plot or character. But the acting is good and the plot and dialog are spot on. Another aspect of the movie that I really enjoyed was the soundtrack. Unsurprisingly it’s country music and it even includes a track by Colter Wall, a young country singer songwriter that I enjoy. But all the cuts fit into the action and enhance the movie for me.
The movie gives you both points of view. The law enforcement officers, intent on stopping the crime spree and the outlaw brothers in their desperate attempt to get even with a system that they see as rigged against them.
Here’s my retrospective on 2018, completely subjective of course and whenever I can’t make up my mind or I don’t want to leave something out I’ll cheat and provide more than one choice. And that’s one of the wonderful things about being the boss, you get to break the rules and do what you want.
Best Quotes of the Day
Some are political, some philosophical and some just human nature. The order is just chronological of their appearance on the site.
“In the many forms of government which have sprung up there has always been an acknowledgement of justice and proportionate equality, although mankind fail in attaining them, as indeed I have already explained. Democracy, for example, arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.”
“No state will be well administered unless the middle class holds sway.”
“When there aren’t any smart decisions, I suppose you just have to pick the stupid decision you like best.”
Orson Scott Card
“No one likes the fellow who is all rogue, but we’ll forgive him almost anything if there is warmth of human sympathy underneath his rogueries. The immortal types of comedy are just such men.”
W. C. Fields
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
Carpe diem! Seize the day! Rejoice while you are alive; enjoy the day; live life to the fullest; make the most of what you have. It is later than you think.
“And this is the simple truth – that to live is to feel oneself lost. He who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look around for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked. All the rest is rhetoric, posturing, farce.”
If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.
Over the course of 2018 I read and reviewed all eight of the volumes in the main series (first volume linked above) and they only got better as the series went along. It was good old mil-sci-fi space opera. I assume I won’t live long enough to see the end of the series but so far that isn’t a problem. I look forward to the next installment soon and am in no way tired of this particular universe. Kudos to Anspach and Cole. Long may they stoke their dumpster fire at the Edge of the Galaxy!
Vega is an acquired taste for me and as I’ve written about him, “It’s for those who like gritty crime dramas with a staccato, post-modern, minimalist writing style.” Even though my tastes are a little more conventional I appreciate that there is an audience for the more unusual so I look around for interesting stuff. As I’ve said before, your call.
The two books listed below provide two different takes on the way to interpret the results of ancient DNA analysis.
“The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution” by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending
“Who We Are and How We Got Here; Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Past” by David Reich
David Reich being an academic embedded in the politically correct culture of the university system treads ever so gently around the edges of how the science of human genetic history should be interpreted. Cochran and Harpending are much more direct and sometimes possibly presumptuous in the conclusions they draw from the evidence. Both books together tell a fascinating story of how much we now know about the complex and diverse origins of the various human populations.
This is a kids’ movie but it far exceeds any of the other “superhero” movies for just plain entertainment value. I won’t say it was as original as the first installment but it mostly kept to the spirit of the original and provided a fun vehicle for parents (or grandparents) to enjoy a movie with their kids.
This is a twofer. For younger folks I’ll only recommend the new version by the Coen Brothers. For people who grew up on the John Wayne movies of old I recommend they view both movies back to back in chronological order. They each have facets to its advantage. Each differs slightly from the source material. But each is a fine movie. And I’ll also recommend the novel that is the source for the movies. It also has facets that aren’t available in either movie.
Album of the Year
Colter Wall by Colter Wall
Song of the Year
Pan Bowl by Sturgill Simpson
My music choices are very idiosyncratic so I won’t try to justify them. To paraphrase a recent annoying politician, they just reflect who I am Pan Bowl is an older song from Simpson’s 2014 album.
The only truly notable television I watched in 2018 was the State of the Union address by the president. Everything else was at best just okay.
On – Line Articles
Here are the articles that I thought were informative on our political situation. There were many others that were intersting but these seem to encapsulate the developments in the political thinking this year. Basically it’s the red-pilling of the normies.
Today Camera Girl and I took grandsons Primus and Secundus to the local multiplex and watched a double feature of
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Between tickets and popcorn this went for about a hundred bucks. And it was horrible. Having to twice sit through the interminable coming attractions and other advertising video was pure torture. Ralph Breaks the Internet was mildly amusing but twice as long as it needed to be. Plus, at the end I found out that Sarah Silverman was one of the voice actors. By the time Aquaman began I was bored and queasy from eating greasy popcorn.
