• Home
  • About Me
  • From the Floor
  • Articles
  • Find Agent
  • Glossary
  • Reviews
  • Contact
  •  

    MONSTERS VS ALIENS

    March 29th, 2009

    mvsa2

    Overall Impression – Not a bad movie, but one with a very muddled central question.  And a few more comedy punch-up writers wouldn’t have hurt, either.   

    THE FOUR QUESTIONS

    Who is your main character? – Susan

    What is she trying to accomplish? – Professional: First half of the film she wants to get out of the government’s monster prison and be normal.  Second half it’s to destroy the aliens. Personal: Have her normal life back, although this gets a bit lost midway through. Private: Prove to herself how strong she is (although we only learn about this halfway through the movie).  Add up all of these and you have a confused central question as a result of her goal being a bit of a moving target.

    Who’s trying to stop her? – Ultimately, the alien leader.

    What happens if she fails? – Earth will be invaded by aliens and humans will be destroyed.

    THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

    Orphan – Susan is bonked by a meteorite at the start of the film, taken from her family after she becomes the 50 Foot Woman, and thrown into a cell in a government facility.

    Wanderer – After an alien probe lands and goes on a rampage, Susan and the other monsters have to figure out how to use their monster skills to defeat it.

    Warrior – Susan is kidnapped by the alien leader and fights him in his ship.  Meanwhile, the other monsters stage a rescue.

    Martyr – Susan has returned to normal size and can escape the self-destructing ship, however she allows herself to become ginormous again to save her monster friends, who are also willing to martyr themselves for her.

    AND, IN THE END…

    MONSTERS VS ALIENS came this close to being a really good movie.  The 3D was a lot of fun and it’s interesting to watch as the technology gets embraced.  I can’t wait until the “adult” 3D movies start coming out.  

    There was nothing horribly wrong with the movie that a quick once over in Contour couldn’t have fixed.   Allies are introduced in the wrong place, the central question was poorly defined, the third act solution was presented haphazardly (cars used as skates…watch for it).  This was one of those movies that just need a little bit more to be great; a little better plotting, a little punchier humor, a little bit more character work.

    It’s done great business and deservedly so, but it was a little frustrating to watch because every last shortcoming was so fixable!  That being said, it’s easy to armchair quarterback a movie that one didn’t have to live with for several years in development.  

    – Jeffrey Alan Schechter


    SEVEN POUNDS

    January 6th, 2009

    Will Smith and Rosario Dawson

    Overall Impression – Bewildering!  Frustrating!  Then I gave up trying to figure out why everything was happening and actually started enjoying it.

    THE FOUR QUESTIONS

    Who’s your main character? – Ben.

    What’s he trying to accomplish? – The movie gets its drive by withholding an answer to this question. Why is Ben doing all these crazy good deeds?  WHY!?  Until all is revealed at the end, Ben alone knows the answer.  So, with the benefit of hindsight:

    Professional: improve the lives of seven strangers to atone for killing seven people in a car crash.  Personal: (I think) develop a relationship with Emily, one of said strangers.  Private: find a reason to keep on living.  Or achieve some measure of atonement before he kills himself…  this one’s up in the air.

    Who’s trying to stop him? – It might be Emily…  Ben feels he needs to give away everything, including his life, to atone for his past.  But how can he do that when he falls in love and entertains the possibility of living? Ben’s brother is a lesser obstacle, and we don’t even know he’s an obstacle until the end.

    What happens if he fails? – He kills himself, I guess.  Truth is, these stakes didn’t exist until the end of the movie, since I had NO IDEA what he was trying to do until then.  Even after that, I still wasn’t sure.  

    THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

    Orphan – Ever since Ben caused the deaths of his wife and a bunch of innocents in a car accident, he’s cut himself off from his family and friends.  Now he’s an IRS agent, universally shunned by all.

    Wanderer – When he’s alone, Ben’s chronically depressed, tormented by… something.  But in his IRS get-up, a faux-chirpy Ben seeks out complete strangers, judging whether they’re “good” people worthy of his help.  One of these good people is Emily, a heart patient who takes a liking to Ben.

    Warrior – Ben’s good deeds escalate beyond mere tax extensions to giving away his house, his kidney… and more.  As Ben and Emily’s relationship grows, she struggles to understand his motivations, and we get vague hints of the event that triggered everything off.

