Hail The Conquering Hero (Sturges #5 of 5)

Genre: Satirical Comedy / Drama / Decreasingly less screwball / Patriotic

Premise: Discharged from the Marines for hayfever, Woodrow Lafayette pershing Truesmith prevents returning from his hometown because he feels himself a failure. He does, however, befriend a group of Marcines who encourage him to go back home by fabricating a story about how he was wounded in battle with honorable discharged. Woodrow is honored by a statue, songs about his heroism, and even ends up running for mayor. But when Woodrow decides to tell the truth, nobody will listen.

About: Originally called "The Little Marine". (There were actually only two drafts of the script, The Little Marine and the shooting script). The film became more dramatic as time continued.Hail the Conquering Hero had a number of working titles on its way to the screen. An early title was "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition", and "Once Upon a Hero" and "The Little Marine" were also used. It was the last picture Sturges made at Pramount. A draft was also made at the suggestion of the War Department, but the changes were very minor. The film was later referenced in Aladdin and essentially redone with Jim Carrey in The Majestic. Also, I think there's a Simpsons episode about Principal Skinner with close parallels.

Writer: Preston Sturges

Hail the Conquering Hero represents the gradual decline of Sturges's career. The script starts out very slow with Woodrow sitting at a bar listening to a weepy ballad. Soon after, one of Woodrow's friends is arranging a "homecoming" to Woodrow's "mother". (I place parantheticals around both of these words because they're part of Woodrow's scam. Also here's Sturges again, this time satirizing the accomplishments of the war hero.) After this point, the film gains pinball speed and never slows down except for random patriotic passages --- shots of a flag, or tales of fallen marainges. (And as satirical as Sturges is, it's very hard to believe these segments are meant to be taken in earnest). The film is tightly Aristotelean, by which I mean it takes place over the course of 24 hours in one location. (Applying to Aristotle's rules of dramatic structure). This makes for a supercharged tale, and helps create a claustrophic effect to intensify the inner turmoil Woodrow feels. The dialogue is as sharp and bouncy as ever.

But, there's not really the humor or the zaniness of earlier Sturges films. And because the device of someone posing as someone else has been so overused in films that came after, the film doesn't sparkle with originality or that patented Sturges zaniness. But, all these things considered, Hail The Conquering Hero uses the Sturges structure to such great effect (an opening scene in a crowded place, a plan to disguise or mask one's appearance, an increase in intensity as the character operating the plan gets further and further into their costume, eventually the caracter is too far in, the situation resolves itself through a series of good graces). Furthermore, Sturges is always satirical towards celebrated or cherished professions. Needless to say, as Sturges kept writing, he eventually exhausted this form. Fortunately, I didn't have to review any of his lesser films but perhaps at some point down the road I will chart his downward progression.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No really terrific female roles here.

Tip: The montage. I don't know if I've ever read a great script without at least one montage in it. Rather than montage is used to denote a progression of time, increase in intensity, or to give the feeling of an all immersive world, they're really great tools that don't quite have a direct parallel in any of the other narrative based mediums.

Sullivan's Travels (Sturges #4 of 5)

Genre: Screwball / Satirical Farce / Films about Filmmaking (8 1/2, Adaptation, Barton Fink)
Premise: Sullivan, a young hotshot Hollywood direct, decides to stop making screwball comedies and start doing seriouspicture pieces. Disguised as a vagrant, Sullivan heads out on the open road in search of the working man's America.Along the way, he meets the girl and ends up back in Hollywood. Deciding to share his wealth, he gives homeless menfive dollars a piece until he is knocked out by one of them and falls into a boxcar. Soon after, the vagrant is struckand killed by an oncoming train and because he has some of Sullivan's ID is believed to be Sullivan himself. Waking up in an unknown town with amnesia, Sullivan's memory is jogged back to lifeby laughter induced from a Disney cartoon. Deciding the escapism of comedy is worth more than the loftiness of drama,Sullivan needs to find a way back home. So what Sullivan does is confesses himself as his own killer, The Girl rescueshim, and she ends up with Sullivan.
About: Paramount bought the script for $6,000. Possibly insipred by the tales of John Garfield, Sturges wrote a storythat in some ways would eventually mimic his own career in Hollywood. This film has been the inspiration for many subsequentpieces of work including Simpsons episodes and Coen Brother movies.
Writer: Preston Sturges

Sullivan's Travels is the high water mark of the Sturges canon. It has got the snappiest dialogue, the most inspiredzaniness and the most biting satire. Only this time, rather than direct his lens at the coruptness of local politiciansor the foolishness of a young man's dreams, Sturges attacks the very system that nourished him. And talk about greatcharacters. Here's what I love most about Sullivan, he blurs the line between insanity and artistic brilliance. I'vealways found that a great combination for a film character mainly because it allows the writer to craft such originalgoals. But, let's be truthful, Sullivan's Travels still has its shortcomings.
There's a couple places where the film reads as unnecessarily twisting, namely the parts where Sullivan heads out onthe open road. It feels very directionless, and like alot of the things he encounters in this point of the story arevery loosely joined together. Admittedly, this haphazard structure has always been the downfall of road movies (andback in the day of the Bob Hope Road Movies, it was even worse). Also, Sturges has this weird thing of only callingthe Veronica Lake figure "The Girl" which is something he did in Christmas in July as well. (And I guess there's alogic to it, but to anybody who will argue for fully developing characters here's a counter example). Neither of thesereasons, though, is enough to understand why Sturges got lost during the last half of the 20th century, so I did somereading and happened to discover in a Ron Shelton ("Bull Durham") interview that the Sturges canon got lost due to legalrights and not based on of his artistic merits.
This film is one of the best screwball comedies ever made. And I love most of all due to its inspired zaniness, whichreally wasn't seen in a film up until this time. (Or it's mixture of Pathos and Comedy in a way I'm not sure has beendone since, the Coen Brothers are either mostly funny like Raising Arizona or most like Pathos like Barton Fink).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: It's really hard to recast Sturges films because all of his female roles were depicted so memorably by some of the finest comedic actresses of the 1940's. I'd resist placing Isla in the Veronica Lake/Kim Bassinger rolebecause Isla seems to be lacking in some of the black and white high class charm.

Tip: It's so hard to point out just one thing here. But what I'd say is a character can have as ridiculous a goal as you please,as long as there is good reason and it's a driving motivator. Sullivan's decision to dress as a vagrant is completely ridiculousbut because it fits into Sullivan's motivation, the audience is willing to accept this type of character progression.

The Lady Eve (Sturges #3 of 5)

Genre: Screwball Comedy

About: This script has the rare distinction of being the only Sturges film adapted by the work of someone else, a 19 page story by Monckton Hoffe called "Two Bad Hats". The film took a while due to arguments during development between Sturges and the head of Paramount over the creativity within the first two thirds. Sturges held strong, however, and the script was filmed much as Sturges originally wrote it.

Premise: A beautiful female con artist, along with her partner, is out to swindle the heir to an Ale fortune, who also happens to be a snake handler returning from the Amazon. She falls hard for the heir, however, but when the truth is discovered she is quickly dumped. She torments the heir, and strangely the heir's father promotes their marriage. Soon, the heir doesn't know what to make of anything, and falls in love with the female con.

Writer: Preston Sturges (his third film)

This film is classy screwball on a whole new level punctuated by Stanwyck's brilliant performance. What Sturges manages to do is inject meaning into the comedy and make it a multi-layered masterpiece. Stanwyck is both a crook and someone to be trusted. A seductress, but no pushover for romance. A gold digger, who wants nothing. And the heir is the logic, non-screwball center around which the story revolves. He is vulnerable and sincere. So in screwball fashion, boy meets girl then loses her, boy wins what he thinks is another girl who is really the first girl in disguise. And for all you physical comedy lover,s there's plenty of falling and tripping over objects.

Even nowadays, many films try replicate the "comedy with meaning" structure as seen in "The Lady Eve" and fail miserably which makes the film's success all the more meaningful because it came out in the 1940's. Even more impressive, Sturges seems to do it without appearing to exert much effort. This film is every bit as good as Some Like It Hot or even Tootsie.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: I could point to 20 lessons in this script, but I'll go with the age old adage. Screwball comedy works around who knows what. In the script it's given more weight. It actually informs entire relationships.

Isla Lead: Recasting "The Lady Eve" would be as disrespectful as recasting Gone with the Wind so I won't. But I will say that Isla has already demonstrated a strong lead for heist/screwball comedies as evidenced by The Wannabes.

Christmas in July/The New Yorkers (Sturges #2 of 5)

Genre: "Bedroom Farce" as described by Sturges / "Screwball Comedy" as described by me

Premise: A young man working at a marketing house enters a $25,000 contest to craft a slogan for a coffee company. His friends fool him into thinking he's won so the guy buys things for everyone in his neighborhood before he finds out his friends are fooling him. Also the guy finally proposes to his girl.

About: This is the second film Sturges directed. It was based on a play he wrote called "A Cup of Coffee". He'd been slated to directed it once before but the production fell apart. Thankfully due to his recently established connections at Paramount, Sturges was able to direct the picture.

Writer: Preston Sturges

Preston Sturges must have been the most cynical man who ever lived. I mean, really. And I mean it in the kindest way possible. In every film I've read of his, Sturges shows a character being duped and ultimately punished for a selfless gesture.

Unlike most people I know, the protagonist of Christmas in July spends what he thinks is $25,000 on helping people throughout his neighborhood and his sweetheart rather than just bettering things for himself or putting the money into the bank. That's the real tear jerker quality of the story. But it's a sweet tale. And it's not bad by any stretch of the word. I mean, if I was going to attack Sturges on any ground it's that the other characters besides the protagonist feel cardboardesque and seem to revolve around the pains and travails of our hero rather than existing on a path entirely their own.

In fact, this cardboard outer layer represents the entire problem of Christmas in July. One gets the impression that Sturges is still warming up as a director and there's not the inspired lunacy of his later works. Rather, Christmas in July approaches a Capra-esque quality. Definitely an enjoyable tale, but I'm not sure how memorable it as brandishing the distinctive Sturges touches.

July is still snappy though, particularly in the scenes around the marketing house. And it reintroduces the fixation Sturges had with the working man. But rather than reveal this type of man as maudlin, Sturges develops a perfectly structured script with some low dramatic points and high comedic moments. (Of course the character is saved at the end, rather than forced to languish in poverty, but we barely see it coming).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: I'd resist casting Isla in this role (as Betty, the main love interest) because it's a rather shallow and undeveloped female figure for a Sturges movie. Perhaps his weakest.

Daily Tip: Never underestimate the power of the slow reveal. This has been working in films perhaps longer than any other story gimmick I can think of. And ultimately, it's what drives Christmas in July along. (Of course Sturges manages to not overplay the drama and downfall of the contest being faked, which I feel is exactly what many less talented directors would have made).

The Great McGinty (Sturges #1 of 5)

Genre: Political Farce

About: This is the first script Sturges directed. For just ten bucks, Sturges sold the tale to Paramount on the condition he could direct.

Premise: At a banana republic, McGinty recalls his rise and fall. Beginning as a street tramp coerced into voting under a false number for two bucks, McGinty impresses a local boss and becomes an enforces. Then, McGinty makes a marriage of convenience, becomes mayor, but ultimately falls apart whenhis heart causes him to take public service seriously when he falls in love.

Writer: Preston Sturges

This project launched Sturges as a director and garnered an Academy Award so we know it has to be at least slightly good. The most striking quality of this film is it's so cynical: the moral seems to be if you're a bad guy then stay a bad guy because honesty will always get you. That, and how the film is still oddly relevant in modern society (I guess because it focused on how evil corrupts, which goes as far back as Shakespeare's stuff).

My two favorite elments of the whole script are the trademark Sturges dialogue and the quick pace of the story (which utilizes a very tightly packed flashback structure). My least favorite element is that the story seems so one track besides focusing on McGinty there really isn't much else to do. I'm sure in the 1940's this wasn't nearly as large problem, but modern cinema has ditctated that multiple storylines need to occur throughout the film. But that's okay, the cynicism of this film is hilarious. Just to give a sample:

A Politician: If it wasn't for graft, you'd get a very low type of people in politics, men without ambition, jellyfish!

Cynical much? It's so funny in its biting tone I wish somebody was making films as directly cynical as Sturges still. But alas, we'll have to settle for skits and thinly veiled one line jokes in indie flicks.

Bottom line? Sturges would get more sophisticated, but McGinty as we'll see was the start of a brilliant comedic career.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: If they ever bring back Screwball 1940's films and decide to do a McGinty remake, Isla would be perfect for McGinty's loveable heroine Katherine. She's sweet and loveable, but more importantly has that terrific banter Isla has honed so sharply in her series of romantic comedies (Wedding Daze, Wedding Crashers and Confessions of a Shopaholic).

Daily Tip: Stay true to your character's emotional arch. Please. McGinty's whole structure is based around a grifter who has a change of heart and his kingdom falls apart. Simple as that. Sure the film seems one line nowadays, but this is a very solid arch to hang a story around.

Preston Sturges Week

I saw my first Preston Sturges film when I was a freshman at NYU. My teacher played Sullivan's Travels and explained it as a precursor to all CoenBrother movies. While this is true, I don't think I realized how much I loved this movie until I wrote a very thinly veiled homage about a horror novelist during my senior year. Then, my interest in Sturges was even more firmly solidified during a week sojourn in Orlando upon graduation when I revisitedthe box set each night and was transported by the little, dilapidated Magnavox into a black and white world where everybody talked in a funny, bouncy dialogue while they lived lives of pure inspired zaniness, and aspired to lofty, foolish dreams. I love Preston Sturges, and while this week we won'tbe reviewing anything that's far off the beaten track, it's more of a chance to do something I often skip on Hunting for Isla, the chance to review the classics of screenwriting.

Boondock Saints 2 (Sequel #5 of 5)

Genre: Action / Drama
Premise: Living a quiet life in Ireland with their father, the MacManus Brothers find out their favorite priest has been killed. The duo goes back to Boston to seek justice.
Writer: Troy Duffy (Boondock Saints)
About: After some slight hastle, the first film had a big enough cult following that a budget was found for the sequel. This was a very easy film birth.

I would run into this film every now and then in college. I never understood why it had such a cult following. It's very Irish. It's very violent. And it's very action flick oriented. Also there's alot of Irish music. But that's really about it. There's not too much memorable in terms of character or storyline. This script reads like the bad, fan fiction version of Reservoir Dogs.

The script opens with the MacManus brothers protecting a herd of sheep while the priest is killed by a local mob. And once this sort of nice thematic note is established, the script becomes progressively worse and worse. By the twenty page mark, my interest was completely lost. Know why? Boondock Saints 2 has one note is repeats over and over. This note is borrowed from the first film. And it's not even a very impressive note. A crime scene is discovered. The good guys visualize the scene over and over again to find out what happened. And the third act while trying to put some cap on this structure comes out of nowhere. We're supposed to commit to the murder of a priest we've barely seen. And that's just uninteresting. Resultantlly, the pay off is weak, the characters are undeveloped and while the script is rich in iconography that's not enough to save the story.

[X] Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: Isla's The Lookout is much much better than this film and in the same genre.
Tip: Nothing. Nothing at all. This is a piece of crap. Here are two don'ts: don't overuse exclamation points in scene description and keep music cues moderate at the very most.

Animal House 2 (Sequels #4 of 5)

Genre: Raunchy Comedy

Premise: In 1967, five years after the events of the original film, it's alumni weekend and Niedermeyer returning from Vietnam visits the Omega house. Dean Wormer arrives to meet the wealthy alumnus, Milton vanderslaag. We find out Delta Tau Chi has been reinstated with the weakest bunch of men possible except for a large football player named Buba. Arriving on scene to wip these weaklings into real men are Boon (recently separated from his wife Katie) and Otter. Soon after, Flounder (now a self-help instructor), Hoover (a lawyer), D-Day (a drug dealer) and Pinto (a political activist) emerge.

Writer: Matty Simmons (National Lampoon's Pucked), Michael Simmons (no known credits), and Andrew Simmons (no known credits)

About: This was delayed after the sequel to American Graffiti tanked, and then was delayed for an indefinite amount of time after the death of Belushi.

I said once that The Lost Weekend was the grand daddy of Social Statement films, well if that's the case then Animal House is the grand daddy of Raunchy Comedies. So is this film as good as the original? The answer is... it tries, but ultimately just feels like a diluted version of the orginal film's greatness. Following the spirit of an alumni weekend, this script can't go home again. It's just a tired retread of the original material. There are rip off's aplenty of the guitar ("I gave my love a cherry") scene, and the horse heart attack scene. There's even a seedy bar scene.

Thank your lucky stars this script never saw the light of day. It cheapens the success of the original film by replaying the same scenarios as before. Second, without Belushi, Animal House is missing most of what made the film hilarious in the first place. There's not even any mention of Bluto's death. (And if John had lived, I'm almost certain he would not have wanted to recapture his role because he had already provided an almost perfect performance). This film fulfilled my wonderings of what a sequel might of been. But, we'll never know. And that's probably not a bad thing. Just rewatch the original and enjoy. Let this script gather dust in one of those underground archives somewhere in Montana.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: I'd like to believe Isla is still a bit too young to be playing somebody a decade after college graduation.

Tip: This is totally an 80's staple, but still whenever I see it done well I love it, a big competition in the late second/early third act that decides who will be the victor.

Elephant Man 2 (Sequels #3 of 5)

Genre: Drama/Feliniesque almost because of its use of the elephant

Premise: A slow, sweet piece about an unlikely man who acquires a pet elephant when his father dies and takes the elephant on a journey to find a home.

Writer: Roy Blount (Larger Than Life and The Pie Song in Michael)

About: No clue about this one. But I'd imagine if David Lynch was involved at all, it'd be pretty hard to coerce him into a sequel. I mean this is the man who turned down Return of the Jedi based on the simple merits that the film was goofy.

Wow. Just wow. This is one of the best scripts I've ever read. After completing it, I felt very compelled to hunt down every Roy Blount novel and read it. A lot like Paul Simon's "Crazy Love 2", this script doesn't appear to be a sequel in so much as a script with the same name that has a two added onto it. (I read once Simon called his song Crazy Love 2 in acknowledgement of Van Morrison's original Crazy Love). The film isn't even about any carnival oddities like the original David Lynch. rather, the script feels like a much more innocent take on friendship and bonding. It's about a big, dumb elephant and its caretakers. And about the woman who loves the man who owns the elephant. Of course, the elephant is a very loveable beast rather than a fearsome creature capable of going on rampages. I have no idea how this type of a story could be executed in real life.

The best part is the film's civility. It isn't meek and harmless. It isn't an action film. It has warmth, and ultimately by making the journey one that comes across with mixed results the script feels as if the ending was well won. The film could have chosen to further develop the romantic element between the protagonist and his love interest. It could have dealt with the protagonist's inability to deal with the real world. Rather, the script just makes bonding with an elephant appear elegant and powerful. I'm not sure what this says about the human condition besides man can bond with animals and it's sad the elephant dies in the end. So ultimately, if this film is to be attacked on anything it's that the piece seems to be missing a central core. But, I found the tone and pace so delightful I was definitely willing to overlook this. A sequel, or just a cleverly disguised script with a similar title, Elephant Man 2 is definitely an example of some masterful screenwriting.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: There aren't any big female roles here.

Tip: This film does that old switch around where the character technically doesn't get what they most want but grows as a person. That's always a good turn for a drama.

Big Trouble in Little China 2 (Sequels #2 of 5)

Genre: Action with Fantasy Elements

Premise: A young unlikely hero has to rescue a rare artifact and has a love interest in the cute, pretty girl he sometimes runs into at work.

Writer: W.D. Richter (original Big Trouble in Little China, but also Needful Things-1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the abysmal Home for the Holidays)

About: This has been in development for a very long time and considering it was written by the original screenwriter, I'd think it was just an attempt to capitalize upon the original film's success.

If you've ever see a John Carpenter interview, the odds are very probable he's made a reference to possibly doing a Big Trouble sequel. If he's been planning to shoot off a script like this one, it's a good thing he hasn't. In fact, the more I think about this script, the more I realize the writers just pumped out a sequel quickly in an attempt to live up to the original film's hype. This was a very miscalculated venture, though. There's this idea reiteratted through the scri'ts dialogue that the visible part of Chinatown is just the tip of the iceberg that once you penetrate the facade of store front windows and discount laundries, there's a dangerous underground network. Only this time the ride is a little less enchanting, magical, and unusual. Ultimately, Big Trouble 2 becomes a pretty straight send up of an action film. By the end of the film, I forgot I was watching a series at all or anything distinguished by loveable traits. I thought I was just watching a straight up action film. Also, it seems to have taken the Kurt Douglas storyline and just replaced it with a teenage audience, which if you can't tell is a very cheap gimmick.

Furthermore, there's another much more dangerous element to the film: its inaccurate depictions of Asians which barely slid by in the 1980's and would meet an ultimate certain death if ever done again. This film doesn't even attempt to make a sense, depth or logic to its cast of Asian warlocks and kung fu masters. And while this karate style film was once a genre, it's a genre that died because it's a highly offensive one to certain groups.

So, I'm not sure how it'd be done, but if John Carptenter ever decided to shoot a Big Trouble sequel, it'd have to be very far removed from this type of storyline, find a way to keep the Chinatown element and not be racially offensive, and still be as wonderous and magical as the original film (which itself seemed to run out of steam about three quarters of the way through). As such, it's no wonder this script has indefinitely hit the Hollywood backburner.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No Isla certified roles here!

Tip: This thing is written in 5 Acts. Don't sweat, it's still around a 100 pages. I've never seen this done before in a screenplay, and while it's against formality, I pretty much enjoyed it. By breaking the film into segments it was easier to savor what was happening.

Commando II (Sequels #1 of 5)

Genre: Action

Premise: A little bit older, Commando now has a sassy teenage daughter who is interested in boys and has to rescue her when she is kidnapped from some oil moguls. Really? Yes, really.

Writer: Stephen De Souza (Die Hard, Tomb Raider, 48 Hrs) and Frank Darabont (Sawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Indy and the Crystal Skull) based on a book by Roderick Thorp (who also wrote the novel Die Hard was based on)

About: The sequel was written soon after the success of the original film by the same writers, but Arnold put the squash on the development of a sequel because Connan the Barbarian II had recently bombed at the box office. The script was reworked into Die Hard. Isn't that weird? Two of the biggest 80's action films stem from the same source material!

I actually haven't seen Commando. All the way. Although I've seen 75 percent of the film in fragmented form. And let me tell you, while teenage slasher flicks and glossed up musicals may have not been excellent during the 80's, the real clunker are ramboids. After the release of Rambo, many actions movies tried to recapture the one man against a system theme. And the original (and subsequent Commandos) aren't far off the track. Now the film isn't awful, and it's definitely a star vehicle for Arnold (albeit a star vehicle he chose not to engage in), but Commando II is little more than an attempt to recapture the earlier glory of Rambo.

Only this time around John Matrix/Arnold/Commando's daughter is revealed as a little bit older and having crushes on teenage boys. (Did we really need this? I mean, I know there was a general action/comedy movement in the early 1990's but this film seems to kill that idea.) And that's generally how I felt about this entire Commando 2 script. Somewhere between actual meaning and 80's action films with cheesy one liners fall flicks who try to make jokes but ultimately just fall flat and Commando is a perfect example.

A type of logic is tried to made to a series that is deliberately over the top. Matrix doesn't need a good reason to fight, his family doesn't need to be that memorable, and certainly his agenda does not need multiple shades. As such, this film becomes increasingly less and less entertaining. (And, for the record there's nothing wrong with the source material, Commando 2 became Die Hard and worked with fairly good results.).

So the script wasn't that entertaining, the jokes weren't that original, an underlining story structure worked (kidnapped person in skyscraper) more successfully elsewhere. Altogether, it's understandable why Arnold didn't jump on the bandwagon and reboot the series. Particularly after a couple of disastrous sequels (Conan anybody?).

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: There aren't any females in this thing that fit Isla's age group.

Tip: This film isn't afraid to break into comedy. But, by doing it in small doses and doing it at the right time, Commando 2 doesn't slide off into a comedy script. There's even a scene with the Arnold character disguised in a wedding gown. Why does it work? Cause it doesn't interrupt the thrust of the film.

Super Second Helpings in Sequel Week

One of my big dreams as kid was being able to relive motion picture magic with my all time favorite movies: Roger Rabbit 2, Beetlejuice 2, Three Men and aLittle Lady 3, etc. Well, it turns out that alot of the great films I saw as a kid were actually written but just never saw the light of production. Sothis week I'm going to stroll down sequel lane exploring some of the biggest and oddest sequels I could lay my hands on. And as we'll discover depsite thequality in some of these scripts, it was just too daunting to relaunch the series due to committment from talent who made the first films so wonderful. Sosit back and enjoy, this week on Isla I'm serving up second helping in sequel week.

Leaving Las Vegas (Lost #5 of 5)

Genre: Love Story

Premise: Ben (a Hollywood type, his exact capacity however is unknown) goes to Las Vegas with the plans of drinking himself to death and befriends the prostitute, Sera. The two fall in love but the whole affair is ultimately doomed by Ben's drinking problem.

Writer: Novel by John O'Brien (very autobiographical, also wrote The Assault on Tony's) and Mike Figgis (Internal Affairs, Timecode)

About: Figgis loved the book and wrote the script. O'Brien died shortly before and cast a good tone for the film's theme.

When I was a teenager, I'd watch films I knew had alot of merits but often times missed the true value of due to my young age. Leaving Las Vega is a crowning example. I'm not even sure that I understand all the film's shades even now. Despite it's revelance to acoholism and suicidal impulses, this is not an uhappy film. Ultimately, what Leaving Las Vegas tells us is that love offers some solace in fighting the burdens of the world.

Like The Lost Weekend, the story revolves around Ben and his condityion. Furthermore, the loveable Sera is always trying to save him. The characters are so committed to their path of actions: Ben uncoils as the pages progress until he is pouring booze down his throat like an antidote to death. But the image of love offered up is neither a formulaic nor a predictable one. The love between Ben and Sera has no need, no expectations, but merely a bonding between two broken people. And, more importantly, there's an admiration for the purity of one another's gestures. Smartly, Ben's incentive to drink himself to death is never explained. It exists in the shadows. And that makes us committ to him as a character. And much like The Lost Weekend, it's not Ben but Sera or the love interest who shows the real depth. Ben is already firmly set on his trajectory to self destruction. This all makes sense seeing as the novel, Leaving Las Vegas, was later described as O'Brien's "Suicide Note".

Isla Roles: Isla would rock the Elizabeth Shue role, but it's so risque and deadpan I don't think she'd ever play this in a remake.

Tip: The saddest part about this whole damn script is its complexities. I had to watch this film several times before I got it all. But it's general structure is very heavily borrowed from The Long Weeekend: a boozer and the girl who loves him with a dark, messed up twist.

The Beaver (Lost #4 of 5)

Genre: Absurdity with a Kauffmanesque structure

Premise: A depressed man picks up a Beaver puppet. The puppet starts talking to the man in a British accent and completely changes the man's life in a positive way.

Writer: Kyle Killern (only known script)

About: This made the blacklist and since then has had both Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey attached to star as Walter.

Like most magic potion/genie stories, this isn't a comedy. Okay, maybe it is. But it's not completely ridiculous like Kazam!, rather it's a black comedy that takes an honest approach at how depression messes up families and how sooner or later in order to repair one's life, they'll have to approach the real issues. The Beaver puppet helps depressed Walter take charge at work (a toy company) in restructuring the main toy line and even repairs Walter's relationship with his family. Nobody bothers to buck Walter or all him crazy for answering to the beaver, because for one in Walter's life he's actually happy and starting to fix things. And that's why this story works, it makes us buy into the crazy logic. I mean of course there's the question of how much Walter is actually controlling the puppet, or whether it's a force with a mind of its own. But, perhaps this is purposefully an unanswered question.

This isn't an amazing script, but it's gotten a ton of visibility and it's a very strong effort from last year's Black List. And in terms of genre, congratulations to Killern. Rather than treat the material as a ridiculously broad Jim Carrey comedy, the story becomes a much darker piece about a man and his talking British beaver puppet. You could completely hate this thing, but it's been remembered because it's such a strong and original take on the material.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: The only main female character in this thing is the wife and she is much older than Isla.

Tip: This script has gone very far for one reason: it's so weird. And that alone is it's selling point, Everything else about the story is mediocre, but because we've never seen a story about a guy with a talking beaver puppet The Beaver becomes a compelling read.

Strange Brew (Lost #5 of 5)

Genre: Sketch Comedy

Premise: This is Hamlet as comedy. Doug and Bob McKenzie transfer their television show to the big screen as a science fiction epic, but it doesn't go down well with the audience and they are forced to hand over their beer money as a refund. To get more beer without paying for it, they pretend to have found a mouse in a bottle and head off to the brewery, only to find themselves embroiled with a sinister plot to take over the world.

Writer: Rick Moranis (who'd previously just written Second City material), Dave Thomas (who'd also just written for Second City) and Steve De Jarnatt (first script, did Miracle Mile soon after, which if I can find a script of I'll review here)

About: In 1981, a Bob and Doug McKenzie album sold a million copies which led to feature film interest. Jarnatt was hired to write a first draft. Thomas rewrote because Jarnatt had done too literal an adaptation of Hamlet. Moranis came on after Thomas was finished and helped polish this draft into the production script.

I love Rick Moranis. He is a great character actor, and I find him one of the highlights of the Ghosbusters film. So, needless to say, I expected to love Strange Brew. It wasn't awful, but it definitely wasn't the misplaced masterpiece I had expected. And it's interesting to just study the script because this piece was written for particularly these actors under these particular circumstances. In a way this film feels like very low brow Canadian comedy because it engages in all the Canadian cliches: beer, ice hokey, that particular dialogue, and the blinding snow.

It's funny Jarnatt wrote the majority of the script because I'd make the same accusation here that I would about Miracle Mile: the plot isn't entirely coherent. There are laughs and enjoyable elements certainly, but you get the impression that the characters were a tad too underdeveloped to carry off a whole movie. But that being said, I'd rather read this script than that of Saturday Night Live during the dark era of the late 80's. This film is no forgotten gem, just a misplaced B quality film from the early 80's.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: No main female roles here.

Tip: This film transcends being a small budget 1980's film because it looms off into the absurd in places. Remember how I once gave a tip about keep things interesting, Strange Brew uses the technique that whenever stuff starts to get a little slow it does something weird or absurd to make the viewer scratch their head.

The Simpsons Movie (Lost #2 of 5)

Genre: Summer Blockbuster Cartoon

Premise: There is a plot, kind of, about Homer's pollution of a lake in Springfield, which brings down the federal government's wrath and leads to the Springfield being trapped under a large plastic dome. There's a subplot about a love interest for Lisa, Marge and Homer's marriage, and Bart's relationship with Homer. And then there's Spider Pig, but I'll trust you've seen the Burger King ads and leave it at that.

Writer: The Simpsons Staff (James L. Brooks, Matt Groening, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, George Meyer, David Mirkin, Mike Reiss, Mike Scully, Matt Selman, John Swartzwelder, Jon Vitti)

About: The script was very slow in development. Originally, the film was to be based around the Camp Krusty story (there's a third season, I think? episode with the same plot), but as time went on and the staff faced being undermanned to handle both a movie and a tv show, production crept along until the film's eventual release in 2006. Also of course because it's an animated film production was expanded, which means it was in development several years before that. The actually story about pollution came from a newspaper clipping Matt Groening happened to stumble upon.

I saw this film in a dive theater in New Castle, Pennsylvania shortly before making the cross coutnry drive to New Castle, Pennsylvania. It's a very deceptive film. At first, I was just bowled over by the visuals. But upon a second and third glance, I started actually breaking down the story. And, in what must be some kind of record, there are something like 11 credited writers on the script. There's an old Hollywood adage that as the number of writers increases the quality of the film decreases proportionately. This isn't true with the Simpsons film, though. And on top of that, we're working with a spinoff of an animated film. (Hard pressed, all I can think of are TMNT, The Flintstones and The Jetsons films, none of which I can say affected much of an emotional response.) And surprisingly, the film isn't that structured at all, which is surprising because I'm sure we all know how tightly paked the TV shows are (odd inciting incident, trouble begins, the funny seque, and then the unconventional conclusion). But despite, all this, the film is good. Not great, but good. And enjoyable.

It's very quite hard to detach any reviews from the television series, but that being said the story line is very simple and begs the question did we really wait all this time to see a Simpson's film with these events? Well yes, yes we did. And despite some truly awe inspiring cinematic moments, the film doesn't have much of a thrust to prevent it from being nothing more than an extended episode.

Nothing more that is, except for Homer's journey. And this is truly a lost weekend from Homer due to the dreamlike, Eskimo drug sequence one finds halfway through the second act. (Furthermore, Homer's venture into Alaska is little more than a surreal trip into lost time). Although Marge has threatened to leave him plenty of times, this is the first case where she actually does. And while Homer has certainly angered plenty of people before, never has the whole town been out to get him. It's dramatic on a whole other plane than the TV series. But, itis as funny? No. And Yes. Not nearly as funny as the Simpsons' golden era, but there's humor in this film that definitely rivals the comedy found in the later seasons which will not laugh out loud hysterial will certainly make you grin.

So was it any good? That's a hard question. Yes, it was. But like many of The Simpsons episodes, this film is destined to fall into the good but not exceptionally memorable category whih sadly includes so many of the later era Simpsons shows.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: Isla had a bit part here, but ultimately got caught during editing. Why was this footage never released? I missed out on the combination of two of my favorite things, The Simpsons and Isla Fisher.

Tip: Homer has the best obstacles in this whole thing, and it definitely draws interest into the film. Not only does the town hate him so does his family by the midpoint. I know we've all heard this thousands of times before, but really, you need to create enormous obstacles for your hero or the reader is going to check out. This film survives by the mere fact that Homer has almost insurmountable odds. (Also, it's a Simpson's film and there are great visual gags, but still).

The Lost Weekend (Lost #1 of 5)

Genre: Social Statement

Premise: The tale is a dark, painful glimpse into the five days of the life of Don, an alcoholic and failed writer. After having been kept sober for 10 days, Don manages to evade them and embark on the hunt for something to drink.

Writer: Novel by Charles Jackson (a binge drinker with no other big works), Script by Billy Wilder (The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Double Indemnity) and Charles Brackett (Niagra, Sunset Boulevard, The Bishop's Wife)

About: One of four novels Wilder took with him on a cross country train ride, he stayed up all night reading the book and taking notes. Upon arrival, Wilder called Paramount's studio head and asked him to buy the rights. The book was acquired for $50,000.

Essentially, this film is the grand daddy of social statement films. At the time, with the exception of pieces like Griffith's Intolerane, alcohol hadn't been discussed much. Obviously Blake Edward's Days of Wine and Roses would follow soon after, followed of course by pieces much later like Leaving Las Vegas. I had a response to this script quite simlar to how I feel about Wilder's Some Like It Hot or Double Indemnity. While it's almost indisputable that Wilder has hung up his story on a beautifully constructed framework, the script lacks fluidity and the slowly paced scenes seem overcalculated, with each colorful charater and tense vignette standing out too sharply, everything is nailed down to a meaning for us. Ultimately the whole thing is short on imaginative resonance. But understandably, in basically inventing this type of social statement film, it'd only follow through that Wilder becomes a bit too formulaic.

The funny thing is the film's predictability only becomes noticeable because the work slides off at times into a world of improvised bliss. I really can't recall seeing a 1940's film with such creative spark as the monologue moments Don has at the bar. Now of course, there's The Best Years of Our Lives but what that film does structurally (an Altman precursor if there ever was one), The Lost Weekend does with dialogue. So when the film reverts back to attempting an overall statement there are times when it slips and the dialogue isn't as deliciously worded.

There's also some problems with Don's decision to quit drinking. I'm not certain this Lost Weekend of his is so much worse than of the others (I know he wakes up in a hospital after his binge, but still). In a way, I fear the writers were trying to apply a slightly undeveloped approach to Don's deision to give up the bottle and resultantly the effort comes off as maudlin and overly sentimental. (O'Brien's Leaving Las Vegas takes a much more honest approach to the same source material, but as we'll see, that films veers at time into failing as too honest a depition of what the life of an alcoholic is like).

Look. Let's call a spade a spade. While outdated, The Lost Weekend is monumental. The film received many Academy Awards, but much more importantly without this script by Brackett and Wilder there'd be no A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Days of Wine and Roses, Barfly, Clean and Sober, When A Man Loves A Woman, or Leaving Las Vegas.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Roles: If they ever do a remake, Isla could play the main love interest very well. She's funny, sarcastic, but generally just a sweet girl. (There's also a direct relationship between the love interest in Lost Weekend and Sera in Leaving Las Vegas, which makes one wonder just how much John O'Brien was inspired ultimately by this film).

Tip: Monologues can be used to great effect if they have a reason and a point. This film gives its protagonist some of the best film monologues I ever read about the perils of drinking, and they work because he's a meandering drunk who is whining on his bar stool and that's exactly what barstool drunks do.

Let's Get Lost

So, it's time to face the facts. I finally slipped off the tracks and failed to post to the site for a week or two. So in honor of my failure, I'm going to highlight "The Lost Weekend" theme. In actuality, I wasn't really that lost at all. But rather, busy working on severak other projects and slipped behind the side temporarily. So this week, I bring you tales of the strange, of people who slid out into that lost weekend only to emerge on the other side. Some of these are my favorite films, and many of them are tales you probably have encountered in form or another. So to switch things up, I'm going to tackle them in some pretty unconventional angles: relating the novels to the books, discussing the effectiveness of the genres, and in many places highlighting whatI feel to be the strangeness of these tales. So let's get lost for a whole week of Isla...

Superman Lives - Kevin Smith (S-Man #5 of 5)

Genre: Action-Comic Book Adaptation-Blockbuster

Premise: Doomsday kills Superman, after Brainiac blocks out the sun to make Superman powerless. Brainiac pairs up with Lex Luthor while elsewhere Superman is brought to life by The Eradicator, a Kryptonian Robot. Brainiac wants to destroy both The Eradicator and Superman. Stripped of his powers, Superman is placed in armor built b y the Eradicator and defeats Braniac.