It wasn’t bad. There was a little too much girl power being pitched and of course none of it made any sense at all but taken as a whole it wasn’t bad. The plot was ridiculously contrived and the evil half brother motif might as well have had Thor and Loki’s names filed down to protect DC from being sued by Marvel.
The special effects are, of course, spectacular. Due to his human/Atlantean hybrid ancestry the title role is performed as a regular guy who just happens to be a super hero that can breath under water and control the denizens of the deep. The rest of the Atlanteans try to sound like some kind of quasi-medieval nobility, sort of like how the Asgardians in the Thor movies do. It’s a little silly but not terrible.
I’ve never followed the Aquaman character before. I figured he was just the DC version of Submariner who was the lamest of the Marvel superheroes. From the ending sequence and the way these superhero franchises are handled it’s certain that there will be sequels. Not that I think there need to be any.
Bottom line, the movie has plenty of action and drama. The main character is likable and fulfills the function of a superhero by being heroic. And finally, the grandsons thought it was very good. So it fulfills its primary role, it amuses kids.
The Dead is the film adaptation of a James Joyce short story of the same name that is part of the “Dubliners” collection. It was the last picture directed by John Huston and was made shortly before he died. It starred his daughter Angelica Huston and a cast of Irish actors who are mostly unknown to American audiences. It’s the story of a New Year’s Party in Ireland in 1904. The protagonists are a husband and wife, Gabriel and Greta, visiting his aunts for the party. There are a number of characters who interact and exhibit the various foibles and characteristics found in a gathering of middle-class city dwellers. There is the drunkard and the old maids and the young women and men full of excitement about the cultural and political happenings. Music is a big part of the story with opera arias and piano concertos along the course of the party. But at last the story is a meditation on the transitory nature of life. Because it is an Irish story and specifically because it is James Joyce story it is very melancholy. But there is humor and the portrayal of the party is an amusing period piece of turn of the twentieth century Ireland. There is a number of mentions of the Irish Republican Army meetings plotting the coming uprising and the story is full of allusions to the Roman Catholic religion and the changing mores of the times.
But in the end, as the summation of the story, we see an intellectual coming to terms with the visceral nature of life. He feels that he’s never touched his wife’s heart the way the death of a childhood sweetheart did many years ago.
John Huston was a very sick old man when he made this film and the concept of mortality was of prime importance to him. And the James Joyce story is a good one. But I wonder how big the audience is for this movie. It’s a period piece and all the humor is mild and subdued. It’s highly sentimental and slow paced. I enjoy it a great deal and like it as a good end of year picture. But I would recommend prospective viewers consider in advance if they care for such tame and sad entertainment. I recommend this movie for the philosophic spirits out there.
This was a 2008 release that’s based on a true story. Greg Kinnear plays Bob Kearns, an engineering professor in the Detroit area in the 1960s who along with his wife Phyllis (played by Lauren Graham from the Gilmore Girls) and their six kids are living a happy mid-western existence. One day Bob was driving and he came across the difficulty of having single speed wipers in a light rain. If he left the windshield wipers on then the window would get dry and the blades would squeak and streak, but if he left them off, he couldn’t see. Being an inventor, he came up with an electronic device that allowed the wipers to work with a variable delay between cycles, now known as intermittent wipers. With the help of a friend who had an automotive component company he approaches Ford Motor Company about them purchasing his wiper invention to use in their cars. They convince him they need to have a copy of the device to get it approved by the federal agency that oversees automotive safety equipment and he provides it to them. Kearns leases factory space and goes into production on the device. Then Ford backs out of the deal and starts producing essentially the same device on their own.
The rest of the movie chronicles Bob’s twenty-year crusade to bring Ford to justice for stealing his invention. During that time, he loses his job, his wife and almost his mind. At a certain point he becomes so desperate that he jumps on a bus to Washington D.C. to “talk to the White House” about his problem. This lands him in a mental ward for several months. When he gets out, he hires a lawyer to sue Ford for stealing his idea. The lawyer (played by Alan Alda) gets an agreement from Ford to pay Bob several hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle. But when he finds out that Ford wouldn’t be admitting to the theft, just paying him off, Bob balks and refuses to give up his crusade against Ford. At this point he’s several years into this nightmare and without a job. His wife, exhausted with raising six kids and supporting the family leaves him.
Now alone and miserable, he spends all his waking hours teaching himself the law applying to theft of intellectual property and fighting off Ford’s counter-suits and other delaying tactics. Finally, twelve years after initiating the effort his suit goes to trial. He represents himself and blunders through the various amateur shortcomings of being a make-believe lawyer. But as the end of the trial approaches Ford’s representative suddenly offers him thirty million dollars to drop the suit. He refuses and everything comes down to the jury decision.
I won’t give away the ending but I will comment on the dilemma of this poor man. Basically, he traded away the best years of his life and the happiness of a family for the chance to get justice from a court over being robbed of an invention. I am an engineer but I’ve never had a “flash of genius.” But I think as much as I am a vindictive bastard, I’d have recognized that spending decades of my prime and losing the woman I love to be proven right is an obsessive-compulsive fool’s errand. Even if you win, you’ve lost. A corporation is an immortal being with godlike power. It can outlive you and overpower you. The best thing you can do is steer clear of them. They are by definition soulless and amoral. I think the lesson learned from this movie is that life is short. Justice that costs you your reason for living is too costly for real people. It’s a good movie and the character Bob is a recognizable type that I have met several times in my life. And I felt sorry for him but I think he made a big mistake. Good movie about a cautionary tale for nerds. Don’t trust the man.
Anyone who has been reading my posts on this site for more than a year knows that I am a Christmas Carol fanatic. So as a fair warning I’ll just say that this post is only for true Christmas Carol devotees. Every word of it is subjective and dedicated to minutiae. I have four versions of the film that I like and each has an aspect in which it excels the other three. Every year I re-evaluate the films and debate with myself on trivial points that would have exactly zero importance to the overwhelming majority of the human inhabitants of planet earth. Here goes.
Material that wasn’t in the book
A Christmas Carol was a novella. It is brief and in places lacks details about the characters and events.
For instance, the book never says why Scrooge’s father treated him so poorly. In the 1951 version it is stated that his father held it against him that his mother died in his childbirth. And in the same version a similar grudge exists as the reason why Scrooge dislikes his nephew Fred. It is shown that his sister Fan died giving birth to Fred. In the 1984 version the same reason for his father’s dislike for Scrooge is presented. But the death of Fan during Fred’s birth is not added. What is interesting about these additions is that based on the original story they would be impossible. In the book Fan is quite a bit younger than her brother Ebenezer. Therefore, their mother couldn’t have died at the birth of her older child. I suppose Fan could have been Ebenezer’s half-sister but I don’t imagine that a twice married man would still be holding his first wife’s death as a grudge against his son. So, this addition is spurious. But it is extremely dramatic and provides a timely reason for both father’s and son’s misanthropic behavior that could be somewhat excused and so leave room for deserved forgiveness. And it has a highly effective scene where the older Scrooge hears his dying sister ask for his promise to take care of her infant son Fred. We see that the younger Scrooge never heard the dying plea and the older Scrooge gets to belatedly beg his beloved deceased sister’s forgiveness for his heartless treatment of her only child.
And notice that the 1984 version borrows both the discrepancy of Fan’s age and the spurious grudge of Scrooge’s father but neglects the equally spurious grudge of Scrooge for his nephew. I guess they thought those additions gave resonance to the story.
In both the 1951 and 1984 versions Scrooge’s fiancée is introduced during the Fezziwig party scene and give a name (Alice in the earlier version, Belle in the later). Neither this early link to Scrooge’s life or the name show up in the book. In addition, in the 1951 version it skips the scene introducing this woman’s later life with husband and large family but instead substitutes a scene during the Ghost of Christmas Present section where Belle is volunteering at a shelter for the poor. Now whereas tying Scrooge’s love to the Fezziwig era of his life is fine and in fact better than the way the book presents it, I do not particularly favor the poor shelter addition. It seems unwarranted. I think the scene where she is surrounded by her family is dramatic enough in that it illustrates what happiness Scrooge has lost.
In the book the Ghost of Christmas Present visits the house of Scrooge’s nephew Fred. The dinner guests are presented enjoying games such as blindman buff and forfeits which I take to be word games such as twenty questions. One of the rounds determined that it was a disagreeable animal that growled and lived in London. And, of course, it turns out to be Uncle Scrooge. In the 1984 version the story is adapted so the dinner guests are playing a game called similes where they need to guess the end of a simile. When Fred asks his wife to complete “as tight as,” she replies “your Uncle Scrooge’s purse strings.” Scrooge hears this while in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Present. After his repentance and on the actual Christmas Day he meets his niece and discussing the game of similes he advises her that the simile, in case it came up, was “as tight as a drum.” Nicely played.