    Martyr – Well… Ben has been giving away everything the entire movie, but if he’s planning to kill himself, are these really sacrifices?  Another muddled martyr element is that Ben eventually wants to be with Emily (I think), but after learning that she’ll die if she doesn’t get a transplant, he has to give up his heart to save her. Only… he just happens to be the one-in-a-million donor she needs.  If Ben deepened their relationship knowing that he probably wouldn’t be around for her, isn’t that just cruel?  He could have donated his heart and not broken hers.  Or… his.  My head hurts.

    AND, IN THE END…

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some great elements in SEVEN POUNDS, but the lack of clear answers to the FOUR QUESTIONS, or more specifically, where they are answered, robs these elements of any overriding significance.  I really, really wanted to know what everything meant, but by the time I found out, I didn’t care.

    I’m so used to understanding the hero’s ultimate goal from the start of a movie (or at least, not at the end), that I was determined to guess Ben’s by observing his actions.  This was novel for a while, but his goal turned out to be so out there that I felt dumb for even trying.

    That being said, the movie asks some interesting questions about what makes a good deed “good”, and it’s fascinating to watch how completely different people react to a life-changing offer from Will Smith, no strings attached.  

    Dan Pilditch


    BEDTIME STORIES

    December 31st, 2008

    bedtime

    Overall Impression — Ah, to be young again.  Then I would have liked this movie rather than just liked that my kids liked it. 

    THE FOUR QUESTIONS

    Who’s your main character? — Skeeter.

    What’s he trying to accomplish? — Take over control of the hotel that was promised to him as a child, build a relationship with his niece and nephew, and get Jill to love him.

    Who’s trying to stop him? — Kendall.

    What happens if he fails? — He is stuck as the handyman at the hotel.

    THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

    Orphan — Skeeter has no real relationship with his sister or her kids, thanks to an incident with her ex-husband four years ago.  He’s also a bit of an uncouth loser, but only a bit.

    Wanderer — Skeeter has to watch the kids, and in doing so tells them bedtime stories which begin to come true in bits and pieces.  He tries unsuccessfully to figure out how to control the stories so that things work out for him.

    Warrior — Skeeter gets a chance to become manager of the new hotel if he comes up with a better theme than the conniving Kendall.  Around this time he realizes that he likes Jill and pursues her more actively.

    Martyr — Skeeter gives up managing the hotel in order to go back to his roots and run a small family motel.  He also risks his own life to stop the demolition of the school that Jill and his sister work at.

    AND, IN THE END…

    It was only after I left this PG movie that I realized why I didn’t care for it more…it was rated PG.  My expectation was that it was going to be a smart family film.  Instead, it was only a semi-smart kids’ movie.  As such, my kids really liked it because they don’t have the same expectations I have.  

    I don’t mean to be condescending, but one can forgive a kids movie for certain illogical contrivances.  My pet peeve (all right, one of my pet peeves…you know me so well) is lazy writing.  By that, I mean writers copping out and having things happen in their stories because THEY want them to happen, not because it makes sense.  A guinea pig appears on someone’s head without explanation of how it got there without the person knowing, bystanders being allowed to be on the sidewalk outside of a building that’s about to be dynamited, schools being open and full of students on one day and then three days later the place is deserted and ready to be destroyed and nobody knew it was going to happen until the day before?  And there’s more.  

    The movie also suffered from a very muddled Central Question.  Was Skeeter trying to figure out how to control the stories?  Sorta, but not really.  Was he  trying to win the affection of the hotel heiress?  Sorta for the first part of the movie, and then he started going after Jill.  Was he trying to get the manager position for the new hotel?  Sorta, but he kept putting off working at it.  Was he trying to forge a relationship with his niece and nephew.? Sorta, but they got won over pretty early.  All of this ends up squandering what was, at its core, a very cool idea; bedtime stories come true.  One can only hope that INKHEART figures out how to exploit that concept better.

    Like I said, it was only after I left the theater and thought about it for a while that I realized I’d be more forgiving had the film been a bit of G-rated fluff instead of trying to be the next big thing in family entertainment.  

    Ah…who am I kidding?  I’d still be pissed off. 


    Three Areas of Conflict

    November 20th, 2008

    Syd Field first described the three areas of conflict your main character is dealing with, and I’ve gone back to this concept over and over again, particularly in crafting a good CENTRAL QUESTION for my stories.  (The Central Question is the question that once it’s answered definitively “yes” or “no” the movie is over.)

    These three areas of conflict are:

    • PROFESSIONAL — That which is evident to everyone around your main character.
    • PERSONAL — That which is evident to only those closest to your main character.
    • PRIVATE — That which only your main character really knows.

    So, in STAR WARS the Central Question is “Will Luke save the Princess, destroy the Deathstar, and become a Jedi like his father.”  Destroying the Deathstar is his professional goal.  Saving the Princess is his personal goal.  Becoming a Jedi like his father is his private goal.

    A more recent example is QUANTUM OF SOLACE.  The Central Question is “Will Bond defeat the plans of the Dominic Greene (professional), keep Camille safe as she seeks revenge (personal), and avenge the death of his girlfriend Vesper Lynd (private).”

    The closer you can resolve all three of these areas of conflict to each other, the tighter and more satisfying the conclusion of your stories will be.


    ENCHANTED

    December 4th, 2007

    enchanted3.jpg

     Overall Impression — A confused movie that delivers more sizzle than steak.

     THE FOUR QUESTIONS

    Who’s the main character? — Giselle.

    What’s she trying to accomplish? —  Sort of return to Andalusia (her fairy tale realm) but she doesn’t actively try to do that much after a few first efforts.  Her main drive is to wait for her prince to save her.  This is the first problem the film encounters,  though it’s glossed over with plenty of goofy charm.  Her final drive is to find her “true love’s kiss.”

    Who’s trying to stop her? – Another problem or two; the evil queen/wicked stepmother (the prince’s not hers) wants to stop him from marrying Giselle, hence the toss down the well. After Giselle gets to New York, she falls in love with a New Yorker named Robert, which the evil queen sees through various liquids (don’t ask.) Seeing that Giselle is losing interest in her stepson, you would think that this would be enough for the queen, but NOOOOOOOO! She decides that Giselle needs to be killed as well. The bulk of the queen’s opposition to Giselle’s plan, such as it is, is to send an evil henchman after Giselle to poison her.

    What happens if she fails? – Well, the drive to either get back to Andalusia or wait for the Prince to come (or even fall in love with Robert) gets usurped by the attempts on Giselle’s life. Only, Giselle doesn’t know she’s a target. So the audience knows that she might die, however she doesn’t, so as she’s not trying to do anything active, she’s got nothing to fail at while simultaneously being in mortal peril.  

    Now, one could flip all of this around and make Robert the main character I suppose.   He’s trying to figure out what to do with Giselle, then he starts falling in love with her, and if he fails she ends up with the insufferably self-absorbed prince.  Or dead, only Robert doesn’t know that Giselle is being targeted either.    And seeing as the final battle is Giselle versus the Queen over Robert (Good Guy vs Bad Guy over Stakes) we’re back to Giselle being the main character.  

    I told you it was a confused movie.

    THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

    Orphan – Giselle is literally an orphan, who gets thrown down a well and pops out in New York where she knows nothing and no one.

    Wanderer – Giselle tries to figure out where she is and what’s happened to her. She eventually ends up being taken in by Robert and his daughter. Now he tries to figure out who she is and what’s happened to her. Eventually he believes that she’s a real fairy tale princess (I think, but maybe I imagined this moment). 

    Warrior – Next problem; Giselle doesn’t really fight to achieve a goal. There are people fighting on her behalf, but not our main character.

    Martyr – Giselle gives up her prince in favor of Robert, and then is willing to fight the evil queen (who’s come to New York to poison Giselle personally) in order to save Robert. 

     AND, IN THE END…

    This is a movie which is so innocuous that beating up on its structural indiscretions is like kicking a puppy. The fact that the story is a mess hasn’t stopped it from being #1 at the box office two weeks running as of the time of this writing. It does enough things right that one is almost able to forgive it for all the things it does wrong. Almost. But success is the best revenge, and ENCHANTED is thumbing its nose at good storytelling all the way to the bank.

    I think the high concept of the movie is the real hero here, so let this be a lesson for all of us. A good concept is worth its weight in glass slippers.