About: Smith was hired on, from his guess due to his myriad comic book references in his films. He clashed frequently with Producer Jon Peters (Superman was Peters’ pet project) as Peters requested Smith to include fights with giant spiders and polar bears. Soon after Smith completed the script, Tim Burton was hired onto the project. Burton’s first act was to trash Smith’s script and hire on an entirely new team of writers. To this day, Kevin Smith signs copies of this script “F$#@ Tim Burton”. (On a side note, Smith’s casting choices would have been Ben Affleck as Sup, Linda Fiorentino as Lois, Jack Nicholson as Lex, David Hyde Pierce as The Eradicator, Jason Lee as Brainiac)

Writer: Kevin Smith (after Clerks and Mall Rats, Circa chasing Amy’s release)

I’ve been reviewing my favorite scripts of the week on Friday lately. From what I can tell, Smith’s Superman script is what jump started attempts to make the film and ultimately what brought Burton onto the project. And, compared to the drivel I remember seeing in 2006 (which followed Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey so methodically, it was like watching a drunk man crawl along his kitchen floor) it’s a shame that this film didn’t end up being made. Now of course it’s high budget. Very high. And it would’ve needed a lot of money to be done successfully. And, I know there are complaints among the fan boys of cheesiness (and it is true Smith has Superman say “Up, up and away” at one point). But this is to be funny. There’s one brilliant element to this script that none of the others I’ve reviewed capture: Smith’s Superman Lives has depth and interesting characters (which Alex Ford’s laced) and it is still fun and good hearted like a Superman movie (which the script I reviewed yesterday missed).

Superman is stripped of his powers in this script. And unlike when this happens in other films, it doesn’t feel unoriginal or like I’m not watching a Superman film anymore. And the mere trick to that is that Superman remains committed to his goal of defeating Brainiac, and being committed to his goal. Smith also nails Superman’s trial in this correct: it’s not over dual identities, but that rather Superman is almost addicted to altruistic duties and protecting the citizens of Earth. For good or for bad. (Which leads to a cheesy line where Superman points to his head “Not here”, then to his heart “It’s here…one hopes this would have been cut out in a rewrite).

The only flaw that Smith makes is perhaps jumping a little too quickly into the world of Superman. There’s not enough origin related info. And as someone who is coming to the film cold, that’d be immensely appreciate. Why not a short bit on how Brainiac came to be? That’d prevent this script from feeling like we’ve been quickly thrown into Superman’s world. But, Lex Luthor is depicted very well in this. I still don’t like him. But Lex is depicted as the power hungry monger he is, and his fights with Brainiac are great because Lex is revealed as advanced as he possibly could be on Earth but drastically behind the progress of Brainiac. And, the other thing is that Batman also has a cameo in this. But I wasn’t a huge fan of Batman’s speech, and while the mood and atmosphere while filmed could have emphasized the Bat’s tone, I like to think that there would have been better ways to reveal Batman. Also, for what it’s worth I’d like to think it would be possible to have more Justice League cameos in this film even if they were just brief glimpses at the characters. So besides being too fan boy, I have no idea what Burton would have seen in this script to hate it and need it rewritten so severely, unless Burton was keen on making the project entirely his own.

It’s sad that Superman wasn’t filmed. But, it’s exciting that Smith has written a script for Green Hornet which from my understanding is about to be released as a Comic. I’m going to pick that up, and hopefully dive far into the reaches of the DC Universe.


Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Characters can best be developed in relationship to one another. Superman is perfect until we start to consider his relationship with Lois Lane and all the shortcomings he regards to the rest of Earth’s inhabitants. Luthor is immensely developed until he looks far behind in relationship to Brainiac. The Eradicator is just a robot until he sacrifices himself for Superman. Character is defined by action, and by revealing the way others respond to action, you can craft some great characters.

Isla Prospect: This is the best Lois role yet, and if I was to cast Isla in any Lois role this’d be it. She’s sarcastic, emotionally conflicted, and has a not subservient to Superman role.

Script Link: All over the net. Just Google.

Superman Reborn - Unknown Date (S-Man #4 of 5)

Genre: Action-Comic-Blockbuster

Premise: Superman’s Death is still the focal point. Brainiac is the new villain and destroyer of Krypton. Unable to cope with dual identities, Clark Kent almost has a breakdown. Brainiac unleashes Doomsday, who bleeds Krypton and fights Superman to the death. Superman journeys through the afterlife, and deciding his work on Earth isn’t quite over returns to his body. A now powerless Superman fights Braniac.

About: Gregory Poirier had previously worked with producer, Jon Peters, on Rosewood. It used a previous draft written by John Lemkin (21 Jump Street) and sequentially came right before Kevin Smith's draft. Allegedly, this script reached deadlock because Warners brass had creative differences. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that possibly the reason Poirier was dumped for Kevin Smith has to due with the script’s tone, which feels almost completely detached from the Superman atmosphere.

Writer: Gregory Poirier (at this point had written Death Riders, The Stranger, and Rosewood with Jon Voight, also Poirier had written a lot of films for the Adult Industry which included over 40 films for John T. Bone)

Imagine if The Dark Knight didn’t have any action scenes and the Joker wasn’t necessarily all that evil or involved in the plot. You end up with an Existential reflection on what it means to be a Superhero, and the perceived dangers of the occupation. You also end up with a protagonist who for all purposes is unhinged. And, also as one would expect you end up with a film that’s pretty removed from the Batman comics. This is the dilemma of Superman V: Reborn. It’s not really a Superman film. It’s far too heavy and angsty. Now don’t get me wrong, that’s not entirely a bad thing and it’s always a noble attempt to make a popcorn flick meaningful. But, this thing misses the entire point of Superman. He’s a guy who flies and blows stuff up. And that’s about it. And, if you’re going to capture the feel of the comic, making something entirely thematic and character driven may not be the best way to go.

Also, a sigh of relief because Braniac and Doomsday are better than Lex Luthor any day of the week. Of course, they’re not Magneto or The Joker. But they’re weird villains with demented purposes and they’re pretty damn evil. Oh, and they don’t occupy their time on the page like intelligent pricks who are always muttering about how intelligent they are. And while we’re on the subject, there’s a really strong theme here that I don’t think was done enough justice. In the style of Old Testament prophets driven from their homes, Superman comes a place to which he can no longer return and is offered the chance to confront the monster who destroyed his home. This idea alone could fuel a script, but Clark Kent wrestling with dual identities? That’s much less fascinating.

Or, we could look at Kevin Smith, whose quote I just discovered and which pretty much nails down exactly what I’ve been trying to say. “Superman’s angst is not that he doesn’t want to be Superman. If he has any (angst), it’s that he can’t do it all; he can’t do enough and save everyone... Batman is about angst; Superman is about hope.” Needless to say, when Smith was hired onto the project, he completely rewrote the script.

The other thing is, the script reads like a homage to every popular film of the last decade. Superman comes back from the afterlife a karate expert ala The Karate Kid, the aliens take over ala Independence Day, and there’s also a good deal of Batman references. I think ultimately what had happened is that Poirier had written a script without considering what the comic meant or what he was trying to capture. For the Warner Brother executives, this resulted in a script that didn’t have much of an action slant and was also a poor, overly sentimental portrayal of Superman.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Sometimes stories don’t have to be deep. Or, better said, sometimes in revealing a deeper level of emotion to a story what a writer really does is move the piece away from the perceived tone. For example, if you’re writing a Superman script which is about hope and the American Dream, it’s missing up the whole story by revealing a level of emotion about how Clark feels about his dual identities. Or, perhaps, this ties into the lesson that you shouldn’t try to fix something if it isn’t broken.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane is almost a non-lead in this, so I won’t consider Isla.