From the book we know that Jacob Marley died seven years earlier on Christmas Eve. And we are informed that Scrooge inherited his house. What the 1951 version does is tie these facts together in a scene. We have Jacob Marley’s charwoman come to the office and interact with Bob Cratchit and Scrooge. Then we have Scrooge being warned by a dying Marley that their misanthropy would endanger their immortal souls. And this then links both the charwoman’s stealing of his bed curtains and bed clothing and her later spurious appearance after the last of the spirits depart and Scrooge wakes up on actual Christmas morning. In this scene the charwoman (identified incorrectly as Mrs. Dilber) is bringing in Scrooge’s breakfast and witnesses his reformation into a caring human being. His manic happiness frightens her and when he gives her a gold sovereign coin as a present, she assumes it’s a bribe to keep her quiet about his strange behavior. When he tells her it’s a Christmas present and he is quintupling her salary she is overcome with happiness and rushes off with her own characteristic version of a Merry Christmas greeting. I find this addition to the story especially apt. In the story the charwoman selling Scrooge’s bed curtains comes off very negatively. But humanizing her by including her positively in the scene about Marley’s death and allowing a rapprochement with a penitent Scrooge on Christmas morning improves the story and ties these aspects of the story together in a way that gives the story more depth. It reinforces that Scrooge’s repentance touches every aspect of the world we have been shown in a positive way.
Overall I’d say that the film additions to the plot have been acceptable and true to the spirit of the story.
The Coen Brothers make a lot of interesting movies. Some I like more than others. Miller’s Crossing is one of my favorites. It’s a gangster story in an unidentified southern city during the 1930s. Albert Finney is Leo O’Bannon, an Irish gangster who runs the city. Gabriel Byrne is Tom Reagan, Leo’s right-hand man and best friend. Verna is Leo’s girl. But she’s also sleeping with Tom. Verna’s brother, Bernie (played by John Turturro) and Mink Larouie (played by Steve Buscemi) are small-time bookies who have crossed another gangster, Johnny Caspar. Caspar wants Bernie dead and Leo won’t let it happen because of Verna. Tom knows that Bernie and Verna spell disaster for Leo and advises him to give up Bernie. So, this is the complicated basis of the story.
But that’s not the reason to watch the movie. It’s a comic book version of a 30s gangster movie. A gangster can be bounced down three flights of marble stairs and walk away from it all in one piece. The cops and the city administration will switch back and forth between mob allegiances on an hour’s notice and bring to bear against their former allies all the force of military grade weaponry.
The movie has a fine soundtrack that includes popular music of the era, Irish folk music and even a little Italian opera. My favorite scene is an attempted mob rubout at Leo’s house. It’s a bullet riddled ballet to the accompaniment of Danny Boy. It’s in this scene that Albert Finney proves that a Thompson machine gun will never run out of ammunition. It’s a thing of nihilistic beauty.
Finney, Turturro and Buscemi are all extremely entertaining but Gabriel Byrne is the center of the movie. His character Tom is a hardened bitter man who nevertheless lives by a code that requires loyalty to a friend. In fact, his loyalty to Leo is the only admirable behavior displayed in the whole movie. And even this is wholly doomed by their relationships with Verna. Basically, everyone is corrupt. The good guys are mobsters. The bad guys are mobsters. There’s even a scene where a little kid sees a dead mobster on the street and steals his toupee.
And because this is a Coen Brothers movie it is suffused with black humor. Every mob rubout and brutal beating is chock full of jokes and wisecracks. The mobsters and cops in the movie are prone to witticisms and philosophical musings that probably rarely occur in real mobsters and cops. The best example is when Johnny Gaspar explains to Leo that Bernie’s selling of Johnny’s fixed fight information demonstrates Bernie’s lack of moral character.
Miller’s Crossing is a typical Coen Brothers movie. All the characters are morally compromised and happy endings are extremely scarce and never unmitigated. If you have enjoyed any of their other movies then I highly recommend Miller’s Crossing. Otherwise, read my description and decide for yourself if this type of film is for you.
I think it’s a pretty remarkable fact, that of the seven films Humphrey Bogart was in that I consider worth owning my least favorite is Casablanca. It’s possible I’ve just seen it too many times already. But I’ve watched the Maltese Falcon many times more and I keep putting it back on. It’s probably just individual preference. But for whatever the reason, it tells me that Bogart was in a relatively large number of excellent films.
Next up is “To Have and Have Not.” This movie is based on the Hemingway story. Several of the story elements seem to be repeated in Casablanca. A French colony is the locale. There are Nazis and their local collaborators as the heavies. Resistance fighters including a husband and wife team are looking for help from Bogart’s character. There is a damsel in distress as the love interest. And there’s a singer at a piano that entertains us here and there. Honestly, I actually prefer this earlier film to Casablanca. It seems less strained.
