Anatomy of a bad script - A PERFECT MURDER (spoilers)
Skip Press
Yet another example why people should find new writers and new stories
instead of remaking classic works and TV shows. How can Gus van Sant does
Psycho do anything but tank?
In article <6la46t$aqp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bloo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Surprisingly, this Andrew Davis film based on the same source material as
> Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER starts off decently enough with some stylish
> visuals and a fairly twisty plot (that diverges from Hitchcock's original in a
> couple of interesting ways). The fact that none of the three main characters
> are particularly worth giving a damn about (or that Gwyneth Paltrow looks more
> like Douglas's daughter than wife) isn't as troublesome being that this is a
> story primarily about plot twists rather than characters (a la THE USUAL
> SUSPECTS).
>
> Like many contemporary movies, however, this one begins to rapidly fall apart
> with about forty minutes to go. My patience in the face of numerous plot
> implausibilities began to run out at just about the time that Emily (Gwyneth
> Paltrow) ventures into the neighborhood of the man who had tried to murder
> her (in order to test out a key from her keychain in the man's lock). Note,
> this is a woman who was brutally attacked in her own home and still suffers
> from the memory of it. Why on earth would she venture alone into an unsafe
> looking neighborhood instead of just alerting the police to her suspicions?
> And, upon discovering that the key does indeed open the man's door, why does
> she not immediately go to the police with what she knows? (She was certainly
> quick enough to alert the authorities about her initial suspicion concerning
> her husband's involvement in the attack on her.) Instead, she waits at
> Steven's office in order to confront him with what she knows. Wha???? Is
> this the dumbest woman on earth? At this point the movie completely unravels
> as Steven tricks his wife with a phony explanation that even Hillary Clinton
> would have immediately rejected.
>
> More stupid plot twists: Murder mastermind Steven committing a killing on a
> train that only an idiot would think he could get away with. Emily knowing
> the combination of Steven's safe because it's their anniversary date. (Now
> why would Steven be foolish enough to use such an obvious set of numbers?) I
> could go on with the plot contrivances but I won't. Instead I'll just
> mention that the finale is so perfunctory that it truly makes one wonder why
> anybody wastes two hours at a movie theater anymore.
>
> Bizarrely enough, the film omits recreating some of the most clever scenes
> from Hitchcock's film (which is not one of his best films by a long shot--a
> bit stagey, but well performed). Examples: The matter-of-fact way that Ray
> Milland plots out the "perfect murder" and the way the cracks in his cool
> demeanor begin to show when things start to go wrong (his wife plans to leave
> the house that night, his watch stops, his wife answers the phone instead of
> the killer); the mystery writer boyfriend who inadvertently figures out the
> whole murder plot as he tries to come up with an phony explanation to keep
> the wife from being executed; the suspense generated by the misplaced key and
> whether or not Ray Milland's character will use the hidden one (the whole
> switched keys scenario is pretty much ineffectively staged in A PERFECT
> MURDER); and the cool and calm way that Ray Milland accepts his fate at the
> film's end.
>
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
Skip Press, the Duke of URL
Book: http://www.primapublishing.com/PageBuilder.asp?Page=76150399
Another book: http://www.cmonline.com/boson/howto.html
Column: http://www.computoredge.com/Editorial/business.htm
Stuff: http://www.hollywoodnetwork.com/skip
bloo...@hotmail.com
CD832
I find myself analyzing movies a lot, but let's remember, they're movies! Maybe
Gwyneth Paltrows character is just brave and adventurous. MUST movies be 100%
realistic. Movies are supposed to be part FANTASY. Wouldn't it be cool if...or
what if this character did this...It's kind of a fantastical exploration.
That's how I see them.
In JAWS, my favorite movie of all time. I've been asking lately after having
seen it recently again. Why DON'T they call the Coast Guard. I've gotten good
responses as to why and they make sense in a way. When Hooper yells to Brody
"DO YOU HAVE ANY BETTER SUGGESTIONS!", I think the Brody character would've
answered "Yeah, call the coast guard" or "yeah let's head back in and let the
coast guard handle it." I guess it being Quint's vessel, Quint wanted to do it
his way.
