MovieChat Forums > White Hunter Black Heart (1990) Discussion > Quite possibly _THE_ worst movie I have ...

Quite possibly _THE_ worst movie I have ever seen

posted 15 years ago by Miss_Chievous
12 replies | jump to latest

I'm frankly embarrassed for Eastwood, this movie was that bad. He's capable of excellent work but this is a disgrace, and I could have sworn Eastwood was drunk (or stoned?) during most of the first half of the movie scenes he was in. Not worth the trip to the library to check it out free.

If it looks like it's bad in the first half hour, trust me it doesn't get better. Worse, the script is almost as bad as his acting!! Thank God (the both of them — Clint and the idiot who wrote this sh+t) didn't get their hands on anything by H. Rider Haggard. Jesus this was bad.

mc

[–] JesseOL 14 years ago

O Rly?

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

I felt somewhat as you did, OP, when I first saw this in its theatrical release, but I have gone back in recent years and reviewed it again. I assume you know it is based on the film director John Huston and the time he was in Africa shooting another very well known film. Now, I feel while it is flawed it is also one of Eastwood's finest. The majority of viewers both professional critics and movie fans have all kinds of feelings about this pic, but most everyone goes back somewhere along the line and watches it again. It is a keeper and will remain fascinating.

"What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?"
Alonso Semple McFlondheim

[–] FinalFreakVII 14 years ago

I actually just finished watching this film. Coming from someone who has deeply studied Eastwood's work, taken classes devoted to his Authorship and read multiple books about different aspects of his career and life, I actually thought it was pretty good. Although none of things validate my opinion in any way I just make a point to show that I have seen nearly ALL of Eastwood's work and I still found this to be very enjoyable. That being said there isn't much I don't like out of Eastwood's workings, but I actually enjoyed this film very much.

Hail to the King Baby...

-J!nchu-

[–] edbuskirkjr 14 years ago

You must not have seen very many movies.

[–] publiusdiamond 13 years ago

You are a fool. Acting was bad? Do me a favour, go to youtube and watch a scene from Chinatown with Noah Cross in it. Or look for a John Huston interview, and tell me then that Eastwood did not effectively emulate Huston's mannerisms.

[–] jkimengle 13 years ago

hmmmm....................?
i don't know if you're old enough to remember john huston or if you even know who john huston was? this is one of my favorite eastwood films and my favorite performance of his. while he was/is the physical opposite of mr. huston he certainly portrayed the soul of the man. the dialogue is great, mr. huston talked in a theatrical way and eastwood has a good ear for mr. huston's speech pattern. is it a great movie? no. but a good one with a really good performance by mr. eastwood. i really enjoy this film and i have the dvd.

[–] feodoric 13 years ago

I just saw that movie yesterday not knowing about the Huston connection. But since I know and admire Huston very much, I can appreciate in retrospect what Eastwood has done with the subject matter. All along the movie, I would have just tried to punch the SOB for his blatant egotism and obsessive (and depressive) behavior. Clint was THAT good. As much I like his Sergio Leone trilogy persona, his Dirty Harry persona, and pretty much the general character that he personifies in most of his films, as much I admire how he went out of his way (and character) to become the extremely un-likable Huston-goes-to-safari. A vivid proof that he is an outstanding actor, and not just the silent, mumbling macho man that the legend has built around his acting.
Same for his most recent efforts, and especially Gran Torino, one of the most enjoyable Eastwood films I've ever seen, and I saw quite a good portion of his opus. How he managed to have an irresistible tongue-in-cheek sense of humor on a very delicate subject, dealing with racism and social prejudices on a grand scale and in the most brilliant and enjoyable way possible, speaks of his genius.
But back to this one, this is not a perfect film, but I gave it 8 because of its technical qualities, mesmerizing Eastwood's acting and the buildup of tension that he succeeds in creating.
At the end of the movie, we are left speechless, just as he is, not knowing exactly what lesson there is to take, except that obsessive passions can be immensely destructive for oneself and for those whose lives are intertwined with the individual in prey to his senseless path towards self-destruction.

And yet, there are those who manage to make most everybody cringe with such useless anger. Yes, you. You don't deserve that much attention to your narrow-mindedness.... but still I felt the urge to come forward because Clint Eastwood deserves fair criticism only, and statements like the OP's should never happen. But to every movie that points to excellence, there are at least a few loose nuts who simply can't enjoy or even sense that excellence.

I am almost tempted to say that jealousy is the main motor of extreme opinions which don't make an ounce of sense such as the one that urged my tirade...

Stop and think. Can you?

[–] filmfanaticNorCal 11 years ago

The movie came up short in my opinion in that it did not portray Huston's other side which I believe was a more sensitive and loving man. This maybe because Clint has a very hard time being the sensitive man. He's a 100% hard ass and not really capable of being multi-dimensional, which I believe Huston was.

Huston, when shooting Treasure of the Sierra Madre, took a liking to Mexican orphan boy who was hanging around the set and adopted him. I don't think the character Clint portrayed would have done that.

Life is for lovers, and lovers are for life.

[–] Mr Blue-4 11 years ago

Hmmmm...funny as "White Hunter" stands as about the best film Clint has directed, while his very next film was the worst. Sure you didn't mean to post this on the board for "The Rookie"?

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

I think that it's fair to say that the film and the acting were too sophisticated for you. If you grow up at some point, you may be able to appreciate a work of art such as this one.

And Eastwood was playing a character where questions of delirium and mental madness (of a sort) do emerge, that was part of the point.