A Dry White Season (1989)

Plot:  In South Africa, a wealthy white man tries to hold the police accountable for the death of his gardener's son - and finally understands the evil nature of apartheid.
Stars:  Marlon Brando, Donald Sutherland,  Janet Suzman

Lets be honest the only reason to watch this movie is Marlon Brando.  Apartheid is dead and buried and Dry White Season is just a dated 30 year old propaganda film. Of course, some political films have lasting value, for example: Battle of Algiers, Triumph of the Will or  In the Heat of the Night -but this isn't one of them.  It has mediocre direction, a paint-by-the-numbers script and way too much of dull, stone-faced Donald Sutherland.  Further, the oppressed blacks should have been the main story, not the white family. Which brings us to Brando:

Brando's Performance

 Once again the Academy showed its undying love for Brando by giving him a "Best Supporting Actor" nomination for a two-scene 15 minutes performance.  Playing a barrister with an English  accent, Brando does an impersonation of Charles Laughton from Witness for the Prosecution.  He even has Laughton's girth, having achieved Land-whale status and requiring a cane. In his first scene (four minutes), he sits behind a desk and discourages Sutherland from hiring him.  His other scene, in a Courtroom, has him battling the trial judge and unfriendly witnesses with sarcasm and irony. Surprisingly, Brando doesn't have a big speech (note: because it was cut, see below). Brando is excellent, but it’s a standard  “Lawyer Role”  and a dozen British actors could have done as well.

I suspect, one reason Brando acted so little after the age 55 is he realized the thing that made him so special was gone.  When young, Brando was a unique combination of  leading man charisma/sexiness with great acting ability.  But old age takes its toll, and after 1979 Brando was just another “old, very good actor”.

Why Brando Did the Role

Politics. Brando was deeply committed to the anti-apartheid cause, and this film lured him out of an eight year semi-retirement. Doing the film for union scale, he donated his usual "11 points of the gross" to charity.  

Brando Unhappy with the Film

Sadly, he clashed with the black female Director, claiming she was a "headstrong neophyte" who "had offered him no direction".  Upset that his long, ad-libbed,  anti-apartheid speech had been cut, (it ended with Brando being dragged from the courtroom) Brando demanded a re-cut, and was willing to pay for it. When this offer was refused, he called the MGM executive-in-charge, and attacked him.  This resulted in the MGM Exec calling the Police, claiming Brando had threatened to "Blow up him and his entire family".       

Brando then followed up with letters to MGM (see Autobiography) - again asserting the picture was unsatisfactory and needed to be re-cut.  Per Brando:

"I've never put more of myself in a film, nor suffered more while doing it, and never received so little recompense...in 35 years of film-making...let me honk my own horn. I have been in thirty-plus pictures, almost all of them financially successful. Some went through the roof. Some I directed. From early on, I have directed my own stuff...Please give me a chance to exercise over 30 years of experience in films"

Of course, Brando had only directed One-eyed jacks. Not "Some" movies.  And MGM no doubt remembered Brando's disastrous editing of that film.  His letters went unanswered. The film wasn't re-cut.  

The Prince and the Showgirl (1957) - Olivier

Plot:  Based on the Terence Rattigan play. In 1911 London, an American Showgirl becomes involved with a Balkan Prince Regent
Stars: Laurence Olivier, Marilyn Monroe

One of Monroe's lesser known movies, its an amusing bit of fluff, the chief draw being the actors. Based on a romantic, old-fashioned three act play, I enjoyed it, it has some witty lines and good romance. But its a little dull at times. There's too much political intrigue and its 20 minutes too long.. Supposedly, Olivier and Monroe didn't get along but it doesn't show onscreen. The two leads have good chemistry together. Monroe is very expressive and natural.  Much better than Bus Stop, no doubt because the dialog is less dramatic. Olivier fares less well since his character is a "cold fish" and he's encased in a stiff uniform & monocle.

