Ace in the Hole

The basic structure of Ace in the Hole is essentially a story that has been told countless times. It’s a rags-to-riches story, with the central character encountering mass amounts of corruption when met with the new position of power. Usually when these stories are told, they are predictable and tiring. However, Billy Wilder takes this basic structure and turns it into something much more unique for this film, making it one of his best and most underrated films.

The story of Ace in the Hole is extremely unique due to the central character, Chuck Tatum, played masterfully by Kirk Douglas. Unlike most rags-to-riches stories, Tatum never starts off as some sort of mild-mannered, lovable everyman. So, gone are any comparisons that could be made to tragic figures in films contemporary to this, such as Willie Stark in All the King’s Men. No, Tatum is already a despicable, rotten, pathetic excuse of a man from the start of the film. He is in the position he’s in because of his own treacherous acts and shows no hint of looking to change. As he progresses into a position of power, the audience is not asking itself questions such as, “How far can a man of such a humble background overcome his poor surroundings and rise to the top?” but rather asking, “How much can a corrupt individual use his trickery to his advantage?”

Yet the audience is never turned off from Tatum. As much as he is unlikable, he’s never one that the audience can’t care for. He’s the kind of character you hate yet can’t take your eyes off of because you have a need to see what he says and does next. He immediately draws those watching in with his fast-talking nature and ability to carefully manipulate other characters. One of the opening scenes involving him talking the seemingly hard-to-crack newspaper editor Jacob Boot (Porter Hall) into giving him a job for his newspaper effectively shows that he is no ordinary protagonist, luring the audience in to see what could he possibly do next.

What also makes Tatum quite the unique character is the fact that he’s not the man who others look to change and turn into a good man. The majority of the supporting characters are made up of people as equally corrupt as he is, or those with morals who look to just get him out of the picture. They realize the kind of man they are dealing with and look to deal with that many only. The only character that comes the closest to changing Tatum is Leo Minosa (Richard Benedict). He is the only character that Tatum looks to help other than himself. However, what prevents Tatum from even considering to change his ways is the fact that most of Tatum’s attempts to try to help Minosa contain underlying selfish concerns. He only wants to help Minosa because it would have an adverse affect on himself.

Focusing on a character such as Tatum establishes that Ace in the Hole is a film meant to be ruthless and mean - something especially unique for the time period in which it was made. In the wrong hands, it could be one of the most unpleasant experiences one could ever sit through - the fact that it is lost as one of Billy Wilder’s “lesser” films in comparison to efforts such as Some Like it Hot, Sunset Boulevard, and Double Indemnity does suggest that it has yet to fully gain the recognition it deserves. However, Wilder does just opposite, and turns this film about mostly unlikable people into one of the most interesting subversions on the rags-to-riches stories. It’s a “small” film, but it is also a film that deserves to stand aside other films of its time and be held in regards as a classic.

4.5/5

Duck Soup

Duck Soup is a prime example of a pure comedy, in every sense of the word. It has one goal, and one goal only - to make people laugh. It has no aspirations of looking to be anything more than what it is, and has the most fun it could possibly have presenting the audience with the immense amounts of ridiculous situations it sets up.

There is a very loose plot to the film. It opens with the appointment of Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) as leader of the bankrupt country of Freedonia. Soon after, we learn how the neighboring country of Sylvania looks to take over Freedonia. The rest of the film consists of Firefly and the Sylvanian ambassador Trentino (played devilishly by Louis Calhern) trying to get rid of each other by any means necessary, including trickery, deceit, and violence, all leading to a madcap, insane finale.

The plot takes a backseat to a lot of gags that incorporate the sense of humor that embodies each of the Marx Brothers’ distinct personalities, a handful of which are non-sequiturs. Normally, when comedies tend to let their jokes lead the film, they end up only working to a certain degree - or not at all, as they might give in to conventional plot themes that make the film feel contrived and ruin the balance of the film. I mean, who hasn’t seen their share of movies where they find themselves laughing at some hilarious one-liner a character makes one moment, and then another moment later groaning when the film decides to move the plot along?

However, Duck Soup is much smarter than that. It knows exactly how to weave the plot in between the jokes, just enough to let the audience know exactly what they need to know before moving on to a new gag. Also, it’s the actions of each Marx Brother in certain gags that allows for the plot to move forward, mainly those of Groucho’s Firefly. His great wit and comedic timing suggest he is a somewhat intelligent man, although he is also stubborn, and contains a faulty enough mindset that causes him to exaggerate a situation, causing for many antagonistic interactions with Trentino.

