Warner Bros. | Release Date: October 18, 1941
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 56 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
50
Mixed:
4
Negative:
2
Watch Now
Buy On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
8
amheretojudgeJun 17, 2019
Bogart is bluffing with such authenticity, he is deep and cannot be disenchanted; enters a lady with a tricky case.

The Maltese Falcon Huston is, as a storyteller, simply narrating. A lot of directors have come and gone, but none of them
Bogart is bluffing with such authenticity, he is deep and cannot be disenchanted; enters a lady with a tricky case.

The Maltese Falcon

Huston is, as a storyteller, simply narrating. A lot of directors have come and gone, but none of them was just reading it to you, tucking you in, he whispers the book in his infamous adaptation like it is his, the director's, John Huston. The story, if you are aware of it, has been wielded before too, but it didn't come out this durable and.. well, shiny. The narration is a bit tricky in here, since it is something that would- I wanna say be better if on paper, because it is and it was good- resist if exaggerated.

The scenarios, the characters, the entire tone of this film-noir is bound within four walls. It ping-pongs here are there with "He said. She said" affair where as an audience you are in a rush to figure out what actually is going on or has been going on in this first act. After which the film reveals all its cards and we relaxed back in our seats, hoping for something "Bang!" to go wrong. But it doesn't. This is where the film cheated me the most and left me in awe of it.

For if I think about it I never wanted it to go wrong or right or in fact anywhere. Huston's filmmaking is so present in that room where around three to four major characters are sitting around or roaming about that you don't want this day to end. Anticipation is the game then, and the tease, is Huston's key to success. Watch how a simple phone call or a knock on the door pumps up your heartbeat fast, scared, hoping that it wouldn't collapse, "The stuff that dreams are made of." The Maltese Falcon is as good as any historic event, I say claim it history and be done with it.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
imthenoobJun 14, 2020
I walked away from this movie feeling largely indifferent about it. I thought it ran a good 20 minutes too long, was slow-paced and failed to really capture me with its story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilipeNetoAug 8, 2020
This is probably one of the most compelling classics in noir movies. It is a style that even today has passionate and faithful followers, and sometimes reappears in cinema, whether in the form of simple tributes or even in the form of a kindThis is probably one of the most compelling classics in noir movies. It is a style that even today has passionate and faithful followers, and sometimes reappears in cinema, whether in the form of simple tributes or even in the form of a kind of "neo noir" that we can see in films like "Shutter Island", "The Black Dahlia" or "Mulholland Drive".

The story of this film revolves around a statuette of a falcon, made of gold and precious stones, an ancient artifact that an order of knights - which the film clarifies at the outset to be "the Knights Templar of Malta" (I will talk about this later) - offers in the 16th century to Emperor Charles V in exchange for the Mediterranean island of Malta. According to the story of this film, the object was lost and never reaches the hands of the emperor. In this film its the search for the artifact that motivates a crime that is investigated by a detective, alongside the police.

The biggest problem I had with this film lies in the historical premises on which the script was built. It may seem petty, but I am a historian and I value a certain historical rigour. That is why the expression "Knights Templar of Malta" gives me chills of horror as it mixes and confuses two orders of cavalry that should not be confused. One is the Order of the Temple, or the Knights Templar, which has nothing to do with this film, and the other is the Order of the Hospital, or Order of Malta. The Knights Templar were founded after the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099, at the end of the First Crusade. The order became very rich, acquired land, prestige and power, aroused envy. Persecuted by the French king Philip IV, it was extinguished by Pope Clement V in 1312. The Order of the Knights of St. John, or Knights Hospitallers, was also founded after the conquest of Jerusalem and also enriched but was never extinct and still exists today, with another name: Sovereign and Military Order of Malta. This is due to the fact that, when Jerusalem was lost by the Christians, the knights moved their headquarters to Cyprus, then to the island of Rhodes until, finally, they settled on Malta in 1518. The island, then part of the territories of the Crown of Aragon, was ruled by the Germanic emperor Charles V, who was also the king of Castile, Leon and Aragon (today Spain), as Charles I. Calling Templars to the Hospitallers Knights is, thus, a gross history error, almost like saying that Lincoln founded the United States of America, or that Napoleon I was the last king of France.

The film is dominated by the presence of Humphrey Bogart. A great actor from the golden age, he is excellent and I just found it difficult to keep up with him when he accelerated his speech and ran over words, making it difficult to understand what he was saying. I also liked the performance of Gladys George and Mary Astor, which surprises us in the end with an interesting but somewhat obvious twist. In turn, the character of Peter Lorre struck me as a bit of a caricature. The film has a lot of dialogue and it can be a bit boring, especially for those who expect a little action, but I handled it well except for Bogart, as I said.

Technically, its a discreet but very competent film, with quality production values. It has excellent cinematography, with impeccable and original shooting angles and camera work. Its relatively high contrast looks good on the screen and makes the film visually pleasing. The light and shadow effects and lighting are truly superb. The sets are routine but elegant, the costumes are excellent with all the raincoats and fedora hats we could wish for. Of course, cigarettes and alcohol couldn't be missing, and I don't see any problem with that.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
misterBBCApr 6, 2018
The Stuff is dreams are made of...
Movie that's defines film-noir. All of it's there: cynical detective, femme fatale, light/dark contrast. And also one of the most regonizeble MacGuffin in movie history. Humphrey Bogart is amazing, the man
The Stuff is dreams are made of...
Movie that's defines film-noir. All of it's there: cynical detective, femme fatale, light/dark contrast. And also one of the most regonizeble MacGuffin in movie history. Humphrey Bogart is amazing, the man that oozing with his charisma through the screen. Bogart and Huston just simply created a character that is all noir.
I have to be honest, i didn't like it at first time, but giving it a thought it was really something... With my "not liking it at the first time" conflicting with my love for cinema i'm giving this picture only 7, even though deeply inside i know it deserves more...
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews