“Tone Movies”

Ah, Comic Con. That time of year where Hollywood takes over San Diego and tries to wow the geeks with footage of upcoming “blockbusters”.
One star of Comic Con the last couple of years has been Zack Snyder, director/writer of “300” and “Watchmen”. This year he is promoting his first original film, “Sucker Punch,” which will be released in 2011 and will have “100s of layers” to analyze.
Coincidentally, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” has been critically and financially successful, burning up the box office. The film, a cohesive, tight script keeps spiraling towards what seems to be out of control, but remains emotionally centered.
While both Snyder and Nolan are both very successful making films, one is called a genius by the press (Nolan) and the other is called a genius by his promotional team (Snyder in promo for Watchmen). What is the difference between these two storytellers?
Well, only one of them is actually telling a story. While Nolan’s films may be calculated – the story clicks together like a well-manufactured trap. Snyder’s films aren’t about emotion or story, they are as I would argue, “tone films”.
“Tone films” are movies with style over substance where the look and feel of the film are given greater importance than a story and great characters. These films may be “awesome” but I don’t think they will ever be considered “great”. The great movies, I would argue doesn’t matter what they look like because story and character fully involve you into the film. Just because something looks cool, it doesn’t necessarily move the story forward. There’s a reason they’re called movies – the story should continually move forward and move the audience to some kind of emotional response. While the fight scenes in 300 are cool in slow motion, they don’t essentially move the story forward and challenge the characters, making the movie like a shiny tin man without a heart inside of him.
To the screenwriter, story and character should be the focus of the script. It’s no wonder that Pixar is continually successful, they hammer story like no other studio. It’s like “Field of Dreams” – if you build it (a successful story) they will come- even the geeks.

Reasons Why There are “Bad Movies”

Bad movies – they come out almost every weekend. Some make money, some don’t. In an industry known for high budgets, why do these films exist and why can’t they be prevented?

I have a few ideas.

1. Interns reading scripts – The most inexperienced people in the industry are the gatekeepers. Interns probably do about 50%+ of the reading of scripts in the entertainment business, with about another 40% done by assistants. Unfortunately, most of the people in these jobs have very little expertise in discerning a good script from a bad one. The people who can really tell the difference aren’t usually the people reading the scripts anyway.

2. SUITS – The people in charge are generally not “creatives”. They are someone’s nephew, accountants, or business-types. When you get these type of people involved in the creative process, their ideas might not be the best for the movie. As an illustration, it is no coincidence that Pixar has had 11 straight hit movies, both financially and critically. It is a studio run by the writers and the directors – people who understand story.

3. Release Dates – One reason so many “tentpole flicks” aren’t usually very good is because they have a deadline. Many times big franchise films will have a release date before there is even a pitch, let alone a script. This results in a rushed development phase and the script isn’t usually in very good shape for production.

4. YOU – the viewer – As long as franchise films with weak storytelling and script make more money, this is what the studios will make. It is the route of least resistance. However, this summer seems to be a wake up call to Hollywood. Big budget star-studded flops aren’t making the money they used to.

Are original films on the rise? Can story become king in Hollywood again? The signs are extremely positive in my opinion. If you love good storytelling in film and want more original filmmaking, vote with your wallet. Support films that fall into this category.

A Couple of Dicks/Cop Out Script Review

Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan in "Cop Out"

Recently the trailer was released for the new Kevin Smith movie, “Cop Out” – the first movie he’s directed from a script that he didn’t write himself. The script was the heavily lauded Black List 2008 script, “A Couple of Dicks” by brothers Mark and Robb Cullen. The two writers are veterans of television, such shows as “Las Vegas” and “Heist”. “A Couple of Dicks” appears to be their quirky homage to the buddy cop comedies like “Lethal Weapon” that dominated the late ’80s and early ’90s.  Is it as a good as those movies? Yes and no.

The movie follows two bickering police partners – Jimmy, the level-headed leader (Bruce Willis) and his neurotic partner Paul (Tracy Morgan) – who go on the case in contemporary LA to find Jimmy’s stolen vintage baseball card which he was planning to use to pay for his daughter’s wedding. Along the way, they tangle with Mexican gang violence and uncover a kidnapping that puts them in danger.

