sagebrush522 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I'm just watching the end of this film. Was Hughes the worst director ever or what? He seemed to have never heard of moving a camera and the music and sound effects are dismal. And poor Jack Beutel and Jane Russell. And I hate to say it but this film as a really out their gay subtext. It's a funny funny film. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spencerl964 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 To sagebrush, I have always truly thought this muchly overrated-(due to the Jane Russell item) was just about a total mess! Some though, actually think it's good? I must have 1st seen this lame Western about 20 years ago. Jack Buetel was a flat actor & the casting was ridiculous-(he was concentrating on Jane, is the likely reason) Plus, Hughes was not a great director. His best is "Hell's Angels" Though, he was involved-(producing,etc) with some strong pix. He was certainly no *John Ford or Hitchcock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Funny sage, I was thinking exactly the same thing when I watched this film on TCM last night. Terrible pacing, incredibly slow. Lots of musical build-up for what? Nothing really. Some comic sprites of music which gave the film a TV sitcom feel. And endless Jane Russell cleavage, enough already (and I'm a guy!). What else? Oh yeah, the dialogue was simply awful and Jack Beutel may be one of the worst actors ever? O.K., that's probably a little harsh. But, what a disappointment this film was last night. I want my two hours back;- ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venerados Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 I'll be the first (and only?) person to defend this. I thought the Outlaw was great. Sure the acting and music was bad and direction only slightly better, but it worked with a lot of emotional honesty. To me, the best melodrama is heightened to the extent where it's almost comical. Outlaw almost reminded me of a Lina Wertmuller film with the less abashed characters playing out a situation that's usually veiled and distant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflight9 Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Howard Hughes has got to be the only director in the world who could get BAD performances from such notable actors as WALTER HUSTON and THOMAS MITCHELL. Along with that distinction, he directed one of the worst scripts ever produced--and got FLAT performances from bosomy Jane and wooden Jack Beutel. Painful to sit through this even once--never could see what all the fuss was about except for Russell's cleavage. The film was a complete bore from beginning to end!! Hate to sound so cynical but this was a mess!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twtpark Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I thought this much maligned film was great too! Cinematography was top notch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayresorchids Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Don't know if the site will let me post this, but didn't someone once dub this film "A Sale of Two ****"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spadeneal Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I have to sy that I appreciate venerados' comment - the film could be read that way - it's just that the lousy script, acting and direction spoils the borscht! For me, in addition to the leaden pacing of "The Outlaw" on ething that makes it "what it is" is the set dressing, or lack of it. All the money went into that picture, and it just doesn't show up on the screen; it looks like something that was shot in a $4 a night motel. Hughes broke the cardinal rule of producers and didn't make the money in the project visible. Average PRC films look better than "The Outlaw." I think "The Outlaw" weas sunk by a lot of pre- and post- production tinkering that dogged a fair amount of Hughes other late projects as well, such as "Vendetta" which is "almost good." I'm sure that if it were left in the form that Stuart Heisler made it, it would still be a pretty good movie. In any event, "Hell's Angels" looks like it was made by someone who knew what they were doing, and if he hadn't made "The Outlaw," people would still think that about Howard Hughes as a director. spadeneal BTW - I loved the three Hughes produced silents that were shown. Those were great movies, fully worthy of restoration. And it looks like "Two Arabian Nights" was rescued at the eleventh hour. A strangely relevant title these days, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagebrush522 Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Considering that producers are rarely involved with the creative aspects of a film (with notable exceptions, of course) I don't think Hughes can take credit or blame for the films he produced. My understanding is that he had someone else direct the non-flying sequences of Hell's Angel while Hughes, of course, did the flying sequences which are very impressive. I would say that they are his only bona fide creative contribution to films. Unfortunately, those flying sequences were too dangerous and too expensive to be emulated and later films didn't. Just think of Test Pilot which was a big film in 1938 but which used little model planes in it's flying scenes. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts