The Fifth Star Is Superfluous

I can tell you exactly what a four-star movie is. A four-star movie is one in which you leave the theater thinking about. It's a film you tell your friends they have to see. Sometimes a four-star movie is one that is one of the year's best, but you're not sure if it will ultimately stand the test of time (though you're confident it will). Some recent examples include "Wadjda," "Mother," and "12 Years A Slave." Some might require a second viewing for you to know that, indeed, they are essential films made by master filmmakers; for me, "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Goodfellas" come to mind. And some, like "The Wizard of Oz," "Modern Times," and "Schindler's List," will live with you forever.

I can tell you exactly what a three-star movie is. While a three-and-a-half star movie is one that is really good (but not quite great), like "To Kill A Mockinbird" or "The Wolf of Wall Street," a three-star movie is good but ultimately forgettable. Some recently three star movies I've seen are "Trees Lounge," "Die Hard With a Vengeance," "The Battleship Potemkin," "About Elly," "Going Clear," and "Withnail and I." Some are guilty pleasures, like "Congo." I hope that the majority of the films made each year achieve at least three stars, for viewers deserve to be inspired and entertained, not irritated and maddened, by their experience with the movies.

But now I come to the movies that do madden us. Two-and-a-half stars go to bad movies that are bad but not awful. Some (like "Spider-Man 3") start off decently but progressively fall apart with each passing minute. Some are betrayed by their ambition (like "The English Patient") and probably would have been better kept in the written word. (Add the injustice of "The English Patient" beating a much more deserving film like "Fargo" for Best Picture, and it fuels the motivation to give it a low ranking.) Some (like "Man of Steel") simply have good elements but too many bad ones. These films have at least some good qualities to them, unlike the dreaded two-star movies, which in reality probably are the majority of movies. It's easy to qualify these films: they are bad. "Westworld," "Waterboy," "The Lost World: Jurassic Park," "License to Kill," and "Shadow Dancer" are all, for various different reasons, bad.

The (fortunately) rare movies that get one star are movies that make your blood boil, like "Grey Gardens," a horribly overrated documentary that made me think it would have been better to spend an-hour-and-a-half listening to cats mate while simultaneously scratching their claws on chaulkboards. Some, though, like "The Tingler" or "The Giant Claw" are, of course, so bad, they're good. Fortuantely, I cannot think of any zero-star movies off the top of my head. It should be noted, however, that viewing these sordid movies is necessary to remind oneself to really appreciate the good ones.

I have no idea what a five-star movie is. No one has ever been able to explain to me what is is. I don't understand why Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster, and others use it (or why IMDB uses a whopping ten). The five-star rating is superfluous; just use four.

Read More →

The Incredibly Stupid Ending of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

Paul Newman's character in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," the 1958 adaption of Tennessee Williams' iconic play, is a disillusioned, depressed drunk. He's borderline abusive towards his wife, played by Elizabeth Taylor, and he cares not for his brother, sister-in-law, nieces and nephews, nor his parents, one of whom is dying. He is childless and has quit his job. Any joy from any other character only seems to exacerbate his misery, and he stays upstairs for as long as he can, drinking himself practically to death, resting his broken leg (which he got from an accident caused by his drunkenness).

He's also clearly a gay man.

LGBT themes are surprisingly somewhat prevalent in 1950s American cinema. Watch "Rebel Without a Cause" and tell me that's not an incredibly gay film. "Suddenly, Last Summer" (also featuring Taylor) and "Ben-Hur" also have gay subtext. So, too, does "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." Just about anyone in the modern era watching it would recognize that Newman's character, Brick, is meant to be a gay or bisexual man, almost obtrusively struggling with his sexuality while his wife suffers from a loveless, bitter marriage. But at the conclusion of the film, during the incredibly stupid ending of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," he suddenly becomes straight, I guess. Out of nowhere, he gets his libido back and is about to make love to his wife just as the end credits arrive. But this isn't the only thing irritating about its conclusion. The wife, Maggie (Taylor), is not completely innocent herself; her major flaw is struggling to get the inheritance of her father-in-law's estate, and she'll do practically anything to get it. Her father-in-law, "Big Daddy" (Burl Ives) is a tyrannical mammoth of a titan who is said to have favored his alcoholic son over the more responsible one, is flirtatious with Maggie, and shouts venom at his adoring wife. Big Daddy's other son, Cooper (Jack Carson) and his wife (Madeleine Sherwood) are just as eager to get their hands on that money, so just about every character has some obvious crookedness--even the doctor lies and the deacon, too, wants Big Daddy's money.  

