Very short version: hire good writers = make better movie.
I can't get worked up over any of these movies, as I managed for "War of the Worlds" or a few others. Mostly (exceptions noted below), these movies were bad. Not shoot-yourself-before-watching bad, but pretty bad. What was interesting, however, was that by watching all four movies within about ten days, it showed me clearly that writers make all the difference - not stars, not CGI, not directors or anything else. Sure, having stars, CGI, a budget, a competent director and other sundries would certainly improve a movie, but if you don't have an intelligible (note: not intelligent, though that would be nice too) storyline, then you've made a bad movie. It's that simple.
"The Dukes of Hazzard" was plainly awful. Awful acting, awful idea, awful nostalgia trip. However, it wasn't painfully awful. Why? Restraint. They didn't try to make anything more than a B- movie. No earth shattering character changes (Boss Hog: still bad; Dukes: still good), no characters saving the world, and a 1969 Dodge Charger still drifting through every corner. Simple. What was the story? Same as a Dukes of Hazard episode from 20 years back: Boss Hog tries to steal some land to strip mine it and make money. OK, fine, they worked the environment in, but they left out politics, terrorism, Islam (heck, any religion), Iraq, or anything else. Nobody acted too bright (in keeping with the TV show), and everybody played their roles correctly (which is to say they overacted like mad, but it seemed fine). Most importantly, everybody looked like they were having fun making a (relatively) cheap B-grade action/adventure piece of fluff. That relaxed sort of acting method played out in a movie that didn't take itself seriously, was casual about it's jokes, and wasn't trying to say anything other than "Hey, just look at us for an hour and half, then worry about the bills." This was a bad movie, made better by competant writing and nobody trying to hard.
An additional note about two of the actor/actresses. Willie Neslon was pretty damn funny as Jesse Duke. Especially funny is (in the extras) seeing him tell one-liners to Johnny Knoxville while they are supposedly tooling down the road throwing Molotov-cocktails made from their moonshine at the bad guys. Funny jokes. Jessica Simpson should never be allowed near a camera again. I think the director knew this, as she never appears (or says a line) other than trying to get people to look at her ass, boobs, or (actually, that's it). She's remarkably irrelevant to the movie (and that's just fine).
"The Fantastic Four" was easily the worst movie of the bunch. It's actually worse than Kingdom of Heaven, but it's not worth the effort to make a long review that points out its myriad faults. The key problem was writing. Sure, the teenagers hired to play the superheroes couldn't act their way out of a wet paper bag. Yeah, fine, the director loved CGI and everything was pretty. Big deal. The story was so awful that a constipated dog could shit out a more interesting/coherent idea after eating this month's "Vanity Fair" (dogs can't write, so the dog needs to get some words from somewhere). Evil business tycoon becomes evil bad guy; check. Clean cut young people working to save humanity get blasted by radiation, get superpowers; check. Rest of humanity nervous about superheroes; check. Superheroes have trouble adjusting to new powers; check. Yawn.
Look, the movie cost (literally) millions to make. Probably a hundred million or so. Why didn't they spend ten grand (note: that's 0.01% of the entire budget) getting someone to write a better movie is beyond me. Why does Hollywood sink so much money into these things, and so little money into the screenwriters? Really, this was a piece of shit, and should be avoided at all costs. This was a shoot-yourself-before-watching kinda movie.
Tombstone was something of a surprise. This had flown under my radar as just another Hollywood-western from the mid-90s. Actually, that's what it is, but it could have been so much better. Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Robert Mitchum, Charton Heston, Sam Elliot, Billy Zane, Dana Delaney, and the list goes on. There were some seriously heavy actors in this (and I'll bet the budget was high, too). The outline of the story - Wyatt Earp - certainly has legs, and could be made into something interesting. What happened?
Not sure. Could be the writer's fault, could be the director, could be some sort of miscommunication/incoherence between the two. The story is (supposedly) the more-or-less-true story of Wyatt Earp. I don't know the reality of it, so I can't comment on the truthfulness of the movie. There wasn't anything wrong with the story, but the actual writing of the line (the actual lines the actors say) was some of the worst crap I've heard. I guess they were trying for some Terminator-esque "I'll be back" lines, but they all just ended up sounding silly. I think the actors were trying to hard. It wasn't boring, but it drifted in that direction. It seemed sort of aimless and wandering (in a storytelling sense, not a plot sense).
The one bright part of this was Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday. He was absolutely brilliant. His Doc Holliday had TB (accuracy?), but drank and smoked continuously. He didn't like anyone (except Earp), and generally insulted everyone he met. Whoever wrote his lines was concentrating hard (maybe Kilmer paid somebody to work his stuff over?). In any event, a great performance, and easily worth putting up with the other stuff (i.e., the rest of the movie) just to watch him.Finally, Serenity. Here is the clearest example of what writing will do for you. The budget wasn't high. Just about none of the actors had any name recognition (Venus Flytrap from "WKRP in Cincinnati" was the only actor I actually recognized). The CGI was decent, but not "Lord of the Rings" quality. Yet, for all those faults, it was easily the best movie of the bunch. Why?
Writing. The story was a straight-forward SciFi retread (evil empire, plucky rebels, escaping convict, etc.), but details of the background (why the rebels lost, what the empire is trying to do) were fresh, the characters (while predictable) had crisp lines, funny where they needed to be, angsty where they needed to be. The actors played everything well - no overacting or Tom-Cruise-Like moments in the whole movie. It was just a simple, well thought out, B-Grade throwaway movie that wasn't trying to change the world. Well made escapism. Or, to put it another way, it was "The Dukes of Hazzard" with a decent writer and some creativity (not in terms of plot, obviously, but in terms of where it fits into "Hollywood"). Worth a couple of bucks for an evening rental, if SciFi is your thing (if not, skip it; it's not that good).
