Movie Review - The Nice Guys Runs Riot on the 1970s

Detectives and Los Angeles really seem to go together. Raymond Chandler went to this well repeatedly with his Philip Marlowe novels, James Ellroy made a solid mark in the genre, and so did Ross McDonald. Let's not forget the countless film noirs that are set in the land of near-constant sunshine. Shane Black's The Nice Guys is the latest addition to this memorable storytelling line.

Only, it's different.

If these three look nice, don't be fooled.

In short, the film is a riot. Disco-era Los Angeles becomes a playground infested by clueless detectives and an overabundance of illegal activities. The opening tells you all you need to know. A boy fresh off plundering an adult magazine from his parents' room strolls down the hallway to take it in. Then, BAM! a car comes crashing through the house, startling the boy. Who was in the car? None other than the woman (Murielle Telio) featured in the magazine.

Mr. Black gives no one peace. Private eye Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and beatdown-specialist investigator Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe), the titular "nice guys," do more to aid the chaotic scenes than alleviate them. They are helped by the March's determined teenage daughter (Angourie Rice). The resultant trio is offbeat and ridiculous. A perfect breeding ground for the film's numerous gags. It doesn't hurt that all three leads could not have played their parts any better. Gosling deserves special praise for bringing life to the clueless idiot his character happens to be. His chemistry with Crowe is, to some degree, evocative of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. Rice takes on the Dorothy Lamour position in the sense that she helps bring balance between the two male leads.

These two have the makings of a solid comedy duo.

The writing and the directing are tight and lean. Everything put into the final cut belongs. There are no extraneous elements or self-gratuitous movie lengthening scenes. Stuff that seems meaningless at first sneaks back in later on and provides a solid pay-off. The lines and the gags, as I have already mentioned, are brilliant. Also, Black's directorial style fits perfectly with his stars. The understatement and irony in his shots elicits a comedic tone when you least expect it.

Mixed into the rampant chaos, of course, is a solid story. Holland March's and Jackson Healy's journey is about redemption. They both have experienced loss and both learn to move forward in their lives. For March, part of his growth is bonding with his mischievous daughter, Holly, albeit in an unconventional manner. The strong story is essential, as it provides structure and substance for the gags, which allows them to work at maximum effectiveness.

Los Angeles, the land of sun and neat detective stories.

Last but not least, the film's 1970s nostalgia comes through solidly. The music is well-chosen and the movie references are excellently timed. Also, making an adult film reel into a MacGuffin is an interesting choice.

Yes, the film is vulgar. However, if you're old enough, the humor is nothing short of hilarious. The Nice Guys may very well be the best comedy of the year.

Review: Batman v. Superman - Putting the Business in Show Business

Too often, of late, Hollywood has released films that show just how much business is involved in show business. The latest glitzy production off the well-worn comic book superhero movie assembly line – Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice – is another big budget spectacle designed for the express purpose of raking in the big bucks. It is supposed to be the spring season’s event film, or rather “film,” as that moniker only applies in a purely definitional sense. Zack Snyder, the man tasked with directing the DC Cinematic Universe, has accomplished exactly what he did on Man of Steel. That is: take a very promising premise and muddle it beneath a maze of overblown action and an excess of special effects.

A Promotional Poster

Unfortunately for Mr. Snyder, this places him in a class headlined by Michael Bay. The movie, which will certainly find an audience to grant them odd billion dollars they desire, is first and foremost longer than it needs to be. Like most movies with such an elongated running time (approx. 2 hours and 30 minutes), it becomes bogged down and sluggish instead of tight and powerful. The writing, perpetrated by David S. Goyer and the normally excellent Chris Terrio, goes against almost everything Hollywood writers are taught to do with the exception of being “high concept.” It is based on the Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman comic books, which have been widely adapted over the years. Some complain that it diverges from the source material too much, but such a complaint would be irrelevant if the movie was actually something that Warner Bros. could take pride in as a filmmaking achievement.

These are heavy-handed attacks on one of the most highly anticipated motion pictures of the year and such blows should not be thrown about loosely. The film, in spite of itself, has a few saving graces. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) is the main one, and is undoubtedly the driving force behind any worthwhile drama in “the greatest gladiator match of all-time.” Affleck is well-suited for the role of a caped-crusader who’s grown cynical throughout his long career of fighting criminals. He takes Master Bruce’s ambitions and runs with them as far as the story is willing to let them go.

At least they didn't botch Batman.

Mixed in, of course, is Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill), who faces his own share of struggles. He’s become a divisive figure in society. Some call him a savior, even a god, and the rest are afraid that his seemingly unlimited powers could eventually go awry. This conflict would likely be more compelling if Cavill exercised the full range of his acting chops, but he doesn’t. The man, who physically fits the bill of Krypton’s favorite son, turns in a performance not unlike Jamie Dornan in Fifty Shades of Grey – all looks and no game. To be fair, Cavill has a difficult task in turning perhaps the most un-complex character in storytelling history into one facing a range of complicated concerns that are only set-aside for a messianic figure.

Another flaw in the movie highlights one of its strengths – the involvement of Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). Not nearly enough time is spent on their character development (I get it, Wonder Woman will have her movie in about a year’s time). Gadot seems to be the perfect fit for the exotic Amazon and warrior who can hold her own with anyone in the Justice League, yet she gets pushed aside in favor of the two titular characters. Then there’s Eisenberg, who presents an interesting take on the notorious super villain Luthor, who oddly enough isn’t bald. Luther creates havoc, and loves doing it. Still, there could be more invested into this conniving and complicated perpetual thorn in Superman’s side.

The next aspect of this money-maker is the big battle scene. Without giving away any of the details, the film essentially joins the Godzilla franchise for a longer amount of time than it needed to. This is not overly surprising since Snyder turned Man of Steel into Dragonball Z for about 40 minutes. Doing so, killed the opportunity to truly flesh out the characters (and probably an inordinate sum of innocent bystanders).

Wait, Godzilla? How do you get into this review?

In conclusion, Batman v. Superman had solid potential – an interesting take on Batman and Lex Luthor – but the execution required to make use of such promise was lacking in many areas. The greatest crime of all is its inability to stand on its own as a movie. For all intents and purposes, it is a transitional piece that will be defined by the movies that follow it in the DC series. That is never a compliment for any cinematic production, regardless of how much it does wonders for Warner Bros.' business end.

10 Great Screenplays: #3 Citizen Kane (1941)

What is there left to be said about Citizen Kane, Orson Welle's classic masterpiece? It's impressionistic, it's filmmaking at its artistic best, and it's cinematography and directing is simply fantastic. There's a reason it belongs at the top of virtually every "best films" list. Orson Welles had control of the project from beginning to end and the result was marvelous. However, the story of an immoral newspaper magnate seemed to many an attack on one of the most powerful men in America, especially in Hollywood, at the time of the film's release, William Randolph Hearst. As a result, Welles was black-balled and never able to surpass his debut film.

Don't you love megalomania?

Now, onto the writing. After compiling a massive amount of notes on figures like William Randolph Hurst, Welles commissioned Herman Mankiewicz to write the first draft of the screenplay under the working title American. Meanwhile, Welles worked on his own version of American. Both wanted to capture the idea of a man's life being remembered by those who knew him and the image of the man changes with each telling. Welles compared his work to Mankiewicz's, merged them, and they reworked the entire thing over and over until Welles was satisfied. 

The story centers on the recently deceased Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper magnate who at one point held the power to send himself to the White House. His last word, "Rosebud," baffles everyone. A reporter, Thompson, is sent out to uncover it's meaning and perhaps find a new angle on Kane's life that the other media sources were missing. 

He first goes to meet Kane's second wife, a singer in a lowly dive, but she is unable to give the reporter anything. Then, he requests to see the memoirs of Kane's banker and long-time legal guardian, Walter Parks Thatcher. Although they are very informative on a number of things regarding Kane's childhood, Thompson can't discover anything mentioning "Rosebud." 

It's a shame the newspapermen didn't have a window into Kane's thoughts like the audience did.

After that, Thompson interviews Bernstein, a friend of Kane's who was there when he started building his journalistic empire. More interesting information is revealed, but not the information Thompson was looking for. Also, Jedediah Leland, once Kane's best friend, can't fill him in on Rosebud. No one can.

At its essence, this is the story of a futile search for a secret. The kind of secret perhaps only one person knows, the individual, the one who takes it to the grave with him. On top of that, it's a tale of perspective. The first of its kind, typical of the visionary work Orson Welles has become identified with (see his War of the Worlds radio broadcast as further proof). This part of what makes the screenplay for Citizen Kane so special. It's focus is definitely not on plot, it's focused on character and idea. Difficult to pull off, but as you can guess, the results are absolutely splendid. 

The screenplay was the only thing connected with Citizen Kane that William Randolph Hearst couldn't stop from receiving an Oscar, though I'm sure he tried. 

10 Great Screenplays: #4 Sunset Boulevard (1950)

It's difficult to pin Billy Wilder's 1950 classic, Sunset Boulevard, under just one genre. Much of the film plays out as very serious and in the mold of a film noir, as the main character manages to dig a whole that continually gets deeper until it traps him. Also, there are many lighter moments, where laughter is illicited. Last but certainly not least, there's the satirical elements that cannot be ignored. So what appears to a drama about a doomed man has multiple layers to it, thanks to the guidance of Billy Wilder's talent as a storyteller.

Wilder steps out from behind the camera for a picture.

Now, onto the writing. The screenplay was written by D.M Marshman, Jr., Charles Brackett, and Billy Wilder. Clearly they knew a thing or two about Hollywood, it's silent past and how the game worked in the studios. All of those elements figure into the story of Joe Gillis, a two-bit writer who can't sell any of his screenplays. He's a hard-luck loser, and that's obvious from page one. Why? Because he's dead.

Here is where the screenplay differs from the finished film. Yes, you know that Gillis is dead, but it doesn't open with his body floating face-down in a pool. He's in the morgue talking to other guys who have recently made the journey into the afterlife. Each of them explain how they got there and then it's Gillis's turn. Thus begins the tale of the screenwriter whose only talent appears to be attracting all sorts of bad fortune.

Who knew the wealthy district near UCLA was so menacing?

His stories don't sell, his agent cares more about golfing than actually finding a job for his struggling client, and his car is wanted by the repo men. After his failed attempt at a pitch (a nosy reader said the story was flat), he bumps into the repo men on Sunset Boulevard. They chase him and a tire pops forcing him to turn into the nearest driveway, which the repo men luckily do not see.

The place is abandoned looking, hasn't been truly cared for in years. Then Gillis sees two people, a wealthy old lady and her butler. They mistake him for an undertaker who's supposed to have a custom made coffin for the lady's recently deceased monkey. Eventually, he explains that he's a writer, not a very successful one, but a writer nonetheless.

At this point, Gillis recognizes the old lady as Norma Desmond, a silent movie star. She lives under the illusion that her fans have never forgiven her for "deserting them." This illusion also appears to be carried by Max, the mysterious butler. Gillis takes all of this in with the cheap sarcasm becoming of the hack writer he appears to be, especially the ridiculous script Desmond has apparently spent years working on. It's long, it's silent, and it's purely amateurish, but it's his escape route from the repo boys. He can lay low and at least pretend to work on the script while setting up shop in the Ms. Desmond's swanky yet slightly run-down mansion.

During a visit to town, Gillis runs into Betty Schaefer, the nosy reader who ruined his pitch earlier and her fiancee, his old friend, Artie Green. Schaefer wants to make the jump from reader to screenwriter and feels like working with Gillis is the way to go. He initially turns her down, but after a few run-ins, he decides to work with her. Unbeknownst to ol' Ms. Desmon, who's become very possessive of the writer, he sneaks out to write a few pages every night.

With all of the suspense building, it is my cue to leave the summary and talk about what makes the writing so special. For one thing, perhaps no two writers know how make a screenplay skip along with witty and natural dialogue than Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Now throw in the black comedy and the satire on Hollywood. You have the makings of something very unique. The characters are colorful, bringing life to the stark, vampiristic settings in which the story takes place.

How's that for a closing shot?

In other words, the story is simply dripping with irony, a tool that is very powerful when placed in the right hands. No wonder the screenplay for Sunset Boulevard was the easy choice for Best Original Screenplay at the 23rd Academy Awards.

10 Great Screenplays: #7 The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

In some people's books, including my own, William Wyler's post-WWII masterpiece The Best Years of Our Lives may possibly be the finest film ever made. From beginning to end, the movie is simply splendid. The acting is wonderful, the direction is borderline perfect, and the writing is strictly top of the pile stuff. I could gush and awe over all of these aspects (a very special shout-out to Harold Russell, a guy who lost his hands in the war, for a beautiful performance), but, as my focus lies in the screenplay, I will stick to the writing.

Two well deserved Oscars.

Robert Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, was called in to write the screenplay based on famed novelist MacKinlay Kantor's (author of Andersonville) massively long treatment that Kantor turned into a novel titled Glory for Me. He took the material and crafted one of the most unique screenplays ever written (I'll get to that in a bit). It centers around a very simple premise--three guys returning home from the war.

As you may surmise, the story is all about character. In fact, interestingly enough, there is no clear-cut antagonist in this film. Each of the soldiers are returning to an entirely changed America, one that will try to "rehabilitate" them at every opportunity.

The first man to return home is Homer Parrish, a Navy man. He lost his hands in the war and his family takes it very hard, especially his mother. His fiancee Wilma, however, is just glad her man is safely home. Still, Homer has difficulty adjusting to his new circumstances and how everyone looks upon him with pity (except Wilma). He is irritable, driving almost everyone away from him, and his confidence is shot.

The next guy to walk through his own front door is Army man, Al Stephenson, who appears to be returning home to the most pleasant conditions. His wife loves him, his children adore him, and he has immediately been promoted to Vice President and given a raise at the bank in which he works. Even so, he wants to make a difference in the lives of the numerous military men while they re-adjust to civilian life. His ideas are met with skepticism by the bank president and others who work with him, but Al maintains he will continue approving loans for servicemen where "sufficient collateral" isn't shown. 

Then there's Fred Derry, who spent the war as a bombardier in the Army Air Force. He's coming home to a wife he knew for only a short time before getting sent overseas and virtually no prospect of a good job. After some struggle in locating his wife, he finds that she has gotten a job as a night club dancer. They are reunited and they spend his severance pay very lavishly. His wife, Marie, is very materialistic and shows no understanding for his PTSD. 

A faithful wife?

On the other hand, Al's daughter, Peggy shows a great deal of patience and kindness towards Fred. Although reluctant to admit at first, she has fallen in love with the married pilot and can't shake herself out of those feelings. 

All of these elements bring about a wonderful amount of conflict and allows the audience to delve deeply into the emotions of the characters involved. Relationships are strained, new ones are formed, and struggles are very much prevalent. Two tent poles around which Hollywood has been pitched since Edison got kicked out of the business; relationships and conflict.

A wonderful showcase of deep focus cinematography.

Okay, here's where I get back to the uniqueness of Robert Sherwood's screenplay. For one thing, there is no physical antagonist. It's different for each character and it connects with the idea of rehabilitating oneself to a world that has changed and moved on. No great mercy is bestowed upon the men who fought to preserve the nation from the tyrannical Adolf Hitler and Hiro Hito. 

This is one of the central themes, and it plays into the meaning of the title, which is taken from one of Marie Derry's lines. The best years of these servicemen's lives were spent overseas fighting the war. They can't get them back and they have to do the best they can in the tough years ahead.

10 Great Screenplays: #9 Good Will Hunting (1997)

Good Will Hunting, a screenplay by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Wait...what? These two actors, who get more notoriety for their looks than their acting chops, actually wrote themselves one heck of a screenplay. And to think it all started as an idea Damon got in a Harvard English class, where he wrote a 40-page "treatment" (detailed summary, scenes and dialogue optional). Affleck, Damon's childhood friend, helped with the idea and even dropped out of college when a creative writing professor ridiculed the idea. Then, after getting a part in an unsuccessful movie, Damon moved in with Affleck in Los Angeles. He was only semester shy of getting his Harvard degree.

In short, Good Will Hunting was a passion project for them. They believed in it strongly enough and had a surplus of guts to see their idea through. Not many would drop out of school because a professor didn't like their story and even less would leave Harvard with only one semester to go, but they did. I'm pretty sure they don't regret doing so.

Hey professor! Look who's ridiculous now!

Anyway, onto the screenplay.

This story is all about character and it is all about the journey to self-enlightenment. Will Hunting, the titular protagonist, is an out-and-out genius. He has what appears to be a photographic memory and snaps off complicated combinatorics (complex mathematics) that a Fields Medal winner of an M.I.T Professor even stumbles on. Life's good, right? Wrong. Will has attachment issues, the byproduct of being abused by multiple foster parents, and he is afraid of caring, afraid of rejection.

Professor Lambeau brings Will to a psychologist friend of his, Sean McGuire, after other therapists refuse to work with Will. McGuire, a man grieving over the loss of his beloved wife, takes on the challenge that is Mr. Hunting. He finds himself opening up to Will and they slowly become good friends, but Will insists on holding back. 

Enter Skylar, the soon-to-be Med student who captures Will's heart. She's fun, intelligent, and can tell a mean joke. She falls for Will and wants nothing more than to give a long-term relationship a chance. He, however, still has problems with committing. The scars of his childhood persist in bothering him.

He has a few trusted friends, especially Chuckie, a blue-collar construction worker with a definitely blue-collar vocabulary. They are his comfort zone.

Can Will overcome his problems? Can Sean move on from his state of grief? Can Sean break Will's defenses? And can Skylar convince him to follow through with their budding relationship?

All of these questions result in beautifully organic situations of conflict. A battle of wills (:P) between Will and Sean, which forces the two of them to dig deep and find out who they really are and what they really want. This is what Good Will Hunting is all about--discovering what truly matters in life and having the courage to pursue it. 

Simply put, the story is character, conflict, and a little thing called heart. Well done Ben and Matt (sorry Ben and Jerry).

10 Great Screenplays: #10 On the Waterfront (1954)

The first film I will be showcasing as a part of my "10 Great Screenplays" series is 1954's On the Waterfront. It is probably more well-known for containing an outstanding performance from Mr. Godfather himself, Marlon Brando. In a famous scene with Rod Steiger, who plays his character's brother, Brando complains, saying he "coulda had class" (Schulberg--On the Waterfront). Don't fear, Marlon, you certainly had class in that performance as ex-boxer turned longshoreman, Terry Malloy.

Why don't you believe me? Ya got class, Brando. Don't make me fire this gun.

With the little tribute to great acting out of the way, let's get on to the important stuff--great writing. In writing On the Waterfront, Budd Schulberg pulled a wonderfully moving story out of his Hollywood brat hat and earned himself an Academy Award to boot. The dialogue is sharp and crisp, crackling off the page. Yes, I said page, because I'm addressing the screenplay, not the actual finished film.

Anyway, thanks to that, the characters' unique qualities stand out and there is absolutely no difficulty in differentiating their voices. Each of them has something important to say, at least in their eyes. "Johnny Friendly" thinks he has to stomp on everyone and everything in order to keep his corrupt organization under his heavy-handed control. He built it up from the ground and isn't about to let it go. Everyone who is affected by him, hates him, and he's completely okay with that as long as they listen to him.

One of his closest associates, Terry Malloy, a second cousin of Johnny's and an ex-boxer, is unwittingly made an accomplice to the murder of Joey Doyle, who was about to spill all he knew about the "Friendly" gang in court. His boxing days have made him a tad slow in the head, but he feels wronged and perhaps for the first time in his life, Terry's conscience is starting to nag him. Then, through various circumstances, he meets Joey's sister, Edie, who is back from college. He is immediately attracted to her and perhaps feels as though he can finally be "somebody" with her support.

The lovely Eva Marie Saint as Edie Doyle.

She is confused by Terry. She knows he is in with "Mr. Friendly," his older brother, Charley (a snappy dresser with an air of confidence) is Friendly's right hand man. As a result, Edie drives at him, hoping he will give any kind of information leading to the apprehension of her brother's killers. Also, she hopes it isn't him, that he has nothing to do with it. She's fallen in love with the rough longshoreman and wants to build a life with him. 

Of course, any character summary of On the Waterfront would be massively incomplete without Father Barry. He is a charismatic go-getter of an Irish Catholic priest. At first, he tries to help in the traditional means, offering his church as a safe haven to the longshoreman afflicted by the "Friendly" disease. That's when Edie lashes out at him with some harsh words and when his church is attacked by the bad guys. He sees the light. He'll do whatever it takes, even do things not normally characteristic of priests, to nail the oppressors of the waterfront. It is his heavenly duty.

All of these elements beautifully come in conflict throughout the story and make for one powerfully written film. 

Interestingly enough, Budd Schulberg based his screenplay on a series of articles written in 1949 for the New York Sun by Malcolm Johnson called Crime on the Waterfront, which won a Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting. Also, he decided to head off to the waterfront location where the events reported took place and talk to some of the people involved. Anthony DiVincenzo, who Terry Malloy is partially based on, decided to sue Columbia Pictures later on for what he felt was a worthwhile compensation. If Marlon Brando played a character resembling myself, then I'd want some money, too.

In conclusion, it's safe to say that after reading the screenplay (in this case, the only thing available was the shooting script) for On the Waterfront, I learned a few things about top-quality screenwriting. Solid, distinguishable characters are required who possess equally distinguishable dramatic needs. They want something and are willing to pursue it all the way. On top of that, change and growth are necessary components for creating a memorable protagonist; an arc. And last but not least, there must be conflict. Where there's a need, there needs to be an obstacle. It can be a character, a thing, or even an internal idea as long as it makes life tough for the characters. Most importantly, the conflict has to be real, organic. Schulberg gave the conflict in On the Waterfront meaning and power. It was not conflict for the sake of conflict.

The difficult part here, especially for myself, is to sort out these elements and make them work in my own writing. 

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the post, though it may have gotten convoluted at times. Feel free to like, share, and comment.