For me to be analyzing JAWS in this way is scary to me. No movie is perfect.
(Jaws is close, in my opinion. The DEFINITION of what a motion picture should
be.) No movie is 100% realistic. I guess movies aren't really "Life with the
boring parts cut out." All movies are different and each one has a place for
itself I guess.
Horuun
I think you guys went into A Perfect Murder thinking, "Remake Hitchcock? Fat
chance." I liked the movie. Much better than Dial M for Murder, which, for
Hitchcock, was pretty pathetic. I'm not going to try dissecting this movie to
determine if it was good - I'm just going to say that I liked it and that's all
that counts. Michael Douglas was good, Gwyneth Paltrow was good, and Viggo
Mortenson was good. Andrew Davis did good, Arnold Kopelson did good, Patrick
Smith Kelly did good.
-Brent
Edward Feit
Unfortunately, a bad script (by the way, I haven't seen this movie) often
draws big audiences and critical acclaim, no matter how absurd the plot or
wooden the dialogue.
The Fugitive (Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones) is a good example. It's
riddled with absurdities from the opening titles in which Ford's wife is
murdered in a drug company's scheme to set him up so he wouldn't expose a
drug that doesn't work.
First, no billionaire company would send its own security chief, a man with
one-arm (easily identifiable) who, if caught would expose them.
Secondly, there's a little organization known as the FDA which, rightly
takes a jaundiced view of company sponsored research.
Third, if a drug company wants to get rid of someone, there are at least 23
poisons that are practically undetectable unless the examiner knows what to
look for, which simulate a heart attack. We can't get these, but any drug
company can. Slipped into Dr. Kimble's (Ford) drink, he'd fall flat on his
handsome visage. Everyone's say: *Poor Dr. Kimble, worked too hard.*
Fourth, drug companies routinely write off billions in failed research. Who
pays? Why, as usual, you and me! The company takes a tax deduction and adds
anything that remains to the drugs you and I buy! Why would they want to set
up the Doc with such a cockamammy scheme?
Then there's the court case. I'm no Johnnie Cochran or F. Lee Baillie but
even I could rip that case apart. The doc gets a death sentence. When did a
rich guy last get a death sentence? (the DuPont case for instance). Nor
would a rich man use some old gefomfeter as a lawyer. Why, he'd get Johnnie
and F. Lee and walk.
I could go on and on, and The Fugitive isn't even the worst. If you really
want worst see Dolph Lundgren act a brain dead sniper in Silent Trigger. (I
thought Trigger was Roy Rogers horse. Trigger was silent in his moves
because Roy sang all the time).
As unsold writers, you and I are expected to produce perfect scripts. Where
are all the perfect movies?
Regards
Edward
bloo...@hotmail.com wrote in message <6la46t$aqp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Fred Taylor
In article <35795...@oit.umass.edu>, Edward Feit
<ef...@polsci.umass.edu> writes
Same place as the perfect novels, the perfect paintings, and God knows,
the perfect automobiles.
(Sigh:) Ain't life a bitch.
--
Fred Taylor
Martin Kunert
Edward Feit wrote in message <35795...@oit.umass.edu>...
>Unfortunately, a bad script (by the way, I haven't seen this movie) often
>draws big audiences and critical acclaim, no matter how absurd the plot or
>wooden the dialogue.
>
>The Fugitive (Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones) is a good example. It's
>riddled with absurdities from the opening titles in which Ford's wife is
>murdered in a drug company's scheme to set him up so he wouldn't expose a
>drug that doesn't work.
[lots of script nitpicking]
>I could go on and on, and The Fugitive isn't even the worst. If you really
>want worst see Dolph Lundgren act a brain dead sniper in Silent Trigger. (I
>thought Trigger was Roy Rogers horse. Trigger was silent in his moves
>because Roy sang all the time).
>As unsold writers, you and I are expected to produce perfect scripts.
That is far, far from the truth. What you are expected to do is write a
professional, commerical script. While you nick pick, The Fugative, I
garuantee you, if you write a script half as good and you'll get money and
an agent.
The point that you are missing is that films/scripts like the fugative are
not documetaries, nor real life. They are as Hitchcock said, "only a
movie". Movies take liberties with logic. While you dislike the script for
minor defects, you fail the see it's major accomplishmanets - like the lead
characters. The US Marshall was such a powerful character that they spinned
him off into his own sequal. You failed to see that people related and
emphesied with the hero, and the way he went about clearing his name.
Audiences want to be entertained. They're unaware or don't care about the
minutia of poisones that concerend you. They want a got story that will
hook them emotionally and take them for a ride. You accomplish that and you
won't be an unsold writer.
I've noticed there's a major difference in attitude between people. People
struggling to get break into the film industry pull apart a film for it's
faults, despite how successfull it is. People working in the industry tend
examine a film for what made it succeed. I wonder if that attidute is one
of the determinates of why some people make it and others don't. I suspect
it does. .... My 2 cents.
>Where are all the perfect movies?
There are few. Nobody expects you to write perfect movies to have a career
in writing.
bloo...@hotmail.com
In article <199806060120...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
cd...@aol.com (CD832) wrote:
>
> I find myself analyzing movies a lot, but let's remember, they're movies! Maybe
> Gwyneth Paltrows character is just brave and adventurous. MUST movies be 100%
> realistic. Movies are supposed to be part FANTASY. Wouldn't it be cool if...or
> what if this character did this...It's kind of a fantastical exploration.
> That's how I see them.
>
> In JAWS, my favorite movie of all time. I've been asking lately after having
> seen it recently again. Why DON'T they call the Coast Guard. I've gotten good
> responses as to why and they make sense in a way. When Hooper yells to Brody
> "DO YOU HAVE ANY BETTER SUGGESTIONS!", I think the Brody character would've
> answered "Yeah, call the coast guard" or "yeah let's head back in and let the
> coast guard handle it." I guess it being Quint's vessel, Quint wanted to do it
> his way.
Sure, but in A PERFECT MURDER we are talking about a character (Gwyneth
Paltrow) who is a rich, pampered wife who was brutally attacked in her own
home and severely traumatized by the whole ordeal. As soon as she suspects
her husband might have been involved in plotting the attack, she zips on over
to the police with her suspicions. And yet, she witholds information from
them and then decides to investigate further by venturing alone into a very
unsafe looking neighborhood. And then she decides to confront her husband
alone in his office even though she now strongly believes that he tried to
have her murdered. The character's behavior is wildly inconsistent.
Even more preposterous is the insipid ending, in which the wife puts herself
in an even more precarious situation when a simple phonecall to the police
could have solved everything in a much more comfortable fashion. Apparently
this ending was reshot after test audiences gave thumbs down to the original
(makes you wonder how bad the original ending was). Well, at least now
Michael Douglas knows how Glenn Close felt at the end of FATAL ATTRACTION.
bloo...@hotmail.com
In article <199806060407...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hor...@aol.com (Horuun) wrote:
> I think you guys went into A Perfect Murder thinking, "Remake Hitchcock? Fat
> chance." I liked the movie. Much better than Dial M for Murder, which, for
> Hitchcock, was pretty pathetic.
Actually, I think DIAL M FOR MURDER is an above average film. It's certainly
no STRANGERS ON THE TRAIN, but it has its share of clever moments. Granted,
it is too dialogue heavy and rather static (betraying its stage play
origins), but some of the banter is quite witty and the performances are
amusing.
One thing in its favor is that it's a rather modestly plotted film that
doesn't strain for big effects. In updating and opening up the storyline the
remake introduces far too many inconsistencies and plot contrivances. For
instance: Douglas's murder of the Viggo Mortenson character. It's a scene
that has no real buildup (it just sort of happens, even though we all know
that it's going to) and is merely thrown into the story just to give the
audience a jolt and to fulfil the graphic violence quota for today's films.
But it is a completely ludicrous scene. Does the Douglas character really
think he could get away with it? We don't even see how he gets onto the
train or gets off, he just seems to materialize out of thin air, commit the
murder and then *poof*, he's gone. You would think that a guy who had gone
to such pains to figure out the "perfect" way to murder his wife might have
come up with a plan to kill someone that wouldn't immediately make him the
main suspect once police find the body.
