There’s a concept that tends to emerge in media from time to time, which is the idea that someone realises their life is in danger, but the person they fear is not some foreboding stranger, but rather someone very close to them, whether it’s a family member or lover. We’ve seen a few works over the years tackle this idea, and it is usually quite entertaining, since it’s a truly ridiculous concept that never takes itself too seriously. One of the more prominent examples comes in the form of Prizzi’s Honor, in which Richard Condon (one of the more fascinating mid-century authors whose work was very much aligned with cutting-edge political commentary and satire, particularly for his best-known work, the iconic The Manchurian Candidate) adapts his own novel of the same title, which tells the story of two assassins who are considered the pride of the gangster organizations with which they work, but unknowingly fall in love with one another, not realizing that they are soon going to be commissioned to kill the other. Bringing it to the screen, we find John Huston (in his penultimate directorial effort right at the end of his extraordinary and prolific career), and considering his history in subversive cinema that not only pushed boundaries but helped define the medium, it seemed like we were in very capable hands. However, this was not the case – as capable as everyone involved in this film may have been, something went wrong along the way, since the film doesn’t come across as being particularly appealing, at least not in the way that we may imagine with such a formidable cast and crew involved in this adaptation. The reasons for it could be traced back to different sources, but the overall impression we get is that Prizzi’s Honor, as interesting as it may be in theory, simply does not work nearly as well in execution as it did when it was first conceived, which proves how many of its flaws are embedded right at the conceptual stage. One of the rare misfires in a typically brilliant career for many of these artists, the film doesn’t strike us as anything particularly complex or engaging.

The plot at the heart of Prizzi’s Honor is the start of its problems – Condon was a great writer, but there was something slightly off-kilter about the way he approaches this subject matter, and while it may work better on the written page (especially since its designed to hearken back to the heyday of pulpy crime novels), the adaptation is filled with problems relating to the plot. Not only is there a never-ending stream of plot holes, but the story itself is not very convincing – the one-sentence premise is interesting enough, but it struggles to stretch it out over two hours, especially since there isn’t much substance beneath the surface. The plot is confusing, and the character motivations are almost non-existent, to the point where we wonder how this story could have been written by someone who had previously crafted some of the most complex and fascinating characters in literary history. The idea of a crime story in which both sides are played against the middle has promise, but outside of a very limited concept (what if two assassins fell in love with one another, but were also hired to kill their partner?), There really isn’t anything particularly interesting. The film does try to establish more detail to accompany the central premise, such as offering insights into the trials and tribulations of those involved in organised crime, particularly efforts to present a slightly more goofy, comedic depiction of career criminals, but it ultimately comes across as fruitless, since there really isn’t much complexity in how the film handles these ideas. Huston is not entirely to blame in this regard – there was only so much he could do with a very limited script, and he does his best to make it dynamic (although there were some problems with his direction itself, which we will get to momentarily), but ultimately nothing quite manages to salvage Prizzi’s Honor from feeling like a bundle of missed opportunities on a conceptual level.

Much of the marketing in Prizzi’s Honor pointed towards it being a vehicle for three of the most highly-regarded, cherished actors working at the time. Jack Nicholson was still at the peak of his stardom and could essentially do anything based on how beloved he was and would continue to be for several more years. His performance here is unfortunately not nearly as good as we would anticipate, and it almost feels as if he is limiting himself with some inexplicable character choices – his delivery is stilted and lacks personality, and his attempt at a classic New York gangster accent feels like the most loose approximation of what a stereotypical criminal would sound like, which is a peculiar decision for such a seasoned actor. He’s cast alongside Kathleen Turner, who was steadily growing to become one of the most sought-after actors in the industry, and while she is very good, the lack of chemistry between her and Nicholson is notable from their first scene, and we never once believe that these characters could be in love. In later years, Turner revealed the tensions that arose around this time as she made her way through Hollywood and had encounters with actors like Nicholson, and while they are both consummate professionals, the clear disdain between them impacts the film significantly. Finally, Prizzi’s Honor is often cited as the breakthrough role for Anjelica Huston, who had to work laboriously to dismiss all allegations of nepotism. Her performance is solid but not nearly substantial enough – she lights up the screen, and she has terrific chemistry with Nicholson (to the point where we wish it were Huston in the co-lead role instead of Turner), but the part is too small and not nearly compelling enough to salvage the film. It is a troublesome experience to find genuinely great actors turning in mediocre performances, but when they have very little to work with, it is somewhat understandable. No one is necessarily acting badly in this film, but it’s not a landmark performance for any of these actors, despite the immense potential that lingers beneath the surface of the film.

More than anything else, we can reduce the main flaws in Prizzi’s Honor to the fact that it doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. Huston was not a filmmaker who was considered particularly weak when it came to experimenting with genre, but this is an example where the crossover between different styles and tones simply does not work nearly as well as it should. Basing the film on a hardboiled crime novel with broad comedic overtones, we find that it struggles to actually make much of a statement in either direction – it is not nearly funny enough to be considered a strong comedy, nor is there sufficient tension to allow it to flourish into a decent crime story. More than anything else, the romance is as flaccid and lifeless as it could be, and for a film that promotes itself as a romantic comedy, or at least one in which we are asked to believe in the central relationship, the film immediately falls apart. Huston leaps between tones without any sophistication or real sense of direction, and it ultimately seems that he is not fully invested in the story. It isn’t even a matter of his being too old or frail to make a decent film – on either side of Prizzi’s Honor, we have Under the Volcano and The Dead, both wonderful and nuanced efforts from one of the great filmmakers of his generation. This film just needed a younger, more dynamic voice that could capture the spirit of the era while still paying sufficient tribute to the genres that form the foundation of the story. The rapid pace and devil-may-care attitude seems a bit too overwhelming for Huston, whose work is solid but not strong enough to actually make much of an impression, leading to a rather uninspired and dull affair that struggles to capture a specific tone with any real sense of consistency, leading to a trite and uninspired film that needed a fresher perspective, since the youthful energy of the story doesn’t quite mesh with Huston’s more melancholic, self-reflective nature that came in his older years.

In theory, Prizzi’s Honor seems like it has the potential to be one of the great films of the 1980s. It is directed by a bona fide Hollywood legend, and it is populated by some of the most popular actors of the era, who are all technically very good. However, there are far too many flaws embedded in this film for it ever to rise from being merely mediocre, which is unfortunately too heavy a burden for the film to handle, and it soon finds itself crushed under the weight of its own attempted ambition. It’s not a very good film – the writing is hackneyed and filled with cliches, and the story doesn’t have any flow or consistency, leading to quite a stilted narrative that doesn’t lead to anything particularly interesting or captivating, outside of a few small moments where we can see the promise gradually shining through. It’s a film without any real sense of complexity, and its narrative hits all the expected beats, which is quite shocking for a film being helmed by a master like Huston, who seemed to be doing the bare minimum to bring this film to life. It lacks style and a clear voice, the tone is scattered in a way that is quite frustrating, and its flirtations with genre are deeply inconsistent, to say the least. As a whole, Prizzi’s Honor is not particularly compelling, and feels like it lacks any sense of audacity, being only marginally entertaining, and having far too many flaws for us to overlook.