Monroe and Olivier
It seems that Marilyn and Larry were both excited to do the film and thought the other was the greatest thing ever. Unfortunately, the mutual admiration didn't last long.  Olivier become annoyed at Monroe's acting coach, temper tantrums, lateness, and reliance on "the method".

He was in a difficult position, since while he was the director, Monroe was in fact his boss, since her company was producing the movie. At one point, the acting coach contradicted Olivier's direction and instructed Monroe to "Think of Frank Sinatra and Coca-cola" which eventually lead to Arthur Miller and the Producer being called in to adjudicate.   Olivier would later say Monroe was a natural born model and light-comedian made pretentious and over-ambitious by "the method" and her acting coaches.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

Plot:  During the Vietnam War, an Army Captain is sent “Up River” to “terminate with extreme prejudice” a Green Beret who’s gone mad.
Stars: Marlon Brando (Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Willard), Robert Duvall

Best Quote: You can either surf, or you can fight!

The Good
Apocalypse Now is a wonderful “Light and Laser” show, full of brilliantly filmed scenes and camera work.  All you need to do is turn off your brain and enjoy the most sophisticated “popcorn movie” ever.

We get: helicopters blaring Wagner while attacking a village, wonderful shots of the jungle, Half-crazed Robert “I Love the smell of Napalm in the morning” Duvall demanding soldiers surf under mortar fire, Playboy bunnies getting mobbed, Swift Boats playing bumper cars with live ammo, and a nightmarish Bridge scene where the question “Who’s in Command?” is answered with “I thought you were”.

The Bad
What we *do not* get is a reasonable plot, believable characters, or anything recognizable as the real, actual, Vietnam war.  For example, no Vietnamese has more than one line.  They’re all just nameless, faceless people who exist to be killed or pitied.  Nor does the Cambodian Government seem to exist.

And there are so many goofy plot holes. Why would anyone trust drunken, druggie, “Captain Willard” with an important mission? Why does Willard go by boat to Du Long Bridge, when he can helicopter there in perfect safety? Why is Col. Kurtz an “important threat” given his Cambodian tribe only has spears? And where are the NVA and Khmer Rouge?

The Ugly 
This brings up the movie’s big problem – the ending with Brando.  Up to the two-hour point (original Cut) the movie is a wonderfully shot “action movie.” But it grinds to a halt when they arrive at Brando’s Village.  For the last 20 minutes all we get is endless talk and meaningful looks. Brando (clothed in darkness & shadow to hide his obesity) mumbles *very slowly* to Willard about “The Horror, the Horror” after quoting Time Magazine and T.S. Eliot. And then he dies.  It’s not only boring, it’s incomprehensible.

Brando
Once again, Brando took a role only for $$$- receiving an amazing $3.5 million plus 11% of the gross, for six weeks of work.  Brando played “Kurtz” after Pacino & Jack Nicholson turned down the role. In August 1976, he arrived in the Philippines unprepared and overweight (supposedly 80 lbs).

It seems Brando had lied to Coppola about reading Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” and done no preparation. But after several meetings, Brando convinced Coppola to rewrite his part.  Now, Kurtz would only appear at the end.  He would be a mystery man, clothed in darkness, and Brando would improvise his dialogue.  This also, coincidentally, allowed Brando to have a smaller part and leave after 6 weeks.

The movie wouldn’t be released till 1979. Critics weren't kind to his performance, for example::

"When Willard reaches Kurtz - a Brando who has become an obscene, secular Buddha with shaven head and ballooning midriff, whose voice emerges like the squeal of a mouse from a ridiculous mountain... two dullards confront each other over a thin gruel of pretentious platitudes or portentous understatement, and the film becomes worse than bad - abject."

Kazan on Montgomery Clift

I'd always thought Kazan was a big fan of Brando, Dean and Clift.  But it seems he only liked the first two.  Here's the quote:

Question:  Why did you cast Montgomery Clift in Wild River? 

Kazan: He wasn't my choice. I wish I could have cast someone more masculine, someone stronger would have been better.  I would have preferred Brando, but then I always prefer Brando.  He was unavailable, so I kept postponing the picture and postponing it, trying to find somebody.  I liked Clift personally, but he was in very bad shape...He was banged up. His face was almost a different face. He was also very shaky, and on liquor and drugs, just quivering with doubt.  It was a tough, tough, thing to deal with.  He was also unmasculine, which hurt the love story. I think I could've done better, but I don't know with whom.  I still don't know.  

Papa Hemingway in Cuba (2015)

Plot: In 1959, a young journalist ventures to Havana to meet Ernest Hemingway, while the Cuban Revolution erupts around them.

Stars: Antonino Ribisi, Adrian Sparks

This movie got bad reviews, and despite being a great Hemingway fan, it deserves them.  Badly directed, slackly written and incredibly disjointed,  the movie is unfocused. Despite the title, its mostly about a dull young journalist and his marriage/career.  Hemingway is just a supporting player, and we get a few flat scenes about the Cuban Revolution.  

As for the acting: George C. Scott set the standard for Hemingway portrayals ( his character in Islands in the Stream is a thinly disguised Hemingway) but Sparks is well below that,  he looks the part but isn't charismatic or compelling. Ribisi is bland in an underwritten role.  However, the movie is nice to look at, and contains some classic 1950s Automobiles and great location shots of Cuba.  

Summary:  Should be renamed Ed Meyers in Cuba. A low-budget Lifetime movie of the week with some Hemingway on the side. Forgettable. 

The Formula (1980)

Plot:  Based on a Best-selling novel.  LA Detective Scott finds rich Oil Exec Brando is suppressing a 35 year-old Nazi formula that creates cheap synthetic oil.
Stars:  George C. Scott, Marlon Brando, John Gielgud

Despite having some of the greatest actors ever, The Formula died at the box office and currently has a 5.6 IMDB rating.  Its easy to understand why - the script is dull and confusing.  Instead of entertaining us, it bores us with German scientists, oil prices, and synthetic oil formulas.  After a needless WW II prologue, we embark upon a string of dull ten minute interviews.  Characters show up, talk to Scott and then disappear.  People die, but we get no action sequences, and Scott is never in danger. For an ending,  all we get is Scott telling off  Brando. Its quite underwhelming.

Acting
But you can't blame the actors for the low IMDB rating.  Scott gives a subtle, powerful performance as a harried, tired policeman, and dominates the movie.  Brando and Gielgud are excellent. Marthe Keller does well with a confusing, often unbelievable character.

Brando
Of course, Brando only did the movie for money and was paid handsomely ($millions for six days work).  A supporting character, he's in 3 scenes (two with Scott) for a total of 25 minutes. In his autobiography Brando dismisses the movie in one sentence, calling it a "Stinker."  However, the producer (on the DVD commentary) has nothing but praise for Brando. It seems Marlon created his own character, got along with everyone and even filmed the third scene for "No extra charge".

Further, unlike Missouri Breaks, Brando takes the part seriously.  He believably portrays the ruthless Oilman as an affable fellow with a Midwestern accent. Its an undemanding role - he just puts on a 3-piece suit and talks - but he's good. As for Brando vs. Scott.  They produce no fireworks, but its the script's fault - not theirs - and they play off each other like two pros. Charter members of the "to hell with the Oscars" club, Scott and Brando were friendly off-screen: playing chess, and engaging in quiet chit-chat. Scott had no problems with Brando's ad-libs or failure to learn lines.

George C. Scott
The DVD commentary by the Producer is interesting .  Supposedly, Scott was quite a handful during the production - moody, irascible, and disliking the director. The two often clashed on how to play the character. When requested to carry an umbrella, Scott told him: "George C. Scott only carries an umbrella with a sword in it." & the scene was done sans umbrella.  Meanwhile, the producer claims Scott was once found in his Berlin apartment drinking Vodka from a bottle and waving a .45 around.  Fortunately, no damage was done.  The Producer wished he'd hired Gene Hackman. 