But at the ending, just before Brick and Maggie are about to get funky, suddenly most of these characters are washed of their sins. Cooper gives up the fight, and Big Daddy suddenly is kind towards Big Momma. The only villain still villainous is Sister Woman; she still wants that money, and her children are still monsters.

"I need something to believe in!" This is the line Brick shouts when explaining his melancholy. Did 20th Century Fox really think audiences in the late 1950s were that stupid that they would believe, and enjoy, such a dumb line? That line is essentially the essence of the adaptation's diversion away from the gay theme. Brick in the film apparently isn't depressed because his male lover is dead, and that Maggie may have been the cause. He instead is depressed because when his friend died, he lost something to believe in. I don't quite get that, and I can't imagine anyone--in 1958 or in 2015--buying it. It's as if Ike and Dick themselves got their hands on Williams' play and scrubbed it with moralistic simplicity. Ben Gazzara, the original Brick on Broadway, turned down the role in the adaption, and I imagine that was partly the reason. Ives, who would win the Oscar the following year for "The Big Country" and who was also nominated for his role (a role he originated on Broadway), complained about the changes, as did Newman. (Newman deservedly was nominated for an Oscar.)

This is not to say that "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is a bad movie--the cast, especially Ives, more than help make up for the deficit. It's a recommendable movie, but one with a stupid yet typical ending, one where all's well that ends well.

Read More →

Duck, You Sucker!

A Marxist quote followed by someone urinating on ants is a most peculiar way to begin a film, and I wish "peculiar" was the worst thing I could say about "Duck, You Sucker!" The second (and more commonly forgotten) part to the second trilogy Sergio Leone is most famous for, "Duck, You Sucker" (sometimes known as "A Fistful of Dynamite" and sometimes known as "Once Upon A Time...the Revolution") has pretty terrible acting, dismal dialogue, and overall presents nothing compelling whatsoever. It's a long, at times miserable, mess.

Rod Steiger is Juan, a thief and loyal father of many children. Where we first meet him (it's him, incidentally, who is doing the urinating), he hops on a large stage wagon filled with a grotesque band of racists enjoying copious amounts of food. But soon we find things aren't what they seem--Juan and his many sons are to rob these individuals. This is a shaky start to the movie, but it quickly becomes downright disturbing. After the sabotage, Juan corners the sole female in the party and rapes her. Because there are other examples of rape in Leone's films, like in "Once Upon A Time in the West" and "Once Upon A Time in America," this film is not unique, but as blogger John Bleasdale pointed out, "Duck, You Sucker!" was the first time in his films where the protagonist committed the crime, though it hardly seems that Leone even thought of such acts are criminal. He awkwardly defended the rape scene in "Once Upon A Time in America" by calling it an "act of love." Why is it that there is such violence and mistreatment of women in Leone's films, and why is he rarely criticized for it?

What could have been yet another example of Steiger's ability to be a chameleon of an actor quickly evolves into a horrendously annoying performance. He slaps around his children and spends most of the rest of his time parading about and unleashing a massive barrage of stereotypes. Steiger's performance might be one of the cinema's most irritating portrayals ever, and he's matched by an awful "Lucky Charms" accent by his co-star. The said co-star is James Coburn, who shows up on a motorcycle almost immediately after the raping and pillaging of the opening scene. Coburn plays John, an Irish revolutionary and quite the fan of explosives, so much so that if some of them go off simultaneously, "they'll have to alter the maps." Coburn seems to be going in and out of his attempts at an Irish accent, and even with all the camp, it's difficult to take seriously his frequent use of saying "duck, you sucker." So off they go, John and Juan, not exactly fond of each other and prone to trick one another, but they become revolutionaries together in Mexico in 1913.

At this point (barely a third into the movie), it becomes more than clear that this is one of Leone's weakest movies. There is hardly anything to praise in in; it's a dull, boring misfire in between two stronger films, which makes it such an odd trajectory, since the "Dollars" trilogy might be the only trilogy in cinematic history that gets better with each film. Unlike Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," the greatest western in history, "Duck, You Sucker!" is a film you are likely to care less and less about as it progresses, and just about everything in it is uninteresting: its macho duels, its attempts at humor, its use of history (if it can be called that), its technical design. Coburn and Steiger do have their moments, with some instances of genuine chemistry and rivalry, but most of the time, it's flimsy performances from two very talented actors.

"Duck, You Sucker!" has all the big, grand, epic movie-making that is expected, but there are far too many flaws.

Read More →