Bogey is a charter boat captain named Harry Morgan and Walter Brennan is his first mate Eddie. Eddie is a garrulous alcoholic and Harry’s best friend. They’re on a two-week charter out of Florida to the French island of Martinique. Martinique is part of “Free France” but under the thumb of the Nazis. Harry meets Marie Browning, played by a very young Lauren Bacall, as she is stealing the wallet of Harry’s charter client. He takes the wallet from her and discovers from the contents that the client was about to skip out without paying him. Grateful for her unwitting help he strikes up a friendship with her. Of course, under the circumstances, their relationship is always awkward and tentative. He calls her Slim which rankles her so she calls him Steve probably from spite. But for all their verbal jousting the sparks begin to fly and it’s easy to see that their relationship will be at least one of the major plot lines.
The hotel where Harry, Marie and apparently anyone involved in the resistance ends up staying is owned by, of course, Frenchy, or so he is called by Harry. He is the clandestine leader of the resistance. Several of his friends get into a gun battle with the local police and this leads to Harry and Marie falling under the suspicious eye of the local police chief. He seizes their passports and money and grills them for information on the resistance.
Being strapped for cash Harry accepts a job ferrying some resistance fighters onto the island, Paul and Hellene de Bursac. Paul gets shot during a sea voyage while evading the harbor patrol. Harry acts as a cut-rate trauma surgeon and removes the bullet. The police finally decide to put the squeeze on Harry by grilling Eddie this triggers a confrontation that Harry controls with the help of a few well aimed bullets. Throughout Marie is at Harry’s side, for the most part, trading wisecracks and supporting the cause. Eddie supplies the comic relief and Hoagy Carmichael as Cricket plays the piano and employs Marie as an ersatz lounge singer.
Bit of well-known classic Hollywood trivia, the sparks flying between Harry and Marie were mirrored in real life between Bogart and Bacall and they shortly afterward became man and wife in real life. And the chemistry they had translated excellently to film. Their sparring courtship is fun to watch and although stylized in the manner of director Howard Hawkes’ staccato bantering dialog it comes off as interesting and of its time. Highly recommended.
There is a school of thought that says Bogart became a big star because of the Maltese Falcon. It was his first role that extended his acting range beyond the gangster parts he had been doing up to that point. And the story was a popular book and John Huston’s script was a pip.
So, I’m sure Bogart was more than anxious when he had a second chance to work with Huston. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was once again based on a popular book. And once again Huston’s script is a pip. Bogart is an American named Dobbs in Tampico, Mexico who is broke and looking for an opportunity to make some money. After some difficulty collecting back-wages he teams up with two other Americans. Walter Huston, John Huston’s actual father, plays an old gold prospector Howard and Tim Holt is Curtin who hopes to make a stake before returning to the United States. The three men discuss what it would take to make a prospecting expedition to the Sierra Madre. By an amazing coincidence Bogart wins the amount they need off of a lottery ticket and donates it to the expedition. On the train ride at the outset of the journey to the Sierra Madre, the partners encounter bandits. This is followed by a long trek through jungles and desert and mountains. And just as Dobbs and Curtin have become discouraged and want to give up the search Howard mocks them with the news that they’ve been surrounded by gold for the last day but they were too ignorant to see it. The partners get to work and start a mining operation that rewards their hard work with generous amounts of gold. And at this point we begin to see the destructive effect of greed and mistrust. Pretty quickly Dobbs becomes dangerously suspicious of his partners and all remnants of amicable relations evaporate and all that is left is the business of harvesting the gold. During this time there are episodes involving a claim jumper and later the bandits return. A very well-known exchange occurs between the head bandit and the partners. The bandit is pretending to be a policeman and when asked to show his badge he sputters, “Badges? Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges!” The return journey also contains some interesting episodes that eventually split up the partners and leads to open warfare between Dobbs and Curtin. For the better part of the movie we’ve been watching as Fred C. Dobbs slowly descends into gold madness. Now he reaches the point of attempting murder. The end of the movie follows the last scenes where we learn the fate of the partners, the bandits and the gold.
For me this movie is an almost perfect gem of a tale. It has an interesting blend of humor, adventure and a study of human nature. Toward the end, Bogart is almost over the top in his manic portrayal of Dobbs but he is an interesting character. Tim Holt plays the most sympathetic character as Curtin but without a doubt, Walter Huston steals the show from everyone else as the old prospector Howard. His character is colorful, glib, humorous and just plain engaging.
I highly recommend this movie for everyone. It’s a classic and timelessly entertaining.