I think a big mistake with the remake was combining the wife's boyfriend and
murderer-for-hire into one character. There are moments when we are led to
believe that the conniving boyfriend really does love the wife, but the film
doesn't bother to flesh out what might have made for an interesting conflict.
Instead, the guy simply takes off with the money at the end and sends the
wife the incriminating cassette (as a memento of his affection for her, I
guess). But it's hard to be sympathetic for a guy who's a lying con artist,
has swindled other women before, and is ready to take the money and run at
the end. In short, there's no payoff to this character.
I also think the whole switched key incident (which was integral to
Hitchcock's film) was completely botched here. Hitchcock saved the mixed-up
key revelation for the finale, where it had some real impact. Here, it's
revealed too early (in the middle of the film). And why didn't Douglas's
character retrieve his wife's key the moment he knew he had put the wrong one
on her keychain? (Like, right after she told him about it in his office.) A
character as calculating and quick witted as Douglas's would have known to
dispose of incriminating evidence as soon as he knew of its existence. Even
dumber, however, is Paltrow setting up Douglas at the end and then gloating
about it to his face (once she has the cassette, she already has all the
evidence she needs to call up the police and have him arrested). Of course,
one could argue that she was goading him on to attack her so that she could
shoot him dead in "self defense". But there is nothing in the rest of the
film to even suggest that Paltrow's character has such a malicious or
vindictive streak. Or even that she had the brains to plot out such a
devious little plan in such a brief period of time.
> I'm not going to try dissecting this movie to
> determine if it was good - I'm just going to say that I liked it and that's all
> that counts. Michael Douglas was good, Gwyneth Paltrow was good, and Viggo
> Mortenson was good. Andrew Davis did good, Arnold Kopelson did good, Patrick
> Smith Kelly did good.
I think the movie is going to have a short boxoffice life. It's a dumb,
cold, soulless film that doesn't say anything that hasn't already been said
(the wealthy are heartless, emotionally dead people who like to kill each
other over money).
> -Brent
bloo...@hotmail.com
In article <35795...@oit.umass.edu>,
"Edward Feit" <ef...@polsci.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> The Fugitive (Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones) is a good example. It's
> riddled with absurdities from the opening titles in which Ford's wife is
> murdered in a drug company's scheme to set him up so he wouldn't expose a
> drug that doesn't work.
>
I'm not a fan of THE FUGITIVE, but I had only one real complaint about the
logic of the script and that came near the end when Harrison Ford's character
decided to confront the man involved in his wife's murder. Ford does it at
some crowded conference where there are presumably some security guards
around. Now, if I'm a fugitive who is wanted for murder, do I reveal myself
in the general public angrily shouting at and approaching someone while
knowing full well that one of those security guards might recoginize me, pull
out his gun and blow me away? I think not.
Small, inaccurate plot details usually don't bother me at all. What bothers
me is when a character begins behaving inconsistently (usually stupidly) from
what has been established throughout most of the film.
cine...@hknet.com
bloo...@hotmail.com wrote:
nip>
>
> I'm not a fan of THE FUGITIVE, but I had only one real complaint about the
> logic of the script and that came near the end when Harrison Ford's character
> decided to confront the man involved in his wife's murder. Ford does it at
> some crowded conference where there are presumably some security guards
> around. Now, if I'm a fugitive who is wanted for murder, do I reveal myself
> in the general public angrily shouting at and approaching someone while
> knowing full well that one of those security guards might recoginize me, pull
> out his gun and blow me away? I think not.
>
> Small, inaccurate plot details usually don't bother me at all. What bothers
> me is when a character begins behaving inconsistently (usually stupidly) from
> what has been established throughout most of the film.
I'm ashamed to say I've forgotten the doctor's name -- err, Kildare? Welby?
especially as the old TV series was my favourite, and I really enjoyed the movie.
(Dr. Richard ... Kimble, yes, Kimble!!) Anyway, his appearance at the conference
DID make sense because he had worked it out, laid his trap, and knew he would
be exonerated by engaging his opponent at that forum. Made perfect sense,
but the screenwriter was good, so added some extra exctiement by having
the bad guy runaway etc. etc. ALso, Kimble's presence in an enviroment
where he might be caught adds risk and drama.
