User reviews

Jack Weil, played by Robert Redford, feels at home in this corrupt city… He's a professional gambler looking for the game of his life… He played in every Elks Club and Moose Hall in America… He remembers every hand of every game and now he wants a shot, only one shot in Havana…

But while he is on the verge of winning everything Bobby Duran (Lena Olin) has lost all she ever knew… Olin plays the wife of a Cuban revolutionary, Raul Julia… Bobby has nothing to lose or to protect… And in a super-natural and strange way Jack reaches her… And so, as Cuba crumbles Jack is drawn in Bobby's world of the revolutionaries and, in one crucial moment he sees himself he must choose between the greatest card game of his life and the woman he loves…

There's a kind of exotic combination between Redford and Olin's characters… Between Redford's very American, blond, golden look and Olin's dark, intense Swedish expression…

Sydney Pollack's "Havana" is a love story that takes place during the week of Christmas, 1958 which was the last week Batista was in power before Castro came in… It was the last week of this kind of a circus that Havana was… An attractive city full of gambling, of burlesque, of every kind of hedonistic pleasure possible

I just saw this one again on DVD and was surprised at how good it was. The acting, story and environment made it very easy to follow what was going on. I fail to see big holes in the plot: the characters are very well developed. What is created is a very sweet romantic thriller in a historical setting - the viewer knows that the revolution will take place so that part is anti-climatic.

The film didn't attempt to make the revolutionaries into the good guys - Batista's forces did come across as corrupt and arrogant though.

One mistake: Redford's character convinces the security chief he works for the CIA which is implausible since he's supposedly on assignment in Cuba and doesn't speak Spanish.

How does a cool professional gambler show passion? He gives up the Big Game to rescue his beloved. How can a passionate woman reconcile the two loves of her life--the noble hero and his cause and the man who makes her feel most like a woman? Yes, it's Casablanca revisited. And Lena Olin portrays her ambivalence as ably as her Swedish compatriot, Ingrid Bergman. Fault the script for not delivering the depth of Casablanca, the humor--Alan Arkin could have been the equal of Claude Rains but didn't get the lines. But the cinematography makes pre-revolutionary Havana palpable, in its glamour and seaminess, its whiff of a bygone era. Who wouldn't want to drive a Cadillac convertible onto the ferry at Key West and debark in Havana?

Many will claim that Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford were on auto-pilot while making this film. Based on their previous collaborative efforts, the well-received Three Days of the Condor, The Way We Were, The Electric Horseman, and Out of Africa, which swept the Academy Awards, people wanted to see their movies. They could make any movie they wanted. They made Havana, and NOBODY wanted to see it.

Maybe Pollack, brilliant in his own right, set his watch according to Redford's schedule at this time, and history shows that, subsequent to Havana, and its box office failure Sydney Pollack basically quit directing. His influence in film is still served, and may be better served as a producer, witness Sliding Doors, Sense and Sensibility, Fabulous Baker Boys, and Searching For Bobby Fischer, all of which he helped bring to the screen.

But, back to the matter at hand-Redford as a gambler, Lena Olin, his distraction (and what a distraction)--the film feels good, looks good, and gives us some perspective on Cuba in the waning hours of Batista.

Olin (pre-Romeo is Bleeding, post Unbearable Lightness of Being) is properly introduced to American audiences, and is not inappropriate as leading lady to one of Hollywood's leading stars, Redford, who, even on auto-pilot, delivers a strong, engaging performance.

I understand this film was heavily maligned at release, and failed dismally at the box office, but I enjoyed it. It is a beautiful film to watch with attractive leads - and that alone stands it well ahead of many of the alternatives out there today.

It often seems like some critics chastise Sydney Pollack for inserting too much political commentary into his movies. "Havana" would be a prime example. It features frequent Pollack star Robert Redford* as a gambler who goes to Cuba's capital during the last few days of 1958, when the revolution is about to triumph. On the way there, he meets Lena Olin, the wife of revolutionary fighter Raul Julia. Over the course of the movie, Redford and Olin not only develop a relationship, but he comes to understand why the revolution is happening.

