Havana (1990)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Nice effects though.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

To begin with, I had always stayed away from this one until now (watched in tribute to its recently-deceased director) given the fact that it was a notorious flop on original release. Having caught up with it, it’s strange to think that Hollywood was still trying to recapture the magic of CASABLANCA (1942) fifty years on: the title itself, the backdrop of a country in turmoil, a hero who won’t ‘stick his neck out’ until he meets the beautiful wife of a ‘freedom fighter’ (believed dead at some point), the gambling element as a symbol of the fickle nature of destiny, his antagonistic relationship with the chief villain (whom he dupes in the end), etc.A lot depends on the effortless charm of its protagonist (Robert Redford – still looking great at 54), though his character is so laid-back that it’s hard to swallow him being so swiftly and easily a smooth operator with the authorities when required! Lena Olin and Raul Julia play the couple in peril this time around: reportedly, the latter so wanted co-star billing (though his relatively brief role hardly demanded it) that he opted to appear unbilled if his request was declined (which is exactly what happened)!; an overweight but quite effective Tomas Milian (a native of Cuba, incidentally) is the head of the organization rooting out the rebels; also on hand are Alan Arkin as the put-upon casino owner, Richard Farnswoth as “The Professor” and Mark Rydell as the real-life Meyer Lansky.As expected of Pollack, he gives the film a polished feel all round – from Owen Roizman’s diffused lighting to Terence Marsh’s remarkable production design (depicting both the glamor and the seediness of Havana) and Dave Grusin’s plush Oscar-nominated score. Overlong at nearly 2½ hours, the film’s ultimate failure can be pinned down to its essential dullness (lacking in action and being deliberately-paced to boot) – despite a number of undeniably compelling individual sequences.

I've seen it at the movies when it was released - it captured me! I bought the DVD some ten years later and I've watched it about 3x so far - and with every time I've watched it, it got worse. I haven't quite managed to put my finger on it as to the "why?" I mean, the ingredients are there: Great, experienced actors with an impressive track record and delivering great performances, a great location, the material/historic backdrop feels authentic and should make for some additional drama in its own right, music by - come on! That's GOTTA count for something - Dave Grusin, an experienced director and a great book. But something's completely - I mean COMPLETELY! - off about the whole thing... It "feels" like coffee that's been sitting in the pot all day, like veggies that have been simmering for a hair too long, like whipped cream that's been in the sun for a few seconds too long... shall I go on? But why? WHAT exactly is it? Is it the timing? I'm thinking, it must have to do with the timing and pace of the flick, every line of dialog feels just shallow and almost empty and in a way corny, when they deliver it. Maybe Redford tries to hard to be all cool about this, maybe Olin wants to come across as Latina too hard, the entire thing feels as if everyone had overeaten and was tired from that when coming to the set... It's a shame... the material COULD have made for another classic much along the lines of its famous precursor. But in the end, it all feels like wanting to replace Coca Cola by Pepsi - not the real thing and totally dispensable... The box-office failure is totally deserved in my view...

I watched this movie in 93 because i was working in the casino and of course Robert Redford, one of my favorite actor. i was expecting not very big performance but i noticed that movie was excellent as it run. Actually it's best the movie ever made which describes what a real love is, although the final is drastic. On the other hand it's a good political review of the 50s between Comies & Independent followers. So it is a good movie if you spend your time with your lover after a romantic dinner and then sit and watch that spectacular movie with 2 glasses of wine. Some little action & non-boring movie even if it's 108 minute long.

Still boyish Redford plays Jack Weil, a professional gambler who falls in love with a Swedish-American-Mexican (?) expat when turning up in Batista-era Cuba to deal the hand of his life. Tough luck, as the lady (Lina Olin as Roberta Duran, who delivers a worthy effort) is married to a local revolutionary. When Roberta and her husband Arturo are arrested by the regime, Jack's life takes a turn. Sounds like a good plot with all the ingredients that make for a great historic romance? Sure, but Pollack's handling of the matter is far from brilliant. For one, the set looks quirky at all times and no attempts at Film Noir lighting would change that. It actually starts with the art deco typeset in the opener, which is rather reminiscent of late seventies' Florida decadence than of pre-revolutionary Cuba. Too slick all the way, as are the character depictions. Unlike similar movies where the characters' inner turmoil is echoed by the chaos that surrounds them (most famously, "Gone with the Wind"), "Havana" never comes to grips with the setting it has chosen. From there on (and maybe even as a direct result thereof), the rest is mainly static, phoney and unconvincing, as is, most notably, the depiction of army manouevres. SPOILER: At some point, two cranky airplanes drop their bombs on an empty corn field, even prompting the character of Lina to wonder aloud who they're shooting at... Unwittingly hilarious. Partly reminiscent of "Under the Volcano" (Mexican revolution, decadence, impossible love affair...), though that was at least partly redeemed by a grand finale. And yes, it is clearly a (sad) remake of "Casablanca". And no, despite the heavy-handed hint in the dialogues, Olin is not Garbo.