The past five days, Martin and I have spent approximately 28 hours of face-time working on the story for Yellow, draft two, including 10 1/2 yesterday. I’m exhausted, and we haven’t even started writing yet. The story is 80% new, meaning it’s almost like a new first draft than a second. This week is going to be a killer, so probably fewer movies than usual. Biggest breakthrough: we surgically added two more dimensions to our protagonist, bringing him up to the standard three. Hooray!
Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004, Quentin Tarantino) (v) 80
Slow, but not unreasonably so. If this Leone-inspired second half was always part of the filming strategy, I’m not unhappy about the story being broken in two and separated by eight months or whatever. (But I suspect that it was the other way around, that breaking the story in two led to the more sedate editing style.) Ultimately worth it for Uma’s showdowns with Jackson Browne’s ex-girlfriend and Caine. (Oh, but was occasionally distracted by trying to imagine Warren Beatty in same role.)
The Thief of Bagdad (1940, Ludwig Berger & Tim Whelan & Michael Powell) (v) 76
Everything Matt says here is true; however, I’m an all-day sucker for this kind of fantasy movie (see also: Clash of the Titans, Time Bandits, hell, even The Magic Sword). Lead John Justin has a weird, undefinable Afflecktion, though.
Phenomena (1984, Dario Argento) (v) 65
Rating is probably indefensible; story-wise, it makes Opera seem coherent. But Jennifer Connelly, who can’t be older than fifteen here, already has enough talent and confidence to center the script and make it work, enough for me at least. (Compare with the lightweight performances in The Beyond.) Not perfect, of course; her power with insects shoulda been incorporated better, just to name one thing. The monkey with the switchblade straight razor is the litmus test, really.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004, Roland Emmerich) (f) 58
Comfortably dumb. Can’t argue with the math, either. Admittedly, I’ve never been able to make it though an entire Emmerich movie before, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that this seems like the man’s most personal statement, as personal a statement that someone can make in the medium of Disaster, at least. The wolves are the litmus test, really.
The Terminal (2004, Steven Spielberg) (f) 30
Pretty much awful from the get-go, with Tom Hanks going back and forth from unbelievable imbecile (are Krakhozians, or whatever the fuck, living in the 1930s or something? Maybe that’s what their revolution is about) to unbelievably cunning and crafty corporate-space survivalist. Hanks barely moves a muscle in his stiff, waxy face, like he has Botox in his soul. And what’s with people bringing up Tati in regards to this crap? Because there was an airport in Playtime? That’s like saying The Fast and the Furious owes something to Traffic. The only moment I think I liked is the visual juxtoposition of Hanks’ saltine-and-ketchup sandwich and Stanley Tucci’s frappacino, momentarily giving the frothy drink an oppressive weight. Ultimately, there’s a lot of horrible stuff in this movie, but the part that bothers me the most is the lie that Hanks’ Nivorsky can imprint his individuality and identity on this institutional/corporatized space, when, judging by the fate of the real Nivorsky (an Iranian, actually), it’s clear that the opposite happens. Good taste is the litmus test, really.
So, should I finish reading the old script if the new draft is 80% different? Please advise.
Posted by: Scott at July 12, 2004 03:06 PMYes, please, if you still want to. I'm still subscribing to the idea that feedback on an obsolete script will help me as a writer; also, since this new draft is, in a sense, a reaction to the old draft, it's still helpful to see if what we think is wrong with the old draft gibes with your opinions. Not to mention that something you might say about the old story might spark an idea or help us underline an idea in the new one.
But if reading the script is taking time away from your loved ones or the like, then no, you don't have to :-)
Posted by: Kza at July 12, 2004 03:38 PMAlso, how will you be able to say, "this is SO much better than the first one!" if you don't read it? ;-)
Posted by: Kza at July 12, 2004 03:40 PMI shall continue on, then. Also, I need to watch that Argento bug movie with Jennifer Connelly. It got a "3.0" rating from Matt!
Posted by: Scott at July 12, 2004 05:17 PMHoly crap, really? I remember scanning through his Argento reviews, and it seemed like he was pooh-poohing most of them, so I assumed the same for PHENOMENA. Have to look that up...
Posted by: kza at July 12, 2004 07:52 PMMaybe I need to take a second look at "Phenomena" -- I remember thinking it effective but silly and overstuffed when I saw it a few years back. The monkey with the straight razor, however, is genius.
Posted by: Steve at July 12, 2004 09:26 PMWell, I've always liked "Phenomena"/"Creepers" ever since I saw it when I was in grade school. When I rewatched it and all of Argento's other work on DVD - thank heavens for Anchor Bay, sometimes - I was surprised it was the only one I still liked. An 11 year old me adored "Deep Red" and (especially) "Inferno," but sadly the thrill of those is gone (I also liked "Nightbreed" and "Frozen Terror," heh). Argento has an amazing sense of composition and color, but his screenwriting is A-W-F-U-L. Further, Bad Screenwriting is also a genetic disease, also see: Asia.
I also got a big kick out of Fulci's "The Beyond" on a similar, "I know this is trashy" level.