The script is more than an homage to the buddy cop genre, it firmly plants itself in it. As a comedy, it has a few laugh-out-loud moments, but for the most part, the script plays everything pretty straight. This was disappointing to me as a reader, because I was hoping that Paul’s character would show some of the absurdity that has elevated Tracy Morgan to legend status on “30 Rock”. As comedies go, it’s a pretty mainstream, average one.

The storyline is a bit better than the comedic dialogue, and surprising moves pretty quickly. The action scenes should be fact-paced and exciting on the big screen and were the high-points of the script. The biggest problem with the script were two plot points that seemed out of left field and soured the story for me as the reader. One involves the sudden death of a character that I really liked in the story (I won’t say who it is, but it isn’t one of the two main characters), and secondly the crux of the entire plot. The script doesn’t really wrap up that nicely and if it makes it into the movie, I predict that the audience will feel a bit cheated. Again, no spoilers, but it seems like the entire film is thrown out the window in the last ten pages.

That said, the relationship between Paul and Jimmy is really the strength of this movie, and with Willis and Morgan in the roles, I can see them making this movie working. I don’t expect Smith to have much influence over this movie, if the trailer is to be believed (it follows the script completely), he is merely the studio’s hired gun. All in all, a pretty strong feature debut for the Cullen brothers, and I look forward to seeing what they do next.

Status: Currently in Postproduction under director Kevin Smith and starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. Set to be released February 26, 2010. The title has been changed by the studio from “A Couple of Dicks” to “Cop Out” and the setting has been changed from Los Angeles to New York City.

Final Score (6.5 out of 10)

Your Highness Script Review

Natalie Portman in "Your Highness"

“Your Highness” should be a great script. I mean it’s written by Danny McBride and Ben Best, the two writers behind McBride’s very, very funny star vehicles: “The Foot Fist Way” and “Eastbound & Down” (which both qualify as high points of comedy in the last few years). “Your Highness” is their next project and McBride’s next starring vehicle and the premise is ripe for comedy – basically Danny McBride playing his stoner, douchy character from everyone else, but set in Medieval times. McBride is Thaddeous, a wimpy, lazy prince who is forced to go on a quest for the “Hoop of Doom,” and in the process he falls in love with a warrior princess, fights trolls, and generally makes fun of the entire premise.

Let me preface this by saying, the draft I read doesn’t really line up with the released information about the movie– in this earlier draft, the character of his brother, Fabious (played in the film by James Franco) doesn’t go on the quest with him and is generally a secondary character. Released plot information places the film as a buddy comedy between the two actors, so who knows how much of what I read is in the film itself.

Let’s just hope I’m right, and this script is not what we’ll see on the screen next year.

The film is a raunchy male comedy with lots of scatological humor and drug references. I can appreciate the satirical look at Medieval times and their portrayals in film, but it just doesn’t quite hit me as funny. The only way I could entertain myself while reading the script is if I imagined Thaddeous’s lines being spoken by McBride.  Otherwise they fall flat and unfunny.

The secondary problem with this script is the uneven blend of contemporary comedy and medieval language and customs. McBride and Best don’t quite know how much of a period piece they want this to be, and it often feels like they are winking at the reader and saying how clever they are. It gets annoying quickly, and I wish they had stuck to one tone for the entire script.  Instead of developing the characters and plot (which is pretty episodic), they just make joke after joke that don’t quite work in execution.  Hopefully the script has been tightened and improved, and surely under the direction of David Gordon Green (“Pineapple Express” and “Eastbound & Down”), the film found its footing through the course of improvisation and timing.

I still have high hopes for this movie.  However, the premise and talent involved should be better than what I read in this script.

Status: Currently in Post-Production, directed by David Gordon Green and Starring Danny McBride, James Franco, and Natalie Portman. Set for release October 1, 2010.

Final Score (4 out of 10)

My Favorite Movies of 2009*

*So far.

