Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Jenna Walter
The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Geraldine
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Tgrain
Let me start by saying that Cassavetes is a brilliant director. Only sometimes, brilliance coupled with a bold desire to take risks can end up landing on its derriere, especially if it happens after a success such as 'Faces'. And that is exactly what 'Husbands' does. The story is quite weak, the resolution is obscure, and all we're left with is watching three guys get drunk and being nasty. Who cares? I certainly don't. There's nothing to root for here, nobody to sympathize with. Some will argue that this is simply Cassavetes' style and a pseudo-sequel to 'Faces'. But the lower budget 'Faces', as stretched out and not plot driven as it was, was considerably more effective in how it put across interesting characters and showed a slice of life. 'Husbands' by comparison shows a bunch of aimless characters with dialog that stretches the realms of how most people talk and act. That's not to say that Husbands doesn't have some interesting moments. For students of Cassavetes technique there are a few good scenes worth attention on their own (one of my favorite is when Cassavetes orders room service). But individual scenes, no matter how well executed, do not a film make. It's very unfortunate because this film had everything going for it: a phenomenal cast, a talented director, great cinematography, and even a suitable dramatic premise. But the desire to get cute with dialog and getting overly absorbed in character psychology comes at cost to saying something substantive. What a shame, this could have been such a great film.
Kieran Wright
The chances are that, if or whenever you hear the name 'Peter Falk', you instantly associate it with the excellent award winning TV detective series, 'Columbo'. If you stretch your mind a bit, you may even recall that he appeared in a couple of films such as 'The Great Race' or 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'. If that's the extent of your knowledge of this actor, then you are missing out on a number of excellent performances, one of which appears in this film. Essentially 'Husbands' covers the unravelling self-confidence of three close friends, who suffer the loss of their close fourth friend, and the plot effectively deals with the subsequent fallout. It is, by turns, humorous, black and difficult to watch at times, but for me, it was a brave attempt to capture this subject on film. John Cassavetes, who not only stars in the film but also directs, was known as a pioneer of American cinema - particularly for using the POV genre - and with films such as this, it's easy to see why. In terms of the main three actors, each brings a depth, but not only that, a true tragi-comedic element, to their characters, which are highly believable. It would be difficult to single one of the main three actors out for particular praise, such is the balance and interplay. Highly recommended, not only for men of a certain age but also for women seeking insight on the mind of men.
ElMaruecan82
Confusing? Irritating? Nonsensical? You name them … any epithetic word would perfectly fit to describe Cassavetes' "Husbands", probably the film that most divided the critics. Indeed, this is such an incredible challenge for personal appreciation, you must convince yourself that the truth is elsewhere in order to appreciate the beauty of "Husbands", you must forget that this film belongs to cinema, which is its finest irony. But believe me, it works … As soon as you stop noticing that these men are actors, that their dialogs are scripted, that this film has a message, you start to reach its innate greatness. It's a strange approach and I can understand that it would leave many viewers with mixed feelings. I respect that. It's probably one of the few movies I wouldn't even try to convince a hater because I so understand this reaction, but if this review may change one minds or two, well, it's worth trying. This is the least I could do.In fact, those who're familiar with Cassavetes' work would get the idea of not judging his films on a cinematic basis. One of Cassavetes' most recognizable trademarks was cinema-verité: the happening, showing characters in constant movement, through unpredictable behaviors as to sustain the idea of the total randomness of life. What was taken for improvisation was much more an immersion into the true face of reality that lets us spontaneously communicate. That's one of the many characteristics that enrich Cassavetes' universe. Another one is the absence of plot, because basically, no one is plotting in the original meaning of the word. No one is calculating, or predicting one specific reaction, people behave according to the feelings of the moment, unaware of the consequences. Cassavetes is the quintessential film-maker of the present.But still, most of his movies looked and sounded like 'telling a story'. "Husbands" works differently, as the movie doesn't give any clue where it's going, and at the end, you realize it went nowhere; it's the most Cassavetian Cassavetes' film, which explains why it's the most misunderstood by the haters, and the most praised (sometimes exaggeratedly, I concede) by the fans. It's anarchic, chaotic, frustrating and even embarrassing but the point is not to ask yourself where this movie goes, but where you would go with this movie. In other words, think about all the flaws and ask yourself if you never had the feeling that your life was exactly like Cassavetes portrayed it in "Husbands". If you say 'no', you're too 'strong' to be human.Yes, "Husbands" is not about super men, but about men so ordinary they try for once, to make their lives extraordinary. It's quite interesting that the pivotal point was the death of their friend, because I've always considered that the three keys of lucidity were: encountering death, being angry, and … post-coital moments. At these three moments, life appears to you in its darkest or boldest clothes, those of nudity, and you can't help but question your own condition. In "Husbands" , John Cassavetes, Peter Falk and Ben Gazzara face these situations. They definitely don't know how to behave because lucidity can inspire the craziest decisions: leaving the house for two days, going on a trip to London, playing in the Casino or getting girls in a hotel room.It's a movie about men wanting to be men, with this conqueror's instinct. Life for us, men, as a perpetual dilemma because our nature and culture dictate so many codes only to label us as the oppressors, the tormentors of poor weaker women. "Husbands" is the chronicles of a revenge by men. Men who are so men, or so mean, they try but fail to assess their manhood, because there's already a sense of bitter failure when you try to prove to your buddies or to yourself that you still 'got it'. Despite the melancholic undertones of the film, the mood is still noisily cheerful made of singing, dancing, chuckling, shouting and abrupt outburst of craziness combined with long moments of self-introspections, like a succession of drunken orgies followed by immediate hangovers.I can see how "Husbands", by such a clear title, and a macho almost masochistic portrayal of men, can offend women, who are depicted here only as objects of conquest and necessary domination. I'm thinking of Peter Falk's character for instance, so unsure with his sexual abilities, he needed to overpower a woman in bed, and rejected her when even well-intentionally, she got on the top. Cassavetes was the most exasperating since you never exactly knew what his intentions were with his two-sided role: the seducer and the rejecter. And Ben Gazzara was absorbed by his manly charisma, only to hide the torture of a meaningless life preventing him from behaving naturally. They have their issues more than any characters, they're hardly likable, but they do touch something very deep in our manly hearts.Cassavete's film becomes a masterpiece if you take it as a self-reflexive approach on men's middle-age crisis. The whole range of emotions portrayed in this film is precisely the embodiment of the confusion that can torture men, and the film couldn't have authentically portrayed them in a well-constructed way. The direction, the script are deliberately abrupt and clumsy because it's about men and men are like this … Cassavetes is the film-maker of truth, and this is his truest film, a film about friends, with a complicity that transcended the context of the film. And maybe fans have a soft spot for "Husbands"' because it's the only one to reunite the three Cassavetian leading men, I guess Seymour Cassel was too young for the part …"Husbands" is like these masterpieces victim of their own greatness, like "2001: A Space Odyssey", movies so good, they wouldn't have been as memorable had they respected movie's entertainment conventions, and Cassavetes made a style out of unconventionality.
rookshowlin
...along with The Bicycle Thief and the rest of Cassavetes and maybe Decalogue and Harold and Maude and A Time For Drunken Horses and some Bela Tarr (Eightie's "trilogy") and The Celebration and Tender Mercies and you can keep all your Kubrick and other tricksters and pseudo-Hitchcocks (particularly nick, the "chubby, two-faced one"), boys and gals, because there's not enough heart in 'em (Ben Gazzara in Husbands: "From the heart!... From the heart!...)... and, well, on and on and on, but not for too much longer... because that would imply there are that many good films out there... anyway, okay, i would want to grab so many if i had to run and not walk to someplace better (if there is anywhere truly better than another these days, as you can't swing a dead cat without hitting somebody that's either stealing your grill or at least pissing on your coals in this oh so modern world, oh boy, show me your toys!...), say E Street, or perhaps Northern Ireland (if Joyce comes to her senses and stops hating herself so much that she hurts me and Linnea has some time to spare with me and her French fiancé doesn't get all froggy)... BUT i would absolutely take this movie with me, always, wherever i go. and if Criterion doesn't release all the versions of this film soon I am going to literally explode like a Spinal Tap drummer (i might take that one, too, that's why i bring it up so "sophomorically")... HUSBANDS. "a masterful work of art, i think," said Seymour Cassel - but i don't need to say "i think."