To Sum Up: movies tell stories. Telling a story involves plot, dialogue, movement, action, etc. To put all of those things together into a coherent whole requires a story-teller, or a "writer". A good writer makes good (or at least better) movies. A bad writer makes bad movies. You don't need CGI, Tom Cruise, Oliver Stone or Legolas in order to make a good movie (they don't hurt, when used right, but they don't automatically help). You need (as in: required) a writer who knows what they are doing. Sure, the Fantastic Four can be entertaining/amazing. They can fly around, and break stuff. Of course, if all I wanted to see was flying and breaking stuff, I could throw a steak at my cat, and watch my dogs try to take it away from him (actually, that would be significantly more entertaining than the movie I watched). In order to make the Fantastic Four (or Wyatt Earp, or Bo and Luke Duke, or the plucky rebels, or Alexander the Great, or a Knight in the Crusades, or...you get my point) interesting, you need to tell a good story. I'm tempted to argue that no character has ever been inherently interesting; that everyone requires a story of some kind, but I'm sure there is one character out there that proves my absolute assertion wrong. Lets just leave it at: characters require stories, and stories are told by writers. If you are making a movie and your writer is (1) an idiot, (2) you don't know who or where they are, (3) unable to explain why any character is doing any particular thing, (4) enamored with things blowing up/getting shot/getting naked/set on fire, (5) working for you for minimum wage, (6) less than, say, 22 years old, (7) lives at home, (8) owns less than, say, 100 books, or (9) any combination of 1 through 8, then fire them and find someone who fits the qualifications. Then you might have a prayer of making a decent movie.
To Sum Up The Summing Up: watch Serenity if you like SciFi; avoid The Fantastic Four like the avian bird flu; get moderately drunk with friends and watch The Dukes of Hazzard (play a drinking game: anyone who can get a food substance to stick to Jessica Simpsons ass while it's on screen can make someone else drink); and then clean off the TV screen and (while still drunk) watch Val Kilmer out act everybody in the movie in Tombstone.
Or not. You won't be missing much.
Posted by baltar at January 5, 2006 06:20 PM | TrackBack | Posted to MoviesOnce again, you watch these things so the rest of us won't have too. So altruistic of you, Baltar.
I disagree with you somewhat. I think Serenity was good, and deserves an active "rent this" rating, especially for the geek crowd. For those of a certain age who loved Star Trek because it was all we had (sob!). Serenity doesn't have the multi culti tight outfit fun, but it does have the cancelled-series-made-into-a-movie thing. It killed me watching the DVD extras when they were interviewing people who said "wow, i just can't think of any other cancelled TV show that was made into a movie!" I wanted to yell at the TV "HEY! Dummy! Space travel? Ship? V-ger?!"
I also think that you miss something, also in regard to Serenity. It's not just the writer, but writer/director. Again, watching the interview with Whedon in the DVD extras shows that the guy is a HUGE dork (and I say that as a fellow member of the tribe) and very smart. The literary and cultural references were just dripping off his tongue. So, not only do you have good writing from an intelligent writer, but you also had vision. I would argue that vision is as important as writing, especially for the story telling aspect. Then again, a director with vision likely isn't going to get onto a (many?) project with a writer who can't communicate the vision, so the two are not completely independent.
Look, I'm not saying Serenity was the best movie ever. But it did show that you don't need big stars to make a good (again, good, not great) movie. Yes, you could have cast Hugh Jackman as the lead, Angela Basset as the first mate, Cristina Ricci as the psychic, Joaquin Phoenix as her brother, and Ashley Judd as the courtesan. They would have added box office draw, but they wouldn't have really made it a much better movie. The good in that equation came from a good story, clever timing, effective - but not over - use of CGI, and a sense of humor. It had continuity. The movie made sense. In most of your reviews, Baltar, you talk about when you can and when you can't suspend your disbelief. I think where Serenity succeeds is that it takes place in space and all that sure, but people act like people. Fun, semi-witty, likeable people.
And that is ultimately what you are saying about story, I think. Good characters are essential yes, but if they don't do anything interesting, then who cares.
I'll end with my own mini review: Skip Fanastic Four and Dukes. They both suck. And I really hate to pas judgement on Jay Chandrasekar, because I think he has done funny stuff in the past (Super Troopers) if you like sophomoric boy humor (and who doesn't love vomit jokes, hey? hey?). Some of the funiest bits in Dukes were the Broken Lizard guys. But ultimately, Dukes was too Hollywood. There was no feigned bestiality and no European swingers to distract us from the horror of Jessica Simpson. In fact, instead of Watching Dukes, go rent supertroopers. I also suggest to watch Tombstone when drinking. This is one of the "could have been" movies. Even though it was early 90s, it had a lot of 80s sensibility. If they had confined it to Val Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliot (when has he ever NOT played a cowboy?) and maybe Bill Paxton (I kept thinking, Chet! What are you doing in this movie?) getting up to hijinks it would have ben enjoyable. Dana Delaney? Love story? Phooey. Then again, I could just watch Val Kilmer do his thing by himself. I don't know what happened in his blank period (drugs? booze? assholishness? scientology? Est?) but he has been in some stinkers, and he definitely bordered on Brando-esque. But this is prime Kilmer. And kudos to the person with the plant mister who made him look sweaty and ill for the whole movie. Finally, watch Serenity, and check out all the extras. It nods to all the classics, from Star Trek to Buckaroo Banzai, but succeeds because it doesn't overreach, and you can tell that there was a lot of love put into making that movie.
Posted by: binky at January 5, 2006 07:08 PM | PERMALINK