One of the most entertaining films I saw that year.
Martin Kunert is absolutely right, BTW.
derek
bloo...@hotmail.com
In article <357AA3...@hknet.com>,
cine...@hknet.com wrote:
>
> I'm ashamed to say I've forgotten the doctor's name -- err, Kildare? Welby?
> especially as the old TV series was my favourite, and I really enjoyed the movie.
> (Dr. Richard ... Kimble, yes, Kimble!!) Anyway, his appearance at the conference
> DID make sense because he had worked it out, laid his trap, and knew he would
> be exonerated by engaging his opponent at that forum. Made perfect sense,
> but the screenwriter was good, so added some extra exctiement by having
> the bad guy runaway etc. etc. ALso, Kimble's presence in an enviroment
> where he might be caught adds risk and drama.
The only problem is that, while Kimble knew he was innocent, nobody else did
(except maybe Tommy Lee Jones, who was nowhere in sight at the time). If a
guy who is a fugitive from the law and wanted for murder (and his picture is
all over the news) suddenly pops up at a public engagement shouting at
someone and approaching them menacingly, do you think any bystanders are
actually going to bother listening to what he's saying? Hell, most people
wouldn't even know what the hell he was talking about. Like I said before,
he's lucky he didn't get shot down by some nervous security guard. The scene
is done for dramatic effect, but it makes little sense.
szmagaj
On 6 Jun 1998, CD832 wrote:
> In JAWS, my favorite movie of all time. I've been asking lately after having
> seen it recently again. Why DON'T they call the Coast Guard. I've gotten good
> responses as to why and they make sense in a way. When Hooper yells to Brody
> "DO YOU HAVE ANY BETTER SUGGESTIONS!", I think the Brody character would've
> answered "Yeah, call the coast guard" or "yeah let's head back in and let the
> coast guard handle it." I guess it being Quint's vessel, Quint wanted to do it
> his way.
The father of one of my college boyfriends is a former Navy
man with a very weathered face and grizzled gray hair and a
big moustache. You just instintively want to call him "Cap'n."
I'd cast him as Flint in Treasure Island in a heartbeat.
According to him, what the Navy says about the Coast Guard goes
something like this:
"As soon as you see the Coast Guard, you know you're safe."
"Why?"
"'Cause you know you can wade to shore."
I just love that. It's one of those exchanges I've been saving
up from real life to put in a script sometime. Lacking an
appropriate script, I'll put it here instead.
mary
cine...@hknet.com
bloo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The only problem is that, while Kimble knew he was innocent, nobody else did
> (except maybe Tommy Lee Jones, who was nowhere in sight at the time). If a
> guy who is a fugitive from the law and wanted for murder (and his picture is
> all over the news) suddenly pops up at a public engagement shouting at
> someone and approaching them menacingly, do you think any bystanders are
> actually going to bother listening to what he's saying? Hell, most people
> wouldn't even know what the hell he was talking about. Like I said before,
> he's lucky he didn't get shot down by some nervous security guard. The scene
> is done for dramatic effect, but it makes little sense.
Yeah, but bloody sam, what would have made a more boring film? What
audiences love is that extra level of risk that we wouldn't take in real life,
that one step in logic away from what's most likely, that edge you give to
it as a screenwriter.
In the real world, Kimble probably woudn't have got as far as he did if
you look at how things unfolded, and his ploy to unnerve the naughty
doctor paid off. Another way of seeing it is that >because< he was
prepared to take such a risk, this might make people actually start
to consider the possibility of his innocence. In how many films in this
general genre do people's actions make perfect sense? Not a lot, I'd
guess.
As a point of interest, did this really spoil the film for you?