Summary:  A thriller without any thrills, The Formula forgets the "good movie formula" requires a good script. Great actors aren't enough, they need good lines and an interesting story. But George C. Scott/Brando fans might find it worthwhile.

Bus Stop (1956)

Plot:  A rambunctious young cowboy falls for a saloon singer and tries to take her back to his Montana Ranch. Adapted from a successful Broadway play by Inge
Stars:  Marilyn Monroe,  Don Murray, Arthur O'Connell

While Director Josh Logan does a good job of "opening up" Bus Stop (especially in the first half), there's not much action.  This is a "relationship movie"  that focuses on 3 main characters:  "Bo" a head-strong cowboy, "Virgil" his older friend, and "Cherie" a tortured saloon singer he falls in love with. Accordingly, the acting/casting is of prime importance and Monroe, at least, delivers.

Acting
Without a doubt this is Monroe's best dramatic performance. She plays the part with touching childish naivete and beauty. Her purposely off-tune rendition of "Old Black Magic" is a highlight.  But she's only part of the movie - the other two parts aren't cast/played as well.

We can start with Don Murray.  He's too old for Bo, which calls for a 17-19 year old, unless you wish to believe Bo is brain damaged.  Even worse, Murray is too loud and obnoxious, resulting in a cartoon-like character.  However, Murray's performance improves at the end, after Bo literally has some sense beaten into him.

As for Arthur O'Connell as Virgil, he's neither good nor bad.  He lacks any real chemistry with Murray, and is too bland.  Its too bad a  better actor like Walter Brennan or  Arthur Kennedy couldn't have played the part.

Direction and Story
Incredibly, given Josh Logan directs, Bus Stop is a fairly fast-paced 96 minutes.  Its mostly talk, of course, so it does drag in the middle.  Story-wise, its an engaging but somewhat patronizing Hollywood/Broadway story about "Little people" in the "fly-over" country. It no doubt caused a few "eye-rolls" back in 1956 Montana/Denver.

Summary:  Monroe's best dramatic performance is undercut by the mediocre performance of the other two main characters.  Its worth a look, if only for Marilyn Monroe.

The Thrill of it all (1963)

Plot:  A housewife becomes the TV spokeswoman for "Happy Soap" - to the annoyance of her Husband.
Stars:  Doris Day, James Garner

Doris Day gives a great performance in this good-humored satire of  TV advertising and  Suburbia.  She's especially good at "blowing her lines" during the "Happy Soap" commercials.  And her rapport with James Garner is excellent, only surpassed by her chemistry with Rock Hudson.  Too bad the movie, except for Day, is so mediocre.

So, what went wrong? Two reasons:  Carl Reiner.  He wrote the script, and proves - once again - he wasn't ready for the Big Leagues.  Basically, Thrill of it All is a 108 minute Dick Van Dyke episode - in color.  We get lots of "cute kids making cute remarks", a tired subplot about a far-too-old Arlene Francis having a "late baby", and a predictable story-line.  Except for a funny drive into a swimming pool and the "I'm a pig" joke, the humor is TV sitcom stuff.  Too make it worse, Reiner refused to stay behind the camera, and drags down several scenes which should have gone to a funnier actor**.  Garner does well, but isn't given much to do except play the Suburban  Dad and express annoyance at Day's antics. The supporting cast is good in their standard roles.

Summary:  A mediocre Comedy with a great Doris Day performance.  Needed sharper writing and been 10 minutes shorter.

** =  For some reason, Carl Reiner thought he was a great comic actor and stated he lost the Rob Petrie role to Dick Van Dyke because of "antisemitism".  Really.  Side note: Reiner wrote the movie for Judy Holiday, who bowed-out due to illness - fortunately for the movie.