Once I see a few more (who am I kidding, the list is miles long), I will have a much better idea of my top of movies of 2009. These were all movies I loved in 2009.
Up in the Air
The Road
UP
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Brüno
District 9
Adventureland
Star Trek
The Hangover
Youth in Revolt
(500) Days of Summer
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Inglourious Basterds
Land of the Lost
Nine
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Princess and the Frog
A Town Called Panic
Where the Wild Things Are
I Love You Man
Zombieland
Public Enemies
The Informant!
Coraline

Knowing

The movies I have not yet seen in 2009 that I need/want to see:

The Hurt Locker, Observe & Report, Monsters v. Aliens, Fast & Furious, Terminator Salvation, The Great Buck Howard, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, Paranormal Activity, Surrogates, Whip It, Jennifer’s Body, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, Taking Woodstock, The Brothers Bloom, Extract, Avatar, A Serious Man, It’s Complicated, Sherlock Holmes, Invictus, Men Who Stare at Goats, Pirate Radio, An Education, Bad Lieutenant Port of Call: New Orleans, Broken Embraces, Crazy Heart, Lovely Bones, Me and Orson Wells, The Messenger, Precious, Red Cliff, A Single Man, Julie and Julia, The White Ribbon

Land of the Lost Movie Review

Every year there’s one movie that slips through my radar due to poor reviews from the critics. Last year it was the Wachowski Brothers’ “Speed Racer,” which was a fun, trippy kids movie.  This year, there has been two movies so far that have blown me away on DVD- the first was “Knowing,” the Alex Proyas directed film about predestination and Nicholas Cage.  The other is “Land of the Lost,” directed by Brad Silberling.

Let’s just say “Land of the Lost” didn’t find it’s audience at the box office, because “Land of the Lost” does not have a built-in audience. Sure, there are the older folks who grew up watching the television show the movie is based on, but the film is pretty far removed from the kitschy Sid and Marty Kroft Saturday morning show. Additionally, this movie is not for the kids. This is straight-up adult humor, much in the vein of Will Ferrel’s prior films. So basically, it’s a high concept, high budget stoner comedy. And on that level it works perfectly.

I can’t really tell you how good the script is because much of the movie seems to improvised. But if half of the non sequiters from the movie are in the script, this is a strong comedic screenplay. Written by Chris Henchy and rewritten by Dennis McNichols, we see that this is not really an adaptation of the television show, but more like letting Will Ferrell play in the world of the television show.  The movie is silly and stupid for the most part, but is sold by great acting by Ferrell and, one of my favorite comedic actors today, Danny McBride. The two fight, bicker and take hallucinogens.  Not your usual $100 million dollar movie.

Because it is a high-budget film, the visuals are pretty stunning.  The T-Rex that haunts Ferrell is close to lifelike and a desert set dressed with the lost items of our world (the Golden Gate Bridge, a Medieval catapult, etc) is a trippy sight with our characters in it. The favorite villains of the show, the Sleestaks are here too, and bravely the film portrays them like the show does: tall guys in bad rubber suits. It just adds to the surreal nature of it all.

All in all, a very funny movie in a year that was good to comedy. “Land of the Lost” is a great movie without a built-in audience. If I smoked the reefer, it would be like the best movie ever, you know?

“Rule one, keep your arms and legs inside the raft at all times. Rule two, have a kick-ass awesome time.” – Will Stanton (Danny McBride)

Final Score (7.5 out of 10)

The Social Network Script Review (Black List #2)

Aaron Sorkin Photo Credit: AP

The next script on the 2009 Black List is a heavy-hitter: “The Social Network,” an adaptation of a book, “The Accidental Billionaires” about the founding of the social networking site Facebook by Ben Mezrich. The source material is all based on truth and the book itself was a bestseller. And unlike “The Muppet Man,” this movie not only has a good chance of being made, it’s already in production for Columbia Pictures and being directed by David Fincher (“Fight Club,” “Seven,”…)

Did I mention the script was written by Aaron Sorkin? Yes, that Aaron Sorkin.

I told you this script was a heavy hitter.