Maybe the movie does go just a little overboard on politicking. But I would like to pose a question: are we supposed to focus on these sorts of things and totally ignore politics? Would the world be a better place if everyone just blindly accepted every piece of government propaganda? Because it seems to me that part of democracy is that people are supposed to challenge the government if they think that the latter is lying. Therefore, I have to commend Sydney Pollack for doing that in "Havana".

Another thing is that it seems like this movie was a semi-remake of Richard Lester's "Cuba", starring Sean Connery as a British agent sent there on the verge of the revolution's triumph and discovering the status quo. Even if it is, I still recommend it.

Also starring Alan Arkin (his character is very likely to make your skin crawl) and Richard Farnsworth.

*Interestingly, they haven't collaborated since this movie.

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 liked this film, but it is only fair, yet entertaining. Redford does his best with what he's given. Corny dialogue which seems written instead of flowing with reality. The film presents a very romantazied version of what Hollywood wants the public to believe was the Cuba of the 1950s and the Revolution. Playing 1950s background music to people being tortured and murdered just seems way off base. If the film makers has presented a realistic portrayal instead of the glossy postcard look, maybe the movie would have been a lot more successful. As for the acting, well, Alan Arkin overplays the typical gangster in a role that has been respected a million times. Nothing new here. Everyone is a characture and come off as fake and even cartoonish. Great card. Great fashion. Great music. Great sets. Beautiful women. The rest is nothing to write home about.

The island of Cuba is a long way from Morocco, but in Sydney Pollack's film of the same name the city of Havana isn't too far removed from 'Casablanca'. The two films share a similar exotic locale, the same shady intrigue, and an all too familiar bittersweet romance. All that's missing are Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, but what's surprising about Pollack's film is how well it stands up under the comparison. Robert Redford portrays a tough and charismatic (if slightly disreputable) gambler who drifts into the decadent Cuban capital during the last, desperate days of the Battista regime, and it's a pleasure to watch him playing, for once, a character without a built-in halo. The foreign intrigue, played against a background of political unrest, is perfectly suited to the swinging tropical setting, but the romance between Redford and beautiful revolutionary Lena Olin isn't as convincing. Don't blame the talented cast; the script lets them down too often during the last half of the film, undermining an otherwise attractive and entertaining bit of high-grade, escapist fluff.

Substitute Jack (gambler) for Rick (cafe owner). Then, Bobby (wife of Arturo) for Ilsa. Finally, Arturo(revolutionary) for Victor. I think you end end up with a modern-day "Casablanca". Of course some would say it's mixing apples (Nazis) and oranges (Communists). But I think the plot outline and ultimate goal of the hero risking his life to save the lives of the heroine and her husband are similar. Not only did Jack find his soul but found the love that was missing all his life. Like Rick, in the end Jack did the right thing. Also, some of the scenes reminded me of the Godfather, Part II. The film could have been edited a little better. Overall, I thought it was a very entertaining film.

Robert Redford plays a cynical gambler who falls in love with a rich, married revolutionary, Lena Olen, during the fall of the Batista regime. This is a genuine snooze-a-rama that doesn't work on any level. It wants to be another Casablanca, but suffers from the fact that Redford is no Bogart. His Jack Weil character is too dense and whiny to take the bull by the horns. And Lena Olen, come on. How committed and noble can her character be if she's doing Redford within two days of her husband's supposed death? This film is filled with talky scenes that just go on and on and on. (As does the film itself. It is one of those beasts that refuse to die.) A major disappointment from director Sydney Pollack.