Outside of Groucho’s one-liners, the majority of the jokes stem from a great deal of slapstick humor that the Marxes are known for. Chico and Harpo are responsible for a majority of the physical gags, although Groucho takes part in a great deal of these sequences, as well. For most comedians to pull off a visual gag or any sort of physical humor, they have to worry about how they go about the slapstick. Anyone can just walk into a wall or slip on a banana peel, but only a select few can make the joke funny, as it’s the way they hit into that wall or slip on that banana peel that determines if the joke worked or not. For some, it’s difficult. However, the Marxes pull off each and every visual gag with ease, immensely exaggerating their body language and constantly expanding jokes that could have been a few seconds long into a few minutes long, although never to the point where the joke is played out.

Duck Soup stands today as a comedy classic. It allows for us to look back at a time where most comedies simply had to make the audience laugh in order to fully work. It’s a stark contrast to the majority of today’s greatly revered comedies, which could generally also be classified more as dramedies, dark comedies, or any other genre mix. It should be essential viewing for anyone who has even a remote liking for the genre, as - almost eighty years after it was first released - it still holds up as truly a sight to behold.

5/5

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The third entry in the Transformers series is a cluttered, noisy, ugly mess that brings the series to its lowest point - a point thought impossible to achieve after the disaster that was its immediate predecessor. It proves to be an extremely miserable experience, being an hour too long with a plot too complicated for its own good and characters that, even for the type of movie it looks to be, are too thinly written.

The movie sees the return of its main character, Sam Whitwicky, portrayed at his whiniest by Shia Lebeouf, as he once again aids the Autobots in some sort of war against the Decepticons. Honestly, that’s the most I’m able to describe the plot because I had no clue what was exactly going on for the film’s entirety. Every major detail is presented in such an incoherent manner, with characters rambling endlessly at a pace so rapid that my head was left spinning after just a half-hour into the film. It also didn’t help that the film would periodically stop for inane subplots such as Sam’s mother - for some reason - trying to promote a self-help book to him.

That brings me to the film’s next biggest problem. This is a two-and-a-half-hour-long film, but it really should have been anywhere between ninety to one-hundred minutes. For a simple summer blockbuster, everything should have been presented in much simpler terms and without unnecessary subplots. Why do we need to hear all this complicated backstory that’s being thrown in our faces when all we really want to see is a simple story about two groups of robots in battle? If the simple route was taken, I could guarantee at least forty-five minutes or so would have been cut from the film. And for the better, I might add. I mean, how long could one possibly drag out the notion of a bunch of robots fighting each other?

Speaking of the fight scenes, the film even fails to make these appealing, and it’s the action that’s supposed to be the center-point of the film. Each action scene is presented as loud as it could possibly be, with non-stop explosions and screaming being the driving forces behind these sequences. The editing causes these scenes to jump all over the place, so there is never even really a clear focus as to where all the loud noises and screaming are distinctly coming from. This proves to be especially mind-numbing in the last act of the film, which is essentially all the previous action sequences in the film presented non-stop for forty-five minutes to an even greater degree. About five minutes into this point of the film, you’re already begging for it to end.

The film also includes a huge supporting cast of actors who are clearly all too talented to be wasting their time with this sort of nonsense. However, I guess with the way the economy is going at this point, desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose. The cast includes supporting roles or cameos from the likes of John Turturro, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, Alan Tudyk, and Patrick Dempsey. The majority of these roles are meant as comic relief, although they all fail miserably at providing one single laugh. Instead, they all play obnoxious versions of characters they have previously played, all desperately shouting out one “comical” line after another. For example, take John Malkovich’s Osbourne Cox character from Burn After Reading. Now, take out all the profanity, make him shout even louder than he already did, and then just make sure every single word he says is not funny. And that’s essentially the character Malkovich portrays in this disaster-piece. It shames me to see such talented actors go to waste, but like I said, there are just times when some people need a paycheck, I suppose.

Watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon proves to be one of the most miserable experiences I have ever had watching a movie. It does everything it could possibly do wrong to the greatest degree it could possibly do it. There was not one single bright spot I could think of as I look back on the film. And by that, I mean, there actually were about three or four moments where I remember briefly smiling, but there were so many explosions, screaming, and obnoxious performances that immediately followed that it caused me to forget what I was smiling about. It actually was so obnoxious that just thinking about it now gives me a headache, so I’m going to stop before I do any serious damage to my brain.