The Seven Year Itch (1956) - Wilder

Plot: Based on a  popular Broadway play, when his family goes away for the summer, a middle-aged husband is tempted by his beautiful neighbor.
Stars: Tom Ewell (Richard Sherman), Marilyn Monroe (The Girl)

Famous for the shot of Marilyn Monroe's dress being lifted by the air of the subway, Seven Year Itch is a mildly amusing 50s comedy.  But its NOT a "Marilyn Monroe Movie" - she plays a supporting part and doesn't have significant dialogue till the 25 minute mark.

It is - believe it or not - a "Tom Ewell movie". He played the lead role on Broadway, and he's in 95% of the scenes. We never see Monroe without him. And he's actually not bad.  But the film really comes alive when Monroe is on-screen. She's only 28 years old and at her peak in beauty/comic timing.  And without her the movie would probably be forgotten.  Not because its bad - but because without her, its a slightly above average 50s comedy.

Tom Ewell vs. Walter Matthau
In one of his rare seemingly good casting ideas, Wilder wanted to replace Tom Ewell, with then unknown Walter Matthau.  20th Century Fox turned him down. Wow. Sounds like a real bonehead decision, no?

Actually, no. Matthau, as shown by his screen-test, wasn't a good fit for the part.  Unlike Ewell, he was new to the character "Richard Sherman", and wasn't a physical comedian. Further,  "Sherman" is supposed to be an early Woody Allen type. A wimpy, middle-aged Joe Schmo who imagines he's a great Casanova but bumbles/fumbles around when near a beautiful girl. That's not Walter Matthau, with his hangdog looks, limited vocal range, grumpy demeanor,  and sardonic humor.  Further, "Sherman" speaks directly to the audience - a lot, and Matthau often sounded like he had marbles in his mouth.  No, Tom Ewell was the right choice.  However, Jack Lemmon would've been perfect in the part -  in 1960.

Play vs Movie
Written by George Axelrod in 1952, the play was a box office smash.  However, the adopting the play to film was difficult due to the Production code.  In the play's 3rd act, "Richard Sherman" after committing adultery  has comically paranoid fantasies  and guilt feelings.  Of course, portraying adultery as a "laughing matter" was verboten  in 1955 American film, so Wilder has the film character *imagine* he committed adultery.  Its really six of one half a dozen of the other.

Wilder's Excuses
Later, Wilder would blame the critical failure of the film on the production code and his inability of show the adultery had really occurred - but this is nonsense.   He co-wrote the film with George Axelrod, and most of the jokes from the  play's 3rd act - are in the movie!.  Further, I read the play, and there are no devastatingly witty lines that missed being in the film.

Billy Wilder was a master at shifting the blame to others (he even blamed Gary Cooper for "getting old" after he cast him in Love in the Afternoon).  Dissatisfied with the film, he later bad-mouthed the Production code and Tom Ewell, but the real blame lies with Wilder. He failed to add enough funny characters/dialogue to improve the play.

The Apartment (1960)

Plot:  An ambitious worker lets Corporate Executives use his apartment for their adulterous affairs.
Stars: Jack Lemmon (C.C. Baxter), Shirley Maclaine (Fran),  Fred MacMurray (Jeff Sheldrake)

Best Quote:
Sylvia:   You mean you bring other girls up here?
Kirkeby: Certainly not.  I'm a happily married man

Labeled a “dirty fairy-tale” when released, The Apartment is a likable, somewhat sleazy and completely unrealistic look at corporate life.  “Dirty” because of the plot revolves around adultery and a man pimping out his apartment to Business Execs. A “fairy-tale” because our two lead characters (Fran and C.C. Baxter) behave in such inconsistent and absurd ways they’re not real people.  Fran goes from being in love with Sheldrake to committing suicide, to being OK, and then leaving Sheldrake for C.C. Baxter so fast it makes your head swim.

