** (out of ****)
Every duck has its day in "Howard the Duck" (1986)!
"Howard the Duck" was the first Marvel comic book character given a feature-length movie and was produced by George Lucas and starred Lea Thompson, Tim Robbins, and Jeffrey Jones. Today it is routinely ranked among the worst movies ever made and was a box-office flop. Per his review in the Chicago Tribune newspaper, (click here) movie critic Gene Siskel reported the budget of the movie was $52 million. In the U.S. "Howard the Duck" would gross a little more than $16 million.
However, there are some movie fans that consider "Howard the Duck" a cult classic. One of those "it's so bad its good" movies. If such a thing is possible, I am in the middle. I wouldn't call "Howard the Duck" one of the worst movies ever made. Such a statement is hyperbole. But, I wouldn't call this movie good either.
Watching "Howard the Duck," you can see how much movies have changed over the years. In "Kong Kong" (1933) audiences wouldn't imagine the girl falling in love with Kong. Although the Gill-Man from the "Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954) develops a crush on Julie Adams, those feelings are not returned. But, in "Howard the Duck" a woman shares a bed with a duck and a romance is suggested by the end of the movie. When Peter Jackson remade "King Kong" (2005) Naomi Watts showed affection for Kong. In the Academy Award winner "The Shape of Water" (2017) a woman falls in love with a creature that resembles the one from the black lagoon. This leads me to ask, are men really that bad? Ladies, why don't you like us? What are we doing wrong? You really prefer ducks, creatures, and giant apes?
Making his comic book debut in 1973, Howard the Duck was created by Steve Gerber as a secondary character in Marvel's Man-Thing comics. Howard would be given his own series in 1976. Having never read the comic books, it has been said the stories were satires and parodies and became quite popular with young adults. It was George Lucas that suggested a movie adaptation of the comic book series to Willard Huyck (who would direct the movie), and his wife, Gloria Katz (who would co-write the screenplay along with Willard). Initially, it was intended to be an animated movie but at the suggestion of Lucas, due to studio pressure, was turned into a live-action movie.
In this version of "Howard the Duck" (which apparently differs from the comics. Remember, I said I never read them.) Howard lives in Marshington, D.C., which is part of the United States of Anatidae (the biological family of birds) on the planet Duckworld. Duckworld is nearly an exact replica of earth with the exception that ducks are the dominant species. There are no humans.
This allows the movie to poke fun at pop culture. In Duckworld their culture is similar to ours. For example, we see movie posters in Howard T. Duck's home. Posters include "My Little Chickadee" starring Mae Nest and W.C. Fowls. "My Little Chickadee" was the title of a real movie, released in 1941, and starred Mae West and W.C. Fields. There is also a movie poster for "Breeders of the Lost Stork" (a reference to the George Lucas / Steven Spielberg collaboration, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). There is a magazine cover for Rolling Egg magazine (Rolling Stones for us on earth) and speaking of magazines, and in another way the movie tries to invoke humor, it throws in adult references as Howard reads a copy of PlayDuck magazine and immediately turns to the centerfold.
But on this day, for a seemingly unknown reason, some sort of magnetic force pulls Howard from his living room apartment, through space, to the planet earth, where he arrives in Cleveland, Ohio. He immediately befriends a punk rock musician, Beverly (Lea Thompson), saving her from being attacked by thugs, thanks to his mastery of Quak-Fu. Together the two try to discover a way to return Howard back to his planet.
That description may make sense and sound promising as far as an excuse for a narrative is concerned. But that would be misleading. There is a lot wrong with "Howard the Duck". By and large, the movie seems pointless. It takes far too long, one hour into this one hour and 50-minute movie, to answer the big questions about Howard's arrival and his potential way back home as well as establishing a villain, this is a comic book adaptation after all. You need a villain.