Script Link: I have a copy of this. Email me if interested.

Superman Lives (S-Man #3 of 5)

Genre: Action-Comic Book Blockbuster

Premise: Braniac is on the hunt for Kal-el, Superman, after destroying Krypton. Braniac reaches Earth and merges with Lex Luthor to form Lexiac. Lexiac kills Superman with Kryptonite-blooded Doomsday. Superman returns. There is a battle.

About: Tim Burton was to have directed a Superman film in the 90’s with Nick Cage in the title role, but inevitably the studios started pushing him around. Gilroy was hired onto the project to rewrite Wesley Strick (who we ran into briefly while studying the evolution of Batman II/Batman Returns). Gilroy was to bring down the $190 million budget to $100 million. Warners still put the film on hold. And Burton, who had been working on the project for a year, left to do Sleepy Hollow and a bunch of lesser adaptations of films that didn’t need to be modernized in the first place.

Writer: Dan Gilroy (Chasers, Freejack, son of the guy who wrote The Subject Was Roses)

This is the draft that effectively ended the quest to make Superman Lives, which in many cases would mean that the thing isn’t very good at all. I am yet to read Kevin Smith’s script, which is the seed of what Gilroy was rewriting but allegedly (according to The Superman website and Ain’t It Cool News, Smith’s script was better). So I’m going to stay away from a critique of the finer elements of the plot because I’m not sure how much here was Gilroy, how much was Smith, and how much is others and I could potentially end up finding weaknesses in Superman Lives that aren’t Gilroy’s fault or strengths that aren’t his creation either.

There’s one thing this script features that I love, Lexiac. It actually makes Lex Luthor somewhat intimidating, and it makes a decent villain for once in the Superman series. Now, this is an Alan Moore idea initially. (I mean, it’s a good thing from a DC comic, doesn’t that normally mean Moore was involved to some degree?) But, as much as I like Lexiac, there’s problematic stuff with the back story, which is that Superman’s knowledge of the events on Krypton when he was a baby are rewritten. Superman is not supposed to be aware of Braniac or what transpired to lead Superman being raised by the Kents. Now, why is it that DC finds it mandatory to rewrite the character line of their superheroes every few films? Batman is guilty of exactly the same thing. Why do this? Marvel doesn’t do it. X-Men retain the same stories their entire history. Same with The Avengers. It’s frustrating, and further bends logic, when comic book characters have their pasts slightly or entirely altered by the hands of a writer eager to make a good story.
And for the record, I know I’m supposed to suspend reality but how is Superman killed off and resurrected within the course of ten pages? There’s never really a sufficient explanation, and it feels like a lot to process in losing and rediscovering a character.

But there’s a few really awesome things about this script, though, and while the film spins out into a very high budget territory, I don’t necessarily think the script is all that bad. There’s a few cool cameos: including one by Batman. And my favorite part is Superman’s fear of what would happen if he had a baby with Lois Lane. For once, this actually made some real and interesting drama in the Superman series. What if Superman was in love with Lois Lane and wanted to raise a family, but knew deep down he wasn’t normal and that their child may not come out alright? In a way, it’s the same problem Geena Davis experiences in The Fly. Or, the Rosemary’s Baby complex. But, I’ve never seen this done through a male’s perspective before so that’s a cool angle.
The thing is, for a script that was written for a project in the midst of development hell, it’s obvious Superman Lives was not powerful enough to put the film back on line. It’s not bad, but there’s nothing here that’s going to sell Superman on the strength of its film.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Don’t rewrite character’s back stories. Ever. Okay? It’s confusing. It makes us doubt whether we know anything at all. It’s not more interesting either. So here’s an idea, once the audience or the reader has a pretty good idea of how stuff is going to play with it. Once I think I know Superman’s life and how he was raised, don’t switch it up on me. I don’t care if it’d make a good film. It’ll just make me disengage.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane here isn’t as witty or sarcastic as she is in other ones. She’s still in love with Superman, sure. But this depiction of Lois doesn’t play to Isla’s strength.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman Flyboy (#2 of 5)

Genre: Action

Premise: Finished in July 2002, Abrams’ Superman is an origin story about Krypton’s civil war, Superman’s arrival on Earth, Clark’s romance with Lois Lane. Only Lois is obsessed with revealing Luthor’s quest for UFO artifacts. Superman is killed, visits Jor-El in Kroptonian heaven is trained and succeeds in beating the four evil Kryptonians who have taken over Earth.

About: Brett Ratner signed to direct in September 2002 with filming to start in late 2003. Nobody wanted to sign. Not Josh Hartnett. Not Jude Law. Tony Hopkins to play Lex luthor. And Ralph Fiennes to play Jor-El (both from Ratner’s Red Dragon). Chris Reeves to project consult. Ashton Kutcher also rejected. Needless to say, the process took a long time and before anyone knew it Ratner was off and McG (Charlie’s Angels, Terminator 5) was to direct. Rewrites followed. Eventually, the whole thing ended up Bryan Singer’s lackluster Superman Returns in 2006.

Writer: J.J. Abrams (Regarding Henry, Forever Young, Armaggedon…isn’t that an odd line up? Two deeply personal films and a sci-fi blockbuster?)

The film opens with a very popcorn-driven Superman versus Ty-Zor (here’s a Kryptonian, big evil guy). Superman is then sent to Earth to avoid being killed. This is all really good, but Superman it is not. Of course, the classic scenes of Clark Kent’s youth as similar to how everyone imagines them.

But then it happened, the most head scratching moment of the entire script. Clark’s mom is nearly raped by a landlord who wants to exchange sex for rent so Clark pummels him. What? I reread it twice. Did I really read that? I did. I don’t know what it was doing in a Superman film, but there it was. Then Clark finds the Superman costume, which sucks itself onto his body. Ala Venom. And so it began, I entered a weird place that didn’t feel like the Superman universe and didn’t feel like any world of logic I’d ever seen. It was crazy Superman world.

Luthor once again has little to no moviation. He hates Superman because Lex is fired for pointing out Superman is a threat. And I mean, is that really supposed to suffice for a bad guy? It doesn’t. It’s just some annoying guy Superman has to deal with.

Lois flies with Clark and it’s romantic in a cheesy way. She’s eventually tied to a water tank and Superman having to pass Kryptonite to get there. His powers now gone, Superman still manages to punch a window then dies. How he does this I have no idea without any super powers whatsoever I have no idea. You ever try to punch through glass bare handed? Yeah, that works like a charm. And that’s what Superman is without his powers, just a regular guy like you or me. Krypton totally doesn’t make sense. And speaking of sense, if you were still logically invested to this story by the time we hit the mid point of the second act, stuff gets even crazies.

Superman is trained in the afterlife by a Kryptonian, then battle Lex Luthor who is revealed as another Kryptonian. There’s a dual and Superman wins. Then Superman flies off to Krypton which leaves the whole thing open ended for another segment of the trilogy Abrams had proposed.

Now I understand that logic might not always make sense. But, at the very least in a film about comic books I expect some loyalty to the series. But there isn’t any loyal to the Superman series in this baby. And then, on top of it all, half of the characters either don’t make sense (most of the crazy Kryptonians) or are just plain old boring, Lex Luthor.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: I didn’t like this script a whole lot, but it was mediocre because it didn’t bore me. The attempted rape was shocking. The costume thing was a cool visual. And the afterlife/Krypton scenes at the very least entertaining in a way I hadn’t scene before. There’s an old Tennessee Williams quote how he learned early on his career that it was okay for a show to not be brilliant but to never ever bore the audience which means throwing in a gun or something shocking every now and then just to keep the reader invested. Abrams may not do much, but he follows this rule very well.

Isla Prospect: Isla as Lois Lane. Brilliant. Sleek, seductive, witty, sexy. She’d banter with Clark and be swept away by Superman. And the spotlight would be great.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman: The Man of Steel (S-Man #1 of 5)

Genre: Action-Drama

Premise: The Man of Steel tells the origin story of Superman/Clark Kent, plus how he met Lois Lane. It also uses Lex Luthor / Megatello as the bad guys.
About: After the Superman Lives (Kevin Smith was to direct) film fell through in the mid 1990’s, there was a series of Superman scripts written. One of these, Superman: The Man of Steel, was written by comic book aficionado and spec writer, Alex Ford. The film was to be part one of seven, but Warners dropped Ford over creative differences.

Writer: Alex Ford (who, I’ve checked, has no real credits)

Why is Lex Luthor intimidating? I really don’t know. He’s smart. And has a lot of money. Not twisted like The Joker. Not unstoppable as Magneto. Lex is like the Batman of bad guys. Minus the pathos. And a lot of the tension in this script is that Lex is depicted as what’s wrong in the world of Superman. So needless to say, I wasn’t exactly sitting on the edge of my seat to plow through Alex Ford’s script.

The other thing that really slowed down reading Man of Steel is that this script reads like it was written by an amateur. The typeface is slightly too big. The formatting is also a tad bit irregular. And then the dialogue is overly talky (it’s like Ford wants to have these random monologues by every player in the Superman man universe), rambles on too long and then the action is occasionally spliced with random action scenes. If this is Superman count me out.

Now, that being said, I applaud Ford’s intentions. And while Superman isn’t my cup of tea, it probably is a good idea to use several films to capture all the main points of the comics. God knows this would have made the X-Men films amazing. But, really, I don’t get any of this Lex Luthor stuff. Why we would want to see it? Wasn’t this covered in Superman 1 to 4? Does Superman have any other villains? Is anybody else Superman agitated? Why would somebody want to make such a high budget film out of such a mediocre script? Help! Phew. Okay. I’ll calm down.

This script has good points: it seems to have studied Superman’s world, the plot follows some sort of a structure, the story revolves around a couple decent themes of what makes a hero, and there’s definitely room for excellence. Also there’s a Wonder Woman cameo and some references to the Justice league. But, really folks, this is fan fiction that was considered by the industry. And that’s all it.

Also, for most of the film Superman is depowered. Our one great protagonist who is famous for having superpowers now has none. What sense does this make? Really. And the problems? A woman strapped to a bomb. A nuclear reactor ready to blow. And then a brawl with Metallo, bar room style. And there’s never any Lois Lane and Clark Kent interaction beyond Clark whining like a little girl that Lois beat him to the story.

I wanted this review on a bigoted speech by Lex Luthor. “Fifteen hundred cats? What am I supposed to do with fifteen hundred cats? If I were in Korea I'd open a delicatessen but I'm not. I'm in Metropolis where fifteen hundred cats are useless to me. I want something better. Dogs, monkeys, French-speaking gorillas. Impress me.”

Impress me, Alex Ford did not.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: Sometimes, screenwriters attempt to tackle subjects that are too expansive for one script. Alex Ford’s Superman isn’t content with one small word, or a segment of one line of the Superman series. Rather, Ford tries to capture all of DC’s Superman series in the confines of this script. And, the script ends up just lacking a strong central thread.

Isla Prospect: Lois Lane is obviously the main Superman female, but she’s not that great in this one. So I’m not going to compare Isla to this possible role.

Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.

Superman Week!

I love comics so I’ve read a good deal of them. And I’ve already done a fair number of comic book based reviews on Hunting for Isla Fisher. But, for the most part my comic expertise spreads to Batman and X-Men. One of the comics I’ve hardly ever (and I mean hardly, maybe just two issues) is surprisingly enough, Superman. I just never got Superman. Didn’t get the mythos or the fan following. So I thought I could give an interesting critique about the history of Superman scripts starting with some unproduced scripts, then highlighting a couple of the produced films. I’ll be commenting on the story line in general, and trying to highlight what I just don’t get about the Superman series.

Old Boy (Ghost #5 of 5)

Genre: Drama with Promises of Action that are never quite met

Premise: A man is mysteriously kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years in a cell without any explanation. Then he is released. Armed with money and a cell phone. He seeks revenge for his torture, but soon finds his kidnappers aren’t yet finished with him.

About: Dreamworks secured the rights to the project. For a time, Spielberg and Will Smith discussed tackling the film. The reason for the projects delay appears to be Spielberg still has the script in development (which probably suggests he likes the script but isn’t ready to commit just yet). This script was written before these two became attached, and turned the Korean story into a Los Angeles nightmare. (Is Los Angeles nightmare redundant? I’m not sure.)

Writer: Ernesto M Foranda (Better Luck Tomorrow, doesn’t seem to have any other big credits) and Fabian Marquez (also just Better Luck Tomorrow, and something called Johnny Flynton) based on the movie by Chan-wook Park (the “Vengeance” trilogy)

I’ve read a few good scripts on Hunting for Isla. Many bad ones. But this Old Boy script is the best thing I’ve reviewed so far. Now I know it’s just a descendant of the Korean masterpiece (which I had never read in script form), but Old Boy is bar none hands down the best script I’ve reviewed so far on Hunting for Isla Fisher. Now Joe, you may be thinking, that’s an awfully big boast to make. Let me explain.

The idea of being locked up for fifteen years is terrifying. But the script doesn’t depict this as naturally a horrifying period of captivity. Rather, there’s a quiet, unsympathetic approach to this man’s suffering. And that’s a lot of the reason why Old Boy is scary. It’s not in the reveal, it’s in the depth and the approach. In a lot of ways, this whole thing reminded me of a Greek tragedy set in modern times. And elevates the captive to mythic levels. So I know, I know, some of you are going to say Old Boy isn’t really a ghost story. But, I’d argue that the captive at the end of his fifteen years is more ghost like than human. And like ghosts who stick to the Earth, this guy is obsessed with answering some questions about his life on the planet.

Now, the other thing Old Boy gets right which very easily could have turned this whole film into a crap fest is the reason why the captive was locked up. Rather than taking a cheesy or unnecessarily violent turn, the reason the captive is locked up has to do with a secret that rocks the whole world of characters. (Albeit, it’s a turn you see in a lot of movies with these types of secrets. But an effective one nonetheless).

Even more interestingly I don’t necessarily know if I was a big fan of the script’s plot in so much as I was a fan of the tone and the way the protagonist was depicted as a lonely, deranged hell bent wanderer. Not since Taxi Driver have I read something that leapt off the page with such ferocity. And that’s amazing because I spent a good part of the week discussing how rarely someone capture the ghost-like tone in a screenplay.

There’s this clown movie, Vulgar, which explores a similar idea using much less noble tactics. By the time the film ends, it’s erupted into little more than a shoot out with a guy and his captors. Then, there’s films like Deliverance and Prime Cut where the captors seek revenge but aren’t really traumatized. Then there’s Cast Away where the Tom Hanks is left where Old Boy starts: a man who has spent many years in captivity trying to make sense of his world. Old Boy makes good on what Cast Away should have done: how one lives with these God awful memories and readjusts to their world after years in the wilderness. Of course, Cast Away would probably have had some great product placement among this character development, but still. Old Boy takes the cake.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] - Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Daily Tip: There are many scripts that managed to beat (or at least tackle) the slowness of the second act’s second half by revealing a groundbreaking secret. Now there are catches to this (the secret has to be revealed as something that ties into the story, among other things). But, if done correctly, the revelation of a shocking truth in a script that causes a reader to reevaluate everyone involved goes a long way to a good middle act.

Isla Prospect: There really isn’t a big female role in this thing. So no Isla turns today.
Script Link: I have a copy. Email me if interested.