Sorkin is easily one of the best, if not the best writer of intelligent dialogue in the business today.  Through his various television shows, the man has become the rare breed of screenwriter, the one that has name recognition. Basically him and Tarantino are the only ones who can get their names in light merely over a screenplay. So we know that Sorkin can write, but does it work in the “Social Network”?

Yes, very much so. By far one of the longest scripts I’ve ever read (it weighs in at 161 pages), it actually moves pretty briskly with the majority of the pages devoted to the kind of technical, yet understandable dialogue that Sorkin is known for. If there is any flaw with this script, it is that it has no discernible structure and evolves through many different phases of the story without warning.  This really isn’t a flaw in my opinion however, because Sorkin’s writing feels so immediate and involving that you are along for the ride all the way until the end of the story.

What is the story? To boil it down to the basics, Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook while working with and for a couple of other people while at Harvard and they all got forced out when it went big. The story is for the most part a tragedy for all involved, as Zuckerberg’s arc through the story is very Shakespearean. Here is a man who wanted so badly to be accepted and loved that he created a website where he could be friends with everyone. Sorkin has captured a mad genius at work.

This movie works on many levels, and it is one of the funniest I’ve ever read. The script is modern and thrilling. I can’t wait to see the film in theaters when it premieres next year.

Final Score (9 out of 10)

Status: Currently in production under director David Fincher and starring Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake. Opens October 15, 2010.

Nobody Knows Anything

William Goldman: Screenwriting Legend

Those are the immortal words of the great screenwriter, William Goldman.

Today, those words ring even truer in the film industry. There is no sure bet (maybe outside of the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises), and no stream of income is guaranteed (goodbye DVD sales…).  Face it, the entertainment industry is at an impasse.  All the old ways of making money seem to be going away (it’s getting harder and harder to get people to watch your film or television show, with the multitude of options out there), and it doesn’t seem like there is any new forms of income around the corner.  On demand viewing is the hot buzz area right now, but no one seems to quite know how to make it work yet (that’s another column, another time).

So where does the future lie for the film studios? I don’t quite have the question, but I think the answer lies somewhere in the type of content that Hollywood produces. There is no other industry in America that will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a product with the hope of breaking even or making merely millions of dollars. Whereas the film industry could once count on DVD to make up for losses at the box office, that stream of revenue seems to be going drastically down, and with many films being released in and for 3D, it’s harder to get people to buy them on DVD. The experience just can’t be replicated.

And I think this scares people. All the hatred that Avatar amassed during production and the lead-up to its release, seems to stem out of two things – jealousy over James Cameron’s creative pull, and the fact that the movie could bring up production costs on competing features if it were a hit. Guess what, it is a hit. 230 million worldwide in one weekend? Those are numbers that assure it will be profitable in the long run. Sony doesn’t care if it makes money tomorrow, or this week, or even this year. They assured themselves with Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakel, which, laugh all you want, it will do great money.

So how do writers fit into all of this? Do we go for that elusive “four quadrant” film and the big bucks like Cameron did (though the film doesn’t reek of something very marketable) or do we go for the niche audiences that provide good word of mouth? I think you can do both, by not paying attention to either. Writers should be true to themselves and what they want to write, and if a screenplay provides an element of truth and entertainment value (and then during production, they don’t manage to mess things up), it will find an audience.  Finding a voice is hard, and even harder is rising above the noise and letting people know you exist.  A good writer will manage to make a script theirs, yet also belong to its readers and their experiences.

Nobody knows anything might not be so truthful after all. Write what you know, and then the rest may come to you.

Kick-Ass Script Review

Aaron Johnson as "Kick-Ass"

Instead of going straight for the next script on this year’s Black List, Aaron Sorkin’s “The Social Network,” I thought I might give you my thoughts on the script for what will most certainly be one of the most talked-about and popular movies of 2010.

That movie is Kick-Ass.