Directing: 7 Acting: 7 Story: 5 Production values: 6 Suspence / Thriller level: 5 Action: 5 Mystery / unknown: none Romance level: 8 Comedy elements: none

It's the last days of 1958 and the Batista dictatorship in Cuba. Jack Weil (Robert Redford) is a professional card player on a boat to Havana. He is recruited by Roberta (Lena Olin) to smuggle radios for the revolutionaries. He's in love with her but she's married to revolt leader Dr. Duran (Raul Julia). The Durans are arrested and Dr. Duran is reported killed. Weil's poker game happens to be against the head of the secret police. He manages to win her release in their game.

Director Sydney Pollack is trying to make his version of Casablanca. The problem is that I'm not in love with this love. Casablanca is an iconic romantic film. This is a movie of lust rather than romance. It's different aspects of love although the movie ends with similar sacrifices. I understand this love story but I'm not in love with it. There is also the glowing lighting. Aside from the bright daylight, even night interiors have the glowing back light for Redford. He's the American savior. Redford has 50% too much of that boyish smile and needs 100% more desperation. He is too slick and too polished. There is this gloss of the Cuban casino world that is slightly off-putting considering the dark times being portrayed. Pollack is going for an epic glossy romance. I'm not in that mood.

Many viewers have noted that Havana is essentially Casablanca in the Caribbean, which is certainly true. But I found the same apocalyptic tension in Havana as in Casablanca, although not quite as effective the second time around. Others criticized the dialogue. I thought it was exceptionally mature, and subtle, which may be what threw some of the reviewers in this forum, who maybe would have wanted something more bombastic. The plot development was very compressed - things had to happen very quickly, and so some thought they happened far too quickly. But I thought Olin in particular showed all of the pain and turmoil necessary to make her quick transitions of emotion believable. You have to believe that the times were so tumultuous that people had to adjust very quickly to changing circumstances. As for Jack falling in love with Bobby so fast, that's entirely believable, and the look they exchanged at the party where Jack meets her husband for the first time was our signal that this love affair was happening, and was one of those insane passions that overtake people, not infrequently, and in this case, again, against the apocalyptic backdrop of this incipient revolution, which made all involved feel very much at loose ends, ready for, or dreading, the vast changes about to happen to them. I though the end was too dragged out, but other than that, the movie mostly plausible.

It's a shame $40 Million (U.S.) was blown on this film. Robert Redford was miscast. Lena Olin is young enough to be Redford's daughter. She is taller, more beautiful, more interesting. By 1990, he was much better off directing. This is a period piece that doesn't work. 3 years later, Ms. Olin is electrifying in "Romeo Is Bleeding" (1993) opposite Gary Oldman.

This film begins with a gambler by the name of "Jack Weil" (Robert Redford) coming to Havana, Cuba just days before Fidel Castro takes over in an armed revolution. As you might expect things are rather tense all over the country. In any case, what Jack is looking forward to is the possibility of a big poker match which he hopes to win with the backing of a major hotel in the area headed by his friend "Joe Volpi" (Alan Ladd). His plans, however, become sidetracked when he meets a beautiful woman by the name of "Roberta 'Bobby' Duran" (Lena Olin) who just happens to be the wife of one of the more prominent men in Cuba and is also sympathetic to the revolution. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film did a remarkably good job at portraying the situation in Cuba prior to the revolution. I also liked the performances of both Robert Redford and to a lesser extent that of Tony Plana (as "Julio Ramos"). On the other hand, I though the chemistry between Robert Redford and Lena Olin could have used some improvement but even so it was adequate enough all things considered. That being said, I enjoyed this film for the most part and have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

Starts out as an interesting political drama with 1958 Cuba in turmoil. Jack Weil, (Robert Redford), comes to town in hope of wining a fortune in poker. Instead he gets caught up in the rise of the revolution . The first hour in-a-half is fascinating, watching Redford's character come to terms with the reality surrounding him. It's the last hour that lets us down as this becomes CASABLANCA in Cuba. I'm sure it was a studio decision to allow some romantic fluff to spoil the political broth.

What potential for a good, if not great movie! On Christmas Eve 1958, a solitary high-stakes gambler travels to Havana from Key West. His intent is to organize a high-stakes poker game that will leave him well situated for life. On the ferry to Havana, he meets the wife of a wealthy Cuban physician who is smuggling arms to the revolutionaries. Upon arriving in Cuba, he saves her bacon from discovery by the authorities, and promptly falls in love with her. Havana on the eve of the revolution has an overdrive case of the nerves. Secret police, revolutionaries, gamblers and gangsters; the movie has them all.

At the helm is Sidney Pollock with actors Robert Redford, Raul Julia, Lena Olin, and Alan Arkin. And the movie falls flat on its face well before the ferry docks at Havana. And it never recovers. What goes wrong? In a sense everything, nothing seems to connect. The story lacks suspense, good dialogue, and romance. The actors go through the motions for a paycheck. The sets seem cheesy and false. What else? Give this movie a pass; it's not worth the rental.

My main problem with this movie is Redford's character: his transformation from cynical viveur into noble idealist wasn't very convincing to me.

The first part of the movie, however, is very fascinating in the way it depicts the almost mythical pre revolutionary Cuba with its casinos and rich tourists.

A superb Havana noir set in 1958-9 and featuring three great actors, Robert Redford, Raul Julia, and Lena Olin. Lena is the object of desire for the male actors and for any living male in the audience! Robert Redford is an American gambler and poker player who works the high stakes poker games for his own account and for the Casino boss in Havana. Redford is debonair and sophisticated and a devout bachelor who is not looking for love, but it finds him. The beautiful Lena hires Redford to perform a task and he becomes deeply enamored of her. I think Lena Olin is one of the most underrated actresses in existence and also one of the most sensually beautiful. As the smitten Redford works the tables his thoughts continue to dwell on his desire, beautiful Lena, he is enthralled with her memory and must seek her to gain satisfaction. Revolutiuon is afoot and Cuba is both the best and worst of times. The Cuban scenery is beautiful. The movie will take you to a time that is past and no longer exists except in memory. A very beautiful movie with surprises and twists and turns in plot. A Sydney Pollack masterpiece. A treat awaits those who watch.

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...

This film only has 4 problems with it, that I can see. 1. Its raison d'être. 2. The screenplay. 3. The acting. 4. The directing. The actors, devoid of any visible passion, sleepwalk through their lines. The attempted "style" Pollack seems to be shooting for rings as tinny and artificial as Hollywood. The Left-loving and sun-damaged Redford does his best to act debonair, but maybe a bit too much. Lena is stunning as always, but her Prozac-induced acting serves only to make the film mildly amusing...and very mildly at that. The movie was doomed before Pollack ever yelled "action." It's as if a film school teacher hastily threw together a bunch of ingredients straight out of Casablanca, then instructed "only make it set in Havana...go!" and expected a masterpiece. Asking a viewer who's not a socialist himself to care about a cause as nefarious as Castro's Communist Cuba is a stretch for anyone with a modicum of patriotism and knowledge of history, no matter how beautiful the leading couple may try to be or how many gratuitous flesh scenes are thrown in. The parallels to the classic "Casablanca" are numerous and haranguing; from the film's city name to the suave man-about-town leading character who wonders if he should sacrifice his personal desires for a(n allegedly) greater cause, to his illicit love interest's being a married Swedish woman loyal to her husband's political passion. Besides being a shameless rip-off of an actually good motion picture, this film flops because it fails to make us care about anyone in it. Other than left-wing ideologues, who would ever feel moved to care about an adulterous gambler and a couple of communist revolutionaries? Victor Laszlo was on a valid mission--to combat the radical politics of worldwide domination, tyranny and murder. Rick and Ilsa fell in love before he ever found out about her marriage, and we cared because we felt they belonged together, yet understood the more compelling cause that forced them to remain apart. This film tried to copy a similar formula with the cause of Communist revolution, but we all know the results: a dictator far more murderous than Batista, who has kept his country mired in misery and mediocrity ever since.