Usually it's the even sillier things that give me trouble, especially
the cliched disasters. A common example is when the brakes
fail, but people seem completely unable to even slow the vehicle
down. In real life, change down a gear even if it makes a bad sound,
take your foot of the accelerator (gas pedal in America), and if you can
drive carefully on the soft shoulder or whatever. In movies the vehicle
always seems to pick up speed, and I'm sitting there thinking, are you
really that stupid, are you really that stupid ... (not you, bloddy sam).
derek
bloo...@hotmail.com
In article <357BD2...@hknet.com>,
cine...@hknet.com wrote:
>
> bloo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The only problem is that, while Kimble knew he was innocent, nobody else did
> > (except maybe Tommy Lee Jones, who was nowhere in sight at the time). If a
> > guy who is a fugitive from the law and wanted for murder (and his picture is
> > all over the news) suddenly pops up at a public engagement shouting at
> > someone and approaching them menacingly, do you think any bystanders are
> > actually going to bother listening to what he's saying? Hell, most people
> > wouldn't even know what the hell he was talking about. Like I said before,
> > he's lucky he didn't get shot down by some nervous security guard. The scene
> > is done for dramatic effect, but it makes little sense.
>
> Yeah, but bloody sam, what would have made a more boring film? What
> audiences love is that extra level of risk that we wouldn't take in real life,
> that one step in logic away from what's most likely, that edge you give to
> it as a screenwriter.
Sure, but there are clever ways to do things and then their are lazy and dumb
ways to do things. That scene in THE FUGITIVE opts for the most simpleminded
approach. Kimble is supposed to a be a very intelligent man who has managed
to elude a horde of law enforcement officials. The scene where he risks
exposing his identity in the hospital by helping a patient is a good one
because it reveals a side of his character (ie. he's a compassionate person
willing to put another person's concerns before his own). But the scene at
the end is simply foolish. Nobody that smart would take such a dumb risk.
The only reason his ridiculous "plan" is successful is because this is a big
Hollywood movie where logic can suddenly disappear at the whim of the
screenwriter.
> In the real world, Kimble probably woudn't have got as far as he did if
> you look at how things unfolded, and his ploy to unnerve the naughty
> doctor paid off. Another way of seeing it is that >because< he was
> prepared to take such a risk, this might make people actually start
> to consider the possibility of his innocence.
And I suppose if Andrew Cunanan (sp?) had suddenly appeared at a big banquet
approaching someone menacingly and shouting out about how he had been framed
for all his murders that people would actually stand by and think, "Hey, you
know, he's actually got a point there."
> In how many films in this
> general genre do people's actions make perfect sense? Not a lot, I'd
> guess.
But THE FUGITIVE is considered to be a thinking person's action film that is
more based on character than silly action scenes. This is why the flaw
stands out more than it would in something consistently ridiculous like CON
AIR or THE ROCK.
> As a point of interest, did this really spoil the film for you?
No. Actually, I found the film to be quite predictable and dull. There was
never a moment when I doubted that Ford's character would be exonerated. The
story just didn't have enough clever twists to keep me involved. And, quite
frankly, the idea of two fifty-year old actors chasing each other around just
didn't get my pulse racing. The final fight sequence was flat out lousy.
> Usually it's the even sillier things that give me trouble, especially
> the cliched disasters. A common example is when the brakes
> fail, but people seem completely unable to even slow the vehicle
> down. In real life, change down a gear even if it makes a bad sound,
> take your foot of the accelerator (gas pedal in America), and if you can
> drive carefully on the soft shoulder or whatever. In movies the vehicle
> always seems to pick up speed, and I'm sitting there thinking, are you
> really that stupid, are you really that stupid ... (not you, bloody sam).
>
> derek
Sakar1
<357E8F...@hknet.com>, cine...@hknet.com :
>Hehehehe ... err, well, let's just say we agree on Melville's Le Samourai,
>alsmot in a class of its own.
Derek, we agree 1000%. Nothing, absolutely no other movie can compare. Samourai
is and always will be a thing apart, a perfect script, written by the director,
a perfect director and *the* perfect cast, cast by the director/writer for his
vision, with a script written expressly *for* the precise actor/protag (I can't
consider him anything else). A myth.
I've seen Samourai about 200 times by now, in original French (best way to see
it) and in dubbed versions and it still raises goosepimples on my skin and the
hair in the back of my neck. Each time I discover new nuances, tiny things
which add up.
Sakar