0.5/5

Super

Typically in any film, to get cheap entertainment at the expense of the characters is usually considered a big strike against the entire film itself. Usually the film is considered “mean,” and that it has no real compassion for its characters, causing most to turn away from the film.

Super, however, is an exception to this case. In fact, the majority of the film’s laughs come from the fact that its central character, Frank D’Arbo, is one of the most pathetic people on the face of this Earth. Here is a man who is society’s standard definition of a loser. Yet we find ourselves laughing at everything he does. Every move that he makes and everything he says we find of utmost interest. I mean, it’s hard not to find interesting a man who compares with such great conviction butting in line to acts such as dealing drugs and molesting little children.

The film has gained great comparisons to the similarly themed - and equally demented - Kick-Ass, released only a year earlier. However, while both films contain similar premises, they wildly differ in how they go about themselves. While Kick-Ass is an action film with immense amounts of violence that’s supported by its many three-dimensional characters, Super is a straight-up character study with its horrific violence used to support what kind of characters we are dealing with.

Frank leads such a mundane and depressing life that he is the type of man who takes such pride in even his smallest of accomplishments. He states right in the opening of the film how he has had only two good memories in his life, and those are marrying his wife and helping the cops stop a purse snatcher. He commemorates both events by hand-drawing them in crayon and hanging them up on his wall. The fact that he dresses up as his superhero alter ego, The Crimson Bolt, shows what great lengths he’ll go to defend even the smallest of his miniscule convictions. Not only does he go around beating up on criminals, but also those whose less-than-favorable actions are considered major injustices in his eyes (i.e. line-cutting).

Frank is played with such perfection by Rainn Wilson, known to those who keep up with their television shows for playing another big loser on The Office, Dwight Schrute. Frank is just like Dwight in the sense that they are both pathetic in their viewpoints and how they will go to great lengths to defend them, so I could imagine the role being a very easy fit for Wilson. However, Frank is Dwight’s darker side, without all the goofiness to him. He is the type of man who can come to terms with how much of a sad-sack he really is. With each step that Frank takes, with each act that he commits carrying as much pride as he possibly can, you could see such an underlying sadness to him. Yet it’s not the kind of sadness that guilts you into feeling any sympathy for the guy, like most melodramas tend to do. You love to see him defending his convictions and accomplishments so when you catch that sadness about him as he goes about his actions, you genuinely feel bad for him.

As much as there is a sadness about the lead character, though, this does not make Super all that depressing of a film. In fact, there is an equal amount, if not greater amount, of fun to be had from the film. This mostly stems from Wilson’s co-star in all his crime-fighting adventures, Libby, played fantastically by Ellen Page. Libby is the female equivalent of the characters that Wilson is best known for playing. She’s equally as pathetic, a comic book fangirl with grand delusions that she and Frank are indestructible forces that can easily take down crime and whoever else they wish to take down. She balances out Frank’s sadness, though, as she doesn’t care that she doesn’t do a whole lot with herself, and just has fun with the fact that she’s doing something that she thinks is right. The passion she carries as she goes around assisting Frank makes her the highlight of the film.

Wilson and Page are joined by a great supporting cast, including Liv Tyler, Michael Rooker, Nathan Fillion, and Kevin Bacon. All offer their fair share of solid moments in the film. This especially holds true to Bacon, who I guess has recently found a knack for antagonist roles, having also recently played the antagonist in X-Men: First Class. He should keep it up, as he seems to fit into these roles very naturally. He’s the type of guy who’s able to have fun with the fact that he’s such a bad guy, although never becoming too over-the-top. He plays with the villain, Jock, so very suave yet with such an obvious more conniving nature about himself that it makes him so much fun to watch every time he’s on screen.

If there’s one thing that might turn people away from Super, it’s the violence. There is a mass amount of violent acts committed in the film, from people being hit over the head with a wrench to a man being run over by a car. It constantly escalates, all leading to a very explosive final act. A lot of it is portrayed very graphically, possibly making it uncomfortable for some. However, there are two main reasons why the violence works. For one thing, as previously stated, the violence supports the types of characters we are dealing with. Their convictions are small-scale, yet hold them very strongly, and will go to great lengths to defend them. To not have as much violence as there was would completely downplay them. Secondly, the film is also meant to be fun, so for those who are big action film fans, the violence will be something to enjoy.

