Cast:
Howard the Duck [Ed Gale and Jordan Prentice (suit performance), Tim Rose, Steve Sleap, Peter Baird, Mary Wells & Lisa Sturz (puppeteers), Chip Zien (voice)], Lea Thompson (Beverly Switzler), Tim Robbins (Phil Blumburtt), Jeffrey Jones (Dr. Walter Jenning), David Paymer (Larry), Paul Guilfoyle (Lieutenant Welker), Liz Sagal (Ronette), Dominique Davalos (Cal), and Holly Robinson (K.C.) Directed by Willard Huyck.
Review:
If I simply told you that this was the first feature-length film based on a Marvel Comics character, would that satisfy your curiosity? Good, because one does desire a little big of history for a movie that really deserves more than a few cursory words for a movie that has certainly turned a few pages since its release on August 1, 1988. The movie was written by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, with Katz also serving as producer; indeed, this is a Lucasfilm production, one that makes sense given the connection between Hyuck, Katz, and Lucas. Huyck & Katz had met Lucas as students at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Huyck had his first film credit with The Devil's 8 (1968), and Katz made her first effort with Messiah of Evil (1973), which she co-directed/co-wrote/co-produced with Huyck. That same year, they would work together with Lucas on American Graffiti (1973), which found sucess with audiences despite nearly being rejected by every film studio of the time. It was at the end of production that Lucas had mentioned his approval of the comic series Howard the Duck (created by writer Steve Gerber and artist Val Mayerik), although a decade passed before production would ever start, and Gerber had already been let go from Marvel by that time, and the series wasn't exactly popular by the time of the 1980s. A wife and husband team, Katz and Huyck would work on four further films together (with the latter serving as a director for three of them) while also doing work for Lucas as script doctors for Star Wars (1977) and co-writers on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Of course, they didn't have success with every project they wrote for, because that same year also saw the release of Best Defense (1984). Incidentally, Lucas would step down as president of Lucasfilm in order to focus on being a film producer. It may interest you to know that this is the last movie to be directed by Huyck and the second-to-last project for both him and Katz, who each served as a writer for the film Radioland Murders (released in 1994 after nearly two decades of production hell, which also included Lucas as a writer and was also a movie that failed at the box office).
Production troubles, yadda yadda, you might say. But yes, this is an important thing to mention when it comes to a film that at one point was intended to be animated (of course, contractual obligations forced it to be live-action, which probably saved money); it probably didn't help that the design for the title character had to be re-designed a few times in order to make sure a certain media conglomerate would not sue for resemblance to a certain duck. But hey, this is a movie that tries to pass off California as Cleveland. You might notice that there are several folks credited as the title character, which is kind of odd, because how many movies have a mix of dwarf actors, puppeteers, and a Broadway actor? Is it a troubling sign when there are different viewpoints from Katz and Gerber about the title character? Katz stated that the movie was "about a duck from outer space...It's not supposed to be an existential experience", which seems different from Gerber's description of the series as existentialist that has one main point of not having a joke, as if "life's most serious moments and most incredibly dumb moments are often distinguishable only by a momentary point of view." So...yeah, here we are with a PG-rated movie that really seems to be confused on exactly what it wants to be. On the one hand, it certainly tries to be funny along with showing a side of adventure within effects....on the other hand, it also features a title character that is clearly a few years too early for this to be convincing. That duck simply never seems convincing at any point in time, whether because of the eyes or perhaps one never stops thinking about the fact that one is watching folks suffer in suits. It is not quite offbeat enough, particularly when it tries to do a variety of duck puns that seem to mask something that is desperate to be loved for 111 minutes, which seems too long for a film like this. Of course, the first film that comes to mind when relating to this one comes in retrospect: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), which utilized a variety of techniques to make a movie with animated characters interacting with human actors (which ranged from puppets to robotic arms). So yes, this era was certainly interesting for filmmaking with effects, with varying results. Sometimes the effects work here, but if you aren't quite sold on it from the start, you will pretty much be checked out by the time you see a climax involving an ugly beast and exposition. At least the music (a mix of songs by Thomas Dolby and a soundtrack by John Barry and Sylvester Levay) works out pretty well.
Besides, the main cast is fairly decent. It just so happens they are in a movie that deserves better, one that has a tone that wavers wildly without that sense of wonder or engagement. Duck puns and (somewhat dated) effects do not exactly go hand in hand with a movie about a duck and a woman who falls for him, you might say. Thompson fares okay in the sense that one doesn't think too much about the fact she is acting against a hodgepodge effect while trying to stick the landing in singing and timing. Of course, the other highlight is Jones, because seeing him undergo an effects show with the changing of his character from "exposition man" to "Dark Overlord of the Universe" seems more interesting as opposed to the tonal shifts that come from Hyuck and Katz, particularly since Jones seems dry enough to make it all work. This was the sixth film role for Robbins, who had dabbled in theater and television. While I can certainly see why he was cast when it comes to his attempts at timing, honestly he is probably the weaker element among the main three, having a hit-and-miss quality (most prevalent in the Ultralight aircraft sequence, which certainly should have been trimmed down). I respect Gale, who was initially rejected for the role because he was thought to be too tall for the role before he was brought in to do stunts and play the understudy. It doesn't take many guesses to wonder why he took over a grueling role from the initial actor hired when it was a child actor. Keep in mind, the voice for the main role came after the movie was done, complete with trouble in synchronizing the voice to the movements of the mouth (the lines for the duck were spoken by the puppeteers). The filmmakers actually had hired Robin Williams to do the voice for the film, but he quit (because, hey, you would too if your rhythm is being messed with in timing). Zien has an awkward challenge on his hands, because his timing is always a little mixed out when contrasted with the others, but he almost pulls off making the lead character someone worth wanting to see more of.
Like I said, if that duck was anything other than a ungodly hodgepodge, one could almost take the movie at face value. If Lucas thought there was something appealing in terms of film noir or absurdism within the comic series...they sure will be looking hard to find it in this movie. It is a confused effort that manages to be infuriating for anybody who isn't on the two extremes when it comes to this film, which either is thought of as a terrible failure or a cult classic. I am certainly one of those frustrated folks, because there are considerably better mediocre movies that merit "cult status" than this, and it isn't even terrible enough to call a complete failure. It exists on the "eye-roll" part of the curiosity scale, really. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Katz and Hyuck defend the film for what it is (alongside other members of the cast/crew, such as Thompson), stating that while it could have been "edgier and dirtier", it was a movie plagued by studio demands, and Lucas continued to support the film as one that he felt would be later seen in a better light. But hey, I would cope too if it came to a movie that is either a haven for folks who love to pick on muddled messes or for folks who either see a hidden rough gem (of course, there are probably contrarians in that bunch...but hey). Nay, I think it has an exceptionally appropriate place in limbo, a movie that can either be a raw joke or a welcome slice of camp, one that might as well be encased in amber for all time. As the saying goes, take it for what it is worth and go from there.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
Come one, come all, it is time for August to receive its own month. Anniversary in August will dedicate the whole month to films released in that month that will gradually reveal itself over the next few weeks until August 31. Enjoy guessing what movies are to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment