Billy Wilder captures a young Kirk Douglas, full of energy and chutzpah.
In the first five minutes of the film, his portrayal of Ex-New York City reporter Chuck Tatum practically jumps off the screen at you. It's riveting!
The role of Tatum is Kirk Douglas at his best--he's hard as nails, cynical, shameless and driven.
I agree with every word, he should've been Oscar-nominated; he was a hell of a lot better as Tatum than his at times overdone portrayal of a manipulative producer in The Bad and the Beautiful.
The film is probably Billy Wilder at his most acerbic and razor-sharp, and Douglas matches him every step of the way. Tatum only rivals Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade as the toughest film character with the most self-loathing.
Did he train you? Did he rehearse you? Did he tell you *exactly* what to do, what to say?!
Completely agree with both of you -- one of Kirk's two or three best perfs, if not the best. Two possible reasons he didn't receive an Oscar nom in 1951: first, ACE was a major flop and hated by a lot of movers and shakers in the industry, who were also happy to see Billy Wilder fall on his face for the first time, so it's not something they'd like to reward with Academy Award consideration; second, Kirk was also in DETECTIVE STORY that year, which did have mainstream acceptance, and in an interview some years ago he admitted to being surprised he wasn't nominated for that film, which many people thought he would be. Both that film and ACE IN THE HOLE were released by Paramount, and I'd bet that enough Academy voters may still have voted for Kirk to be nominated for ACE that it took sufficient votes away from his more commercially likely bid for an Oscar nomination for D.S. to cost him a nomination altogether.
On the subject, let's not forget Jan Sterling's sterling work, which also certainly merited Oscar recognition. This seems to have been her favorite of all her roles.
On the subject, let's not forget Jan Sterling's sterling work, which also certainly merited Oscar recognition.
She won the National Board of Review award in 51
I go along with all of you. Kirk Douglas was an excellent typecast. The ballsy character had a lot to do with it.
Kirk Douglas's performance here is right up with Spartacus and Paths of Glory. Pity this film didn't have the popular mass-appeal in its day like the others. It's probably due to the other films having more popular themes (i.e. religion and war). The deservedly high IMDb rating for ACE is now proving to be true gauge of this film's quality.
The story too was very well written. I liked the way the story tacks when "ace in the hole" opportunity arises and then when the plan goes belly-up. It's gripping right to last line which ties things together nicely and then, of course, the final frame. Wow.
For the record, I rated this film 9/10. It inspired me to watch Basic Instinct again. One can see where his son got his talent from. Interesting to compare the difference in quality of films in general over the years. I would have given ACE 10/10 if it was produced with modern cinematography and lighting. None the less, Kirk Douglas's brilliant performance here is a significant factor in making this film the classic that it is.
Paths of Glory is another of my favorite KD films, but it certainly didn't have "mass appeal in its day". On the contrary, it too was a huge flop at the box office, though it won rave critical reviews. (Unsurprisingly, it was banned in France for 20 years.) Like Ace in the Hole, it took the passage of a couple of decades before it won popular acceptance.
Also, I think it's unfair to give this film a lower rating because it lacks "modern cinematography and lighting". In the first place, the film actually is one of the best-looking, best-photographed movies of its period, so personally I see no cause for complaint about it on that score.
But more importantly, it's not fair to judge a film's technical quality on the basis of technology that exists 60 years later. By that standard, every film more than a year or two old deserves demerits because it's in some way "outdated". You can't hold a movie to a level of supposed perfection that wasn't technically possible at the time it was made and wouldn't exist for decades. (For another example, a lot of people criticize the special effects of older science fiction films solely on the basis they weren't done to the same supposed level of realism available today -- as if it was the filmmakers' fault that they didn't have computerized effects and unlimited budgets in 1953.)
You can only legitimately criticize such aspects based on how well a film stands up against its contemporaries, not some arbitrary "modern" standard...which, by definition, is continually evolving and changing. If the film fell short in its cinematography or other such things by the standards of its contemporaries, then criticizing it over such matters would be fair comment. But your criticism is based on comparisons with "modern" films that really aren't valid. And in any case I don't think it's an accurate critique of Ace, which stands out in those respects among other films from its period.
You yourself point out the great things in the film's script, story, direction and acting. Those are the things on which to judge Ace in the Hole today.
Agree. It's not like I've ever seen Kirk Douglas give a bad performance but this one was an ace.
I agree, he is incredible in this.
shareit is indeed
share