Zwei dreckige Halunken

This is One of Director Mankiewicz's most Divisive Films.

The 4-Time Oscar Winner seemed to Discover the Absence of the "Motion Picture Code" and Embraced the Freedom with this Multi-Toned, Star-Studded Western.

His First Western Ever is a Romping, Head-Snapping, Cynical to the End Look at the "Lighter" Side of Rape, Murder, Robbery, the Penal System, and More.

The Movie is so Odd it is Jaw-Dropping at Times.

The Cast from Top to Bottom all Join in on the "Fun".

The Film Appealed, and still does, to the Post-Modern Audience and Film-School Generation where "Revisionist" is Not a Bad Thing.

Because Nothing On-Screen is Traditional, Especially the Tone, that the Studio-System, where the Director, Henry Fonda, and Kirk Douglas Earned Their Bona-Fides.

This Probably Paved the Way for Great Films Like Mel Brooks""Blazing Saddles" (1974).

The Strange Goings-On in this Love it or Hate it Film, was Probably Shocking to Western Fans and Stalwart Studio-Film Fans.

But that Unfortunate Ride of Full-Control was Over. This was the Dawning of the Age of the Independent Film and Independent Authorship.

For those Willing to "Walk on the Wild Side" of Westerns...

Worth a Watch

Not for Everyone.

A unique combination of a western and an existentialist black comedy.

The two foils are Kirk Douglas as a cunning and charming prisoner, and Henry Fonda as his steady and observant warden. They match wits within a teeming ecology of interesting characters. Burgess Meredith is the heart of the ensemble and provides several poignant moments: the bath scene and his reaction to a shooting are unforgettable.

You'll either hate or love the way "A Crooked Man" subverts the conventions of the genre. The tone of the movie is purposefully inconsistent. One moment, it's sympathetic and moving. The next it's cold and nihilistic. The humor is particularly unique for how it brings slapstick and abstraction together. Consider the way Ah-ping meets his end, or the film's obvious disingenuous portrayal of the schoolteacher's fate. Behind these profoundly idiotic scenes is something profound. One caveat: a pointless and homophobic subplot mars this otherwise perfect film.

"A Crooked Man" will be a real treat for those who like films that leave the well-beaten path.

There is so much to like and appreciate about this film that while it's an enjoyable experience, it isn't the great film it should have been.

Firstly, the script is largely excellent. It has a good plot and characters backed up by interesting dialogue. It has a top-notch cast delivering almost universally quality performances. As well, it has some interesting themes and issues to explore, especially in the central battle between Fonda's warden and Douglas' prisoner. The scene where Douglas confronts Fonda in the just built eating hall and exposes his self-serving interests and hypocrisy, is a great example of top-class screen writing.

All the elements are there for a classic (or at least semi-classic) Western, but it doesn't quite reach that. Why? I think a big problem for this is Joseph L. Mankiewicz's direction. As other users have commented, the tone of the film is jerky and erratic and he has to take prime blame for that. But even in pure cinematic terms, it isn't well directed. Scenes that should have been highlights (such as the robbery that opens the film) lack punch because they're ineptly handled.

I think another major problem is the cinematography. The glossy, bright and flashy look of TWACM seems more in tune for a jovial, knockabout, straightforward Western. For a film full of cynicism, complexity (as well as its share of humour) and some rather depressing elements, it's a distracting and misjudged look. The much more realistic style that was to become much more common in films as the 1970s progressed (e.g. 'McCabe and Mrs. Miller') would have been much more apt.

Overall, an under-appreciated and underrated film worth seeking out. But also a bit of a missed opportunity.

This is an interesting black comedy, from Joseph Mankiewicz, about the gullibility of man, and how greed can corrupt anyone. Henry Fonda is a lawman, in typical Fonda-style (before WARLOCK and the spaghetti westerns changed his image). He is a firm support for law and order. However, he has been shot and left lame by Warren Oates, a drunken outlaw. He may have to retire as a result sooner than he expected.

At the start of the film we watch how Kirk Douglas (Paris Pitman) has robbed the home of Arthur O'Connor with his gang. They are killed off in one way or another. Pitman escapes with the money, and hides it in a hole full of rattlesnakes. But later he is captured. Pitman is sent to territorial prison, where he meets Oates, Burgess Meredith (as the legendary Missouri Kid), Hume Cronym and John Randolph (a pair of swindlers who are also a gay couple), and others. The warden is Martin Gabel, who soon makes it clear that if Douglas wants to be out sooner he needs the warden as a partner. But in a riot Gabel is killed, and Fonda is appointed the new warden.

Fonda tries to reform the prison, improving facilities and setting up an honor system. Douglas, the total cynic, sneers at all this, and makes his own plans. He is not going to rot for two decades or so in prison while a fortune awaits for him. So he starts plotting to get out, and Fonda keeps watching to counter his plotting.

I won't add anything else, but in the end one wonders if Paris Pitman's view of mankind is the truth of us all or not. The film has wonderful sharp comedy, including the comic put-downs of Cronyn when undercutting the pompous Randolph, and when one sees scenes like Burgess Meredith taking his first bath. I strongly recommend this film to fans of unusual westerns.

Kirk Douglas plays a very amoral and scheming bandit. For a while, this lifestyle pays off until he is ultimately captured and placed in an awful prison in the middle of the desert. At first, this is a real tough stay for Kirk as the warden is a greedy cuss and he tries to abuse Kirk into revealing where he hid $500,000 in stolen loot. But, after the warden is killed, a new guy takes over (Henry Fonda) and he and Douglas develop a certain level of respect for each other--all the while Kirk is planning his escape. As for Fonda and his motivation for befriending Kirk goes, this is all very vague until very late in the film--and I think this made for a better film.

In addition to these two terrific actors, there are some wonderful supporting performances--especially by Hume Cronin and John Randolph who seemed an awful lot like a married couple! About the only negatives were a few places where the script seemed ridiculous (such as the escape from the prison--they took their time and it sure looked too easy).

I enjoyed this Kirk Douglas film quite a bit and I was torn between giving it a 7 and an 8. My final decision to give it a 7 was because some of the nudity and language seemed rather gratuitous and was inserted less for artistic reasons than to satisfy the new 1960s and 70s morality. There are just a few too many butts and breasts to make it a good bet for most kids--and it's a shame, because otherwise it's a dandy film.