First, a digression.  With so many comic book movies in production and being released, it’s hard to tell the good ones from the bad ones these days.  Most of the comic movies being made have decent-to-great source material, so how do we two extremes such as The Dark Knight and Ghost Rider.  I think it’s probably the scripts themselves.  First, I think comic books, for the most part lend very well to film and television because a good comic book is edited images and words that create an emotional reaction – which is basically what good filmmaking is. However, because every film essentially needs a script, that visual medium must be translated first into a literary medium and then back into a visual medium. I think the script is really where a comic book movie’s success or failure really lays.  I recently read the unproduced script for Brian K. Vaughn’s “Y: The Last Man,” one of my favorite comic series. However, in the writer’s translation to screenplay, everything just sort of lay there flat for the reader. It had none of the action and momentum of the comic series on the written page.

Let’s just say Kick-Ass is one of those great comic book scripts. Written by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn (who is also directing the movie), the film crackles with snappy dialogue, humor, comic book references, and lots of violent action.  Kick-Ass is about Dave Lizewski, a normal high school student who decides to become a superhero and promptly gets his “ass kicked” hence his superhero name. But it also about so much more than this – it’s about the crazy people who fight crime, the mob, family dynamics, high school, and romantic relationships.  It is basically everything a well-rounded movie should be.

And did I mention, it’s really really funny?

Not that Goldman and Vaughn should take all the credit for this great script (which is brief and moves fast at 105 pages), much of Mark Millar’s classic dialogue from the comic books is transplanted right into the action.  This is the first comic book script I’ve read that has taken the visual frames of the comic book and described them in a way that is almost equal to the source material. Told almost exclusively through Dave’s V.O., we have a thrilling action comedy on our hands here.  Don’t get me wrong, the film as scripted is a hard R, but for the male audience this will be incredibly popular if they stayed true to the script.  Folks, Kick-Ass will be the second BIG hit of the year (after Alice in Wonderland whose script I willreview shortly).

To use a phrase that will be popular in a few months: Kick-ass kicks ass.

Final Score (9 out of 10)

Nine Movie Review

Nine is the new film from director Rob Marshall (Chicago) and writers Michael Tolkin (Deep Impact) and Anthony Minghella (writer and director of The Talented Mr. Ripley and Cold Mountain amongst many others). It stars Daniel Day Lewis and basically every actress in Hollywood.

Let’s just get this out-of-the-way: Nine is a musical.  I’m sure most of you have just tuned out this review.  Now, I am secure enough in my masculinity to say that I enjoy a good musical. And even bad movies can become good ones through musical numbers (hello, Across the Universe).  Nine is based on a musical from 1982 that ran on Broadway, which in turn was based on Fellini’s classic, 81/2.

So how does the movie version of a double adaptation hold up?  Surprisingly well.  The film itself is a stunning portrayal of 1960s Italy, with beautiful cars, clothes, and of course women.  The production design, costumes, and makeup should all get recognized around Oscar time.

The acting is for the most part good – Daniel Day Lewis plays Contini, the auteur with writer’s block, and Lewis is of course in fine form.  He doesn’t make very many movies, but when he does, you know it’s something special.  The women in the film are average to great, with the standouts being Marion Cotillard as Luisa, Lewis’s embattled wife, and Dame Judi Dench as Lili, his costumer and confidante.  No surprise from either.

The direction is good, and Marshall does try to move away from the visuals of Chicago, even if the film tends to move in that direction.  The ingenious use of a single soundstage for all the musical numbers is good from a storytelling standpoint, but it serves the greatest problem of the film – the music numbers don’t quite measure up the story and the tone. There is little memorable about the music and the performances, but I will say that they are dazzling at the time.

The script is a great work of art – with every line propelled by the weight of what is going on in Contini’s head.  The late Minghella gets a fitting tribute in the end credits, and the emotional weight that carries all his films comes to the forefront in Nine. His writing partner on the film Michael Tolkin deserves credit also, because the film, outside of the musical numbers (which seem to be a product of the musical and the time it was written) moves briskly and simultaneously feels like an old-fashioned musical and a slick modern art piece.  A personal project for all writers, the script puts the creative process at the forefront and even though it doesn’t quite execute completely, the film is something unique in that sense.

Nine is a great film about the insanities of filmmaking.

Final Score: (8 out of 10)