GamerTab That was an excellent one.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

jovana-13676 Had Albert Finney performed all alone in an empty room, it would have still been an equally entertaining film. Yes, for all its tragedy, the film is entertaining. Whenever Albert Finney speaks, and he hardly keeps his mouth shut during the film, it's pure poetry. It's one of the best scripts, not only dialogue wise, but the way it manages to bring to the screen and make us interested in one day in drunk's life. The characters are written so that one can hope for a happy ending - they are idealists. The drunk, his wife (Jacqueline Bisset) and brother (Anthony Andrews) are no ordinary people, they are all romantics who love one another and the world (it's 1938 and Nazism is on the rise), and in turn, we care about them and want this case of alcoholism / broken marriage to be fixed somehow. Or maybe if the guy is doomed then his wife can hope for a better life with his brother? Not so. This movie is like falling off a cliff and it ends abruptly. One can hardly believe it, because it's photographed beautifully and Jacqueline Bisset truly looks heaven sent. The opening Day of the Dead sequence is both stunning and foretelling.

Predrag Firstly, I have never read the cult novel which is the basis of the film. I am reviewing the film as just that - a film - and what a film this is! A class act - and an acting class all-in-one. Albert Finney is pitch-perfect in every instance: voice and body language are used to create an absolutely authentic characterization of the Consul. (When Mr. Finney was not awarded the Oscar for his performance it was the equivalent of "Citizen Kane" not having won for Best Picture!) Apart from the acting (all of which is terrific) and the muscular, tight Guy Gallo script and the inner-demonic Alex North score and the crystal-perfect cinematography and the palpable atmosphere of each and every setting and the consummate direction by the legendary John Huston, the film is about Life and Death in the deepest meanings of those ultimately indefinable words.Jacqueline Bisset (Yvonne Firmin) was never more lovely. Sadly, her past brief adulterous fling with Geoffrey's half brother, created a lasting rift between her and Geoffrey, in spite of their enduring love and respect for each other. What a story: humanity struggling to live at the brink of its limits. I suppose it's been told a lot of times, but it's hard to imagine that it's ever been told better than this. This film really delves into Lowry's psyche, and you see the horror of being a man. It's a difficult and painful film, but the filmmakers never turn it into a cheap, sensationalistic film. It's narrated by Richard Burton, who had one of the greatest voices an actor ever possessed. Burton's narration lends a dignity to this film, and to Lowry's life. Albert Finney gives one of the most devastating portrayals of an intellectual mind pickled in alcohol ever captured on-screen. And, the legendary director, John Huston, shoves our faces in it.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

nomorefog This movie version of 'Under the Volcano' is for me a godsend. The reason for this somewhat indulgent gratitude is because this is a book I have been struggling with for a number of years, the exact number I refuse to divulge because it would make me sound like an idiot. When I choose to read it, it sends me to sleep; when I am awake it drives me crazy. I ignore it, and feel guilty. I start to read it again and go through the entire process over; it isn't a lot of fun. To make a leap of off-topic logic, I have no intention of comparing the book to the film. I feel embarrassed to say that this a reasonably successful attempt at adapting a notoriously difficult work of fiction. The movie version of 'Under the Volcano' is something that can stand on its own, as well as encourage more interested members of the audience to return to the source material, or at least give it a try, which is what I've been trying to do for years. Albert Finney gives a tour de force performance as Geoffrey Firmin, a diplomat living in Mexico who appears to have finally succumbed to the ravages of alcoholism. His wastrel half-brother is trying to assist, but it seems no use. His ex-wife who has left him returns perhaps for not the most altruistic of reasons, but seems unaware of how dangerously close he is to complete oblivion and an unmourned death. This does not sound like terribly exciting stuff. Director John Huston and writer Guy Gallo make a valiant attempt to insert some of Lowry's symbolism into the narrative, without making it too obscure for the audience to follow, at least for those who have been previously acquainted with the book. There are many performances in the filmic canon of men coping with a substance abuse problem and I think that Albert Finney is phenomenal playing a drunk; he is in fact drunk throughout the entire film, and I don't know if that's ever been done before. The audience is expected to forget that he is actually, constantly drunk, and the performance works beautifully. Jacqueline Bisset is impressive as Yvonne, a mature role for an actress who knows her business and acquits herself admirably. Anthony Andrews as Hugh seems to have had some of his part cut out of the movie, but he is frank and fresh faced and gives an intelligent performance. I give 'Under the Volcano' high marks. As an adaptation of a novel which was thought to be unfilmable, it makes a good account of itself. I should also mention the location shooting which lends a nice authenticity, the casting of many locals as extras (such as the old lady playing dominoes with a chicken) and lovely photography and set design. 'Under the Volcano' is a profound version of its complex and brilliant source material, which to me is a good reason to recommend it.

lewwarden I don't know why our reviewers are so down on novel author Malcolm Lowry, screen writer Guy Gallo and director Walter Houston's gripping story, of a man with much on his conscience, who is put out to pasture as Consul in sleepy Cuernavaca as a grateful Empire's reward for his terrible experience in WW-I when someone on the ship he commands tosses 6 or so German prisoners alive into the coal-burner's fire box, turns to drinks to salve his soul, loses his wife to a torrid affair with his half brother, in his misery gets drunk and contracts syphilis in the Farolito, a rough bar/whorehouse perched on a shelf above a chasm in the shadow of Mexico's renown volcano, Popocatapetl, and, when his wife unexpectedly comes back him and indicates her desire to renew a life of intimacy, has nowhere to go but back to the Faralito and his death under the volcano.Lowry, of course, had to obscure his seamy plot with reams of reflective language, else he would never have been published. He says as much in opening paragraph where in its second sentence he unnecessarily describes the locale as being south of the Tropic of Cancer. But John Huston, bless his iconoclastic soul, didn't pull any punches. The clues are there from git go to the very end. Vide Doctor Virgil, the specialist in venereal diseases.I was also amused that Huston used virtually the same opening as he did in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: Bogart, the drunk cadging handouts, and Finney, the drunk cadging drinks. Reminded me of the basically identical structures of the Jack and Bobby Kennedy assassinations where the victim is diverted into a killing field and a deadly crossfire.This is truly a great movie that did total justice to Lowry's celebrated work. And no, I'm not a professor. I saw the movie on DVD, was sufficiently intrigued to read the book. Just once. Read IMDM's comments and couldn't believe the paucity of comment and the plenitude of misunderstanding. So decided to see the movie again before shooting off my mouth.