4.5/5

The Tree of Life

To add symbolism to a movie is a bold move on the part of the filmmaker. To add enough depth that allows for the audience to leave the movie interpreting many of the film’s aspects shows ambition and an attempt to create art rather than just simple entertainment (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, depending on the film).

However, it is important to note that when symbolism is added to a movie, it has to be added in the correct dosage. Terrence Malick’s latest effort, The Tree of Life, is one of those films that adds symbolism in the wrong dosage. While by all means a good movie, it also shows a little too much ambition on the part of the 67-year-old auteur. It seems like he has so much to say that his message gets in the way of telling a coherent story.

Have you ever been in a situation where you were with a group of friends and you had a story you really wanted to tell? And as you tell the story, you get yourself so worked up telling the story you rush through it and end up leaving out certain key aspects? So by the end of the story, your friends have a general idea of what happened, but also give off that vibe that they couldn’t fully appreciate the story because you botched it. That’s kind of what watching The Tree of Life was like.

Malick takes a different approach to the film than he did with more straightforward efforts like Badlands, Days of Heaven, or his ensemble piece The Thin Red Line. The film never stays with one particular scene all that much. By that, I mean a typical scene will contain constant jump cuts showing the passage of mere seconds, generally accompanied by a voice-over. So many jump cuts occur that the scene only lasts for about a mere minute or two and we move right along to something new, and at times something seemingly unrelated. For those with the attention span of that dog from Up, this may prove to be a problem. A big one.

This especially proves to be a big problem in one sequence about a half-hour into the movie where we are presented with a lengthy sequence depicting the birth of the universe. It abruptly appears, stops the current narrative, and goes on for a good twenty minutes, presenting us with nebula after nebula, orbit after orbit, and ending with a sequence involving two dinosaurs. It feels like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We leave the sequence as abruptly as we entered it, and just go right back to the film’s primary narrative. Like, “Oops, sorry folks. Sorry for that minor inconvenience. Back to the movie.”

There is a great deal of meaning behind this sequence, and its placement almost directly after we learn of the death of a character is meant to represent one person’s place in such a vast universe. It’s great that Malick is trying to present this idea to his audience. However, due to the approach he takes to the film, abruptly presenting it in the middle of the narrative, this may prove to be confusing for most viewers. It was during this sequence where I witnessed a great number of walkouts.

For those with patience enough not to walk out, there is actually a great deal of positive elements for them to find within the movie. For one thing, if there’s one thing I have to give Malick credit for, it’s the fact that he does a fantastic job with cinematography. Each of his films are beautifully shot, and The Tree of Life is no exception. The birth of the universe scene, as abruptly placed as it is, is also a fantastic sequence. Each orbit, each nebula, is presented to the audience with such bold radiance and such grace that some will be staring in awe. It also gives off this strange sense to those with patience enough not to walk out of the movie by this point, having them wanting more, even if they don’t completely know what direction the film is going to take.

Now, the cinematography should not be the only reason to watch this movie, as no movie should be judged for such aspects. There is still much more to behold. Despite my criticism for its lack of focus, there are actually a great deal of times, mostly in the second half of the film, where a focus is found and we are presented with a somewhat coherent story. And a nice story, at that, to put it in the simplest terms possible. At the heart of all the symbolism and all the jumping around is a coming-of-age story about a boy in a family that is going through a lot of internal conflicts.

Each member of the family are people we find ourselves drawn to, whether we like them or dislike them. There is a great chemistry amongst them that comes off as very natural, as if they had all been living together for all this time. Their personalities are vastly different, yet they work so well together as the different traits that they carry with them clash so very well.

Brad Pitt is one of the film’s strongest points. He comes off as cold and demeaning, yet you can very well sense an underlying loving nature to his character. You want to hate him, yet at the same time, you almost want to justify some of his less-than-favorable actions, such as unnecessarily screaming at or hitting his kids. It’s as if you feel you would do the same thing if you were in his shoes. He brings a kind of presence to him that feels almost scary, yet at the same time is extremely fascinating.

His presence in this film, however, may not be enough for some. The Tree of Life is not a movie for everyone. Some will find it to be a masterpiece, while many will hate it. It’s the kind of movie that I had to warm up to as it progressed, and by the end of it, I found it enjoyable. I still feel Malick could do - and has done - a lot better, but he still proves he has it in him to make a good movie. Just hopefully, for all future endeavors, he’s able to find the right balance between his story and what he’s looking to say beyond the story.

3.5/5