Meanwhile, C.C. pimps out his Apartment because he’s a good-hearted schnook (and for advancement) but then stops and gives it all up for Fran – even though he expects her to marry Sheldrake.  In between, despite being a man in his early 30s, he behaves like bashful schoolboy toward Fran – and never makes a move on her.

Wilder goes through these unrealistic gymnastics because our two leads – on the surface – are unsympathetic, amoral climbers.  Baxter wants promotions without earning them, and Fran wants a rich corporate executive, his family be damned.  And somehow our two love-birds need to be brought together for a happy ending.

Direction and Acting - Excellent
Acting-wise, everyone does well enough, although Lemmon is a little too old for the bashful schoolboy pose and overdoes the “hapless schnook” shtick.  Maclaine and MacMurray are the two standouts, playing their parts perfectly. Incredibly, Wilder wanted his friend, Paul Douglas, for Sheldrake.  Shirley MacLaine in love with Paul Douglas?  Talk about suspension of disbelief! The supporting cast is excellent and provides most of the comedy.  Wilder directs well, as usual. The use of the mirror is an excellent touch.

Summary
Wilder gives us cynicism - but with an unrealistic  happy face.  In Ace in the Hole, cynical Douglas “comes to Jesus” in the last 35 minutes. In the Apartment, Fran and C.C. Baxter absurdly turn down what they’ve been seeking the whole movie, because “Love conquers all.” Once you get past the bitter lemon icing, it’s the same old gooey fairy tale.

The Misfits (1961)

Plot:A  divorcee falls for an over-the-hill cowboy who is struggling to maintain his romantically independent lifestyle.
Stars: Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Montgomery Clift, Eli Wallach

A two-hour gab fest, this is an "actors movie" written by Arthur Miller to showcase Monroe's dramatic acting chops. Clift, Monroe, Gable, and Wallach,  all get a well-defined "misfit" character and chance to emote about a tragic loss: Wallach's wife - Gable's Kids - Monroe's marriage - and Clift's ranch and father. Save for a few Thelma Ritter wise-cracks, the first 90 minutes is a long-winded character study.

But things perk up in the last 30 minutes, as our gang heads out to corral some Mustang horses for the glue factory. Finally, we get some dramatic conflict.  Gable wants keep the "old ways" and the horses, while Monroe wants Gable to set the Mustangs free. Guess who wins? (Note: the movie was made in 1960 but ignores the 1958 Federal Statute outlawing Mustang hunting using airplanes or motor vehicles.)

Eli Wallach vs. Montgomery Clift 
Once again your DVD cover is lying to you.. The main supporting character is NOT Montgomery Clift - its Eli Wallach.   He has more lines then anyone - except Monroe or Gable.  Wallach's character "Guido" is Gable's best friend and main rival for Monroe's affections. Meanwhile, Clift doesn't show up till the 45 minute mark and has very few lines in the last 30 minutes.

So why so little focus on Wallach?  Embarrassment, maybe? Because Wallach and his character Guido seem completely out of place.  One of Miller's less believable characters; Guido is a former WW2 pilot who lives miles outside of Reno and drives a tow truck.  He has little in common with Gable's character -supposedly his best friend. And Wallach with his hammy acting seems to be acting on different planet from Clift/Gable. Stanley Kauffman, a Wallach fan, says he: "...sounds less bronco-hunter than Bronx. There is something vulgar in this gifted actor's reliance on vulgarity as a metier"

The Main Problem is Miller's Script
However, other than Wallach everyone else turns in a nice acting performance. Gable shows some unexpected acting ability, and Monroe, while very subdued is touching in several scenes. Unfortunately, much of Miller's dialog is very theatrical and unreal.  Did any Cowboy or average person ever utter lines like:

-We're all blind bombardiers, Roslyn. We kill people we never even saw
-I can't make a landing, and I can't get up to God, either.
-Birds must be brave to live out here. Especially at night

-If it weren't for the nervous people in the world, we'd all still be eating each other.