As asked by critics in 1986 there is the question, who was this movie made for? Based on visuals alone, the story of a duck from outer space arriving on earth would seem to be kiddie fare. Contrasting this kiddie image with sexual references is supposed to make the adults in the room laugh. But what about the kids sitting there? Or, are we to believe this movie is not for children? If it isn't for children, how many adults are going to want to see a movie about a talking duck? Let me rephrase that. How many adults that do not take drugs are going to want to see a movie about a talking duck? And if there was / is a market among adults for this kind of movie then why not go all the way with it? Make Howard a rude, crude, sarcastic duck with a strong sexual appetite and a one-liner always on the tip of his tongue. But don't give me this cutesy / edgy combination. It ruins the tone of the movie. Not to mention it prevents Howard from being a fully developed character.
Then there is the question of the appearance of Howard the Duck. In the first scene of the movie, it delays the on-screen appearance of the character. In its own way trying to build suspense. Even the poster of the movie doesn't reveal his full appearance. Many critics complained about the sight of the character. They say he is expressionless. I disagree a bit. The look of Howard the Duck is fine. It reminds me of some years later when the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (1990) was made into a live-action movie. The look of the turtles didn't bother me. In fact, I prefer the 1990 movie to the reboot. What bothers me about "Howard the Duck" is the suggestion Beverly could love Howard. April O' Neil didn't love the turtles. How can a woman develop a sexual relationship with a duck? Why couldn't we just leave it as they are good friends? If there was the need for a romance in the story, how about creating a human male character for Beverly? There is Phil (Tim Robbins) a wannabe scientist that is eager to expose Howard to the world for his own financial gain but Phil is a nerdy comic relief character. Otherwise, Phil and Beverly could have developed a romance and if it must be, Howard could be secretly jealous.
Besides asking who is this movie for there is also the question, what is this movie really about? As an example of how serious I take reviewing movies, I actually watched "Howard the Duck" twice in the span of 24 hours. My conclusion is the message of the movie is delivered in one of Beverly's lines as she tries to explain why Howard may have arrived on earth. "There are no accidents in the universe. Maybe you are here for some greater purpose. Some cosmic cause."
"Howard the Duck" seems to be saying, sometimes strange things happen in the world, like talking ducks arriving from other planets. While we may not be able to explain everything in the world, things happen for a reason. There is also the message, everyone serves a purpose.
It may sound strange but there is a better moving lurking around in "Howard the Duck". It would either need a rewrite, better establishing the Howard character, or a re-edit. If re-edited, the explanation for Howard's arrival needs to happen earlier in the picture. The villain needs to be introduced earlier as well. Completely remove a sequence where Howard works at a sex spa and is thrown in a pool with a couple having sex! And although it may happen in the comics, remove any suggestion that Beverly is romantically interested in Howard. The world is not ready for a duck / female human relationship.
Across the board the performances in the movie are underwhelming. To be fair, there was only so much Lea Thompson could do. She is acting opposite a duck and she is expected to display a romantic interest in said duck. That's not easy. You either play this straight and actually try to convince the audience such a thing is possible or you take it up a notch and play it for camp. Thompson doesn't take the camp approach. Her co-stars edge closer to the camp line. Jeffrey Jones, in the movie's last act, gives an exaggerated performance as a character that has been infiltrated by an alien. You could make a case that Jones gives the movie's best performance. Tim Robbins meanwhile is a compete joke and resembles a human less than Howard does.
Because the movie was such a flop at the box-office it turned out to be the last feature film William Huyck ever directed. Thompson, who was coming off "Back to the Future" (1985) success, immediately accepted a role in "Some Kind of Wonderful" (1987) just to distance herself from this movie.
"Howard the Duck" is not really a bad movie, it is just a pointless movie. A rewrite or re-edit is in order to give the movie more of a logical narrative progression. The Howard character also needs to be better defined. Are we going the cutesy route or more adult? Still, as far as movies about talking ducks being forced from their planet to Cleveland, Ohio go, "Howard the Duck" is up there with the best of 'em.
Posts
