Good concept, poorly executed.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Geoffrey Firmin, alcoholic ex-British consul to Mexico, is drunk on the day of the dead in Cuevernica Mexico. His wife has left him, his brother is in Mexico City, and he is lonely. He attends a party, where he gives a drunk nonsensical speech, before going to a bar to drink. It is then that his ex-wife arrives, she misses him, and he misses her.He invites her back into their home, where they talk, and Geoffrey drinks. His wife, Yvonne, goes to take a bath, and Geoffrey goes off in search of liquor. His brother Hugh arrives and sees Yvonne, he is surprised to see her. Geoffrey comes back, and asks his wife and brother to come with him to see the sights. Geoffrey constantly interrupts their trip with drinking. Eventually, Geoffrey goes on an alcoholic rampage, and Hugh and Yvonne look for him, as night falls on the day of the dead....The entirety of the film rests on one thing, the performance by Albert Finney. Since Huston's shooting method is to utilize no tricky camera positions, or flashbacks, Finney's performance has to knock it out of the park in order to sell this story. And it does. In the history of film, the character of the drunk has always been an interesting one. Overplay it, and it can seem comedic, underplay it and it can seem non-existent. To strike the perfect balance is hard, and with little nifty camera tricks out of the question, the film rests on the actors performance.It is generally accepted that the three great dramatic drunk male performances were portrayed by Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend, Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, and Jack Lemmon in Days Of Wine and Roses. No offense to any to the above, but Finney blows it out of the water. His Geoffrey Firmin is a force of nature. He is so incredibly into character, that halfway through the film I was not thinking in terms of Albert Finney, but in terms of Geoffrey Firmin.He delves into the depths of a character that really isn't that likable, and he doesn't try to make him likable. He plays it like a real drunkard. When he meets a British man after lying on the road, he gets up and begins to mock the man. The man doesn't know of course, but we do. Finney's drunkenness is done to the tee. When Firmin runs out of alcohol he plows through his typical hiding spots in a rage, until moving into the backyard, where he find his bottle. It's a bravura performance.However, Finney is not the only actor who gives a great performance. Jacqueline Bisset, playing Firmin's long suffering wife, gives a wonderful performance. She still loves him, after all of those years, and she thinks she can help him, not knowing he is beyond help. Bisset was quite good in Day For Night, but here she gives a better performance. It's great. The same, however, cannot be said for Anthony Andrews as Hugh Firmin.To be fair, Andrews isn't given the same opportunities as Finney and Bisset, but his character is kind of bland, so it is hard to create a great character out of this. As Huston lived in Mexico, he certainly knew his surroundings, and the cinematographer strikes a great balance between Firmin's surroundings and his drunkenness.I do not like the score, although many people do. I find it sounds almost comedic at points, certainly the wrong kind of atmosphere for this kind of film. The screenplay does a great job of condensing an "unfilmable" novel into a film. Huston's direction is laid back, he lets the story take its course, and lets the actors do their thing. I know why Huston would choose to film in such an uninspiring way, but I do wish he could have made his camera just a little more involved.You can tell he is in control of his film, but it could have been shot in a more involving way. This brings me to my main issue with the film. It is just kind of boring. It moves along at a slow pace, and with characters that are unlikable. This makes it very hard to get into the film. No offense to Huston (or books), the film seems so literary. It never really becomes a film, it feels like an adaptation, all the way down the line.To be fair, that is Huston's style, but I can usually overlook it, most time I don't even realize it, if the plot is interesting. Here the film feels like a showcase for Finney's amazing performance, with the plot being pushed to the side, much as the novel must have been, with Lowry's thoughts instead of Finney's performance. Overall, this is not a bad film. The performances by the two leads are terrific, and it is a fitting third last film for Huston.Under the Volcano, 1984, Starring: Albert Finney, Jacqueline Bisset and Anthony Andrews, Directed by John Huston, 7/10 (B)(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)

This is a masterpiece, based on a major modern novel by Malcom Lowry.... Finney and Huston at their best... This is almost too much! Albert Finney is one of the greatest living actors, usually taking the characters he plays much higher than one expects... Luckily enough, Huston (and later Figgis) gave to Finney material that stands equal to his greatness. I think the movie is beyond criticism. Huston takes a thorny modern novel and translates it into a powerful drama. Although the plot does not provide a happy-ending, the movie is far above "good". The photography, the dialogues, the music and the cast are all exceptional. I consider the movie one of the 10 movies that one has to watch before one dies! A true masterpiece...

I agree with others here who say the film is rather conventional in it's treatment of the novel. The consul's wife is very clearly a hallucination in the book but here this along with the consul's general mental state are presented too objectively and this makes a lot of the film ring false. A good start and of course excellent performances by Finney and Bisette but then the movie blacks out. I'm a great fan of John Huston I consider at least four of his films to be among the greatest ever (Moby Dick, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The African Queen, and Moulin Rouge ) but I believe he didn't make another good film after Night of the Iguana. Although I haven't seen Man Who Would be King. Under the Volcano is another late career disappointment.

Imagine Albert Finney, one of the great ham bones of the acting world. Imagine one of the great ham bones of the acting world playing a character who's drunk for the entire length of the movie. If you can imagine this, you can imagine why the audience applauded when Albert Finney's character finally died because it meant that the movie was apt to be over soon as well. Predictable and self-consciously "arty," the movie never seemed to be about anything, but rather seemed to be a vehicle for Albert Finney to overact (as usual). The plot was non-existent and the characters were stereotypical "strangers in a strange land."