Arthur Miller, always trying to be poetic - and failing.

Summary:  The Misfits did middling box office when released, and got mixed reviews. My review is mixed too.  The direction and script are mediocre. But Clift, Ritter, Gable and Monroe are excellent.

Ace in the Hole (1951) - Wilder

Stars:  Kirk Douglas, Jan Sterling, Ray Teal.
Plot:  A down-and-out NYC reporter (Tatum) working for an Albuquerque newspaper finds a man (Leo) trapped in local Cave.  He manipulates the Sheriff (Ray Teal) and Leo's wife (Jan Sterling) in order to prolong the rescue effort and exclusively feed the story to major newspapers.

Favorite Quotes:
Jacob Q. Boot: Do you drink a lot?
Charles Tatum: Not a lot - just frequently.

Reporter: We're all in the same boat.
Charles Tatum: I'm in the boat. You're in the water. Now let's see how you can swim.

A Kirk Douglas Movie
Do you like Kirk Douglas? Well, then you might like "Ace in the Hole". Because its a Kirk Douglas movie to end all Kirk Douglas movies.  We view everything through Kirk's eyes - he's in 90% of the scenes and has 50-60% of the lines. And he's in full Kirkian mode: forceful, sarcastic, manipulative, obnoxious, and always within a few degrees of boiling over with rage.  He punches out the County Sheriff, and slaps/strangles the victims wife, and those are his allies!

A Talky Story with Unrealistic Characters
So, what about the story? There's where we run into trouble. Far from being a "masterpiece of cynicism" full of "brutal honesty" and a "searing satire of the American society" as stated by some prominent critics,  Ace in the Hole is a rather unrealistic story of an absurdly Egotistical newspaper man manipulating a lot of absurdly cowardly/evil people for his own ends.

Ace in the Hole's unrelenting cynicism/bleakness is no more realistic then Mary Poppins.  The general public are shown as callous, gawking morons. And there's not one strong, good, character. Leo's wife doesn't care if he lives or dies, while the Sheriff (who keeps a pet rattlesnake!) goes further and refuses to rescue Leo from almost certain  death. Meanwhile, the Sheriff's Deputy/On-site Engineer are complete cowards. Finally, we get a story set in rural New Mexico with 3 main characters/actors from New York City, I mean what are the odds? And weirdly, none of the New Mexico natives mind a New Yorker pushing them around.

Plot Problems
And the plot has big structural problems.  The first 15 minutes consist of nothing more than Kirk getting a job and bitching about how much better NYC is. And in the last 25 minutes,  self-centered Kirk does an unpersuasive 180.  Full of remorse over Leo's death and bleeding from a stab wound, Kirk gets Leo a Priest, self-righteously tells everyone the "circus is over", and then drives back to the editors office to die!  Of course, anyone as self-centered as "Charles Tatum" would've seen a Doctor *one second* after they were stabbed.

Why did Wilder Ever think this would be Popular?
This was Wilder's first movie without his partner Charles Brackett and his first Box office bomb. In 1951, it'd seem obvious that a dark, cynical, talky movie about a bunch of unlikable characters exploiting a man trapped in a cave - with no Stars except Kirk Douglas - would have little or no Box Office appeal. However, both Paramount and Wilder were surprised at the result - and  judging from his biographies, Wilder never did understand it.  (It says something about Paramount Studio that they turned down Ford's The Quiet Man and green-lighted Ace in the Hole).

Summary:  The Critics seem to love the cynicism so much, they ignore Ace in Hole's flaws.  Its unrealistic, starts slow, and ends silly. The Cave discussions between Kirk and Leo are either pathetic, sentimental, or unbelievable. And almost every character is weak/unlikable.  However, its well directed and photographed, and unlike Pauline Kael, I don't think its "really just nasty, in a pushy sociological way" - I just don't think its very good.