otto@whuxle.UUCP (George V.E. Otto) (06/24/84)
Someone on the net asked for a review of *Under the Volcano*, so here goes.. I find this picture somewhat difficult to review, because although the performances were all uniformly good I found the story less than compelling. Perhaps the book (which I have not read) tied the elements together better or did a better job of resolving (or leaving carefully unresolved) the story's elements. But based on the film alone I did not feel that the story probed or explored much. Immediately upon leaving the theatre I felt the film had come to a close much too abruptly, having shown me different situations but with little common, unifying thread or purpose. However, for several days afterwards I found the same thing happening as when I saw *Moonlighting*, although not as strongly. After Moonlighting I found several strong images coming back into my consciousness as I continued to deal with the information presented to me in that film: the attitudes and conditions of the characters portrayed. In *Under the Volcano* the same thing began to happen, although as I say, not as strongly. The underlying tension of the film centered on, but did not deeply explore, the emotional juggling acts people perform who are in love, were in love, were betrayed, want to be in love again, etc. What drives people to their sometimes strange attitudes or statements while trying to juggle and make sense of their emotions? The scenery of the film was striking and authentic. The ongoing action held my attention throughout. But I am left with the feeling that if the above were the purpose of the film, there was more that could have been explored or developed. If something *else* was the purpose of the film, then it was presented in such as way as to allow me to miss it altogether. George Otto AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany ------------------------
citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) (07/17/84)
Just saw "Under the Volcano" the other night. It's based on a cult novel by Malcolm Lowery that many said couldn't be filmed, but John Huston did and the results are quite successful. The film concerns one Geoffrey Firman (Albert Finney) a former British consul living out his days in a drunken stupor in Cuernavaca. In one eventful 24 hour period, on the Day of the Dead, 1938, his estranged former wife Yvonne (Jacqueline Bisset) returns to him to repair their relationship. Also present is Geoffrey's brother Hugh (Anthony Andrews), a journalist with leftist leanings who had once had an affair with Yvonne. Geoffrey is torn between desire and repulsion for Yvonne. The ironic ending is both surprising and inevitable. The script is intelligent, but the highlight of the film is Finney's incredible performance. Geoffrey is drunk the entire film and watch in horror at the sight of a man barely in control of himself. Bisset's and Andrews' performances are also excellent. I have a feeling that I missed a bit having not read the book, but I still appreciated the film. I would give it ***1/2 (out of ****). Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin) PS: Please excuse this superficial review as I was kind of rushed.