Thursday, December 28, 2006

Why did The Island suck so very much?

SPOILER WARNING! Like you care.

I didn't pay for it, fortunately, because I have HBO. My stepdad had it on so I thought, let me watch this piece of Bruckheimer and see if it's really as bad as they say. And it is.

I learned something from this film. I kept thinking to myself, why don't I believe this movie? How can I suspend my disbelief so much for other films when this one has me rolling my eyes every ten seconds? Is it the constant obvious product placement, like when the camera held for a couple of seconds on a close-up of a beer bottle so our dashing male lead could drink one swig and forget about it? That's annoying, but that's not it.

Is it the fact that our heroes keep experiencing the best luck in the world, like landing in a batch of netting while they fall a zillion feet inside a giant neon letter off the side of a building and end up with like, one scratch over an eye? No. I've seen that before and completely bought it in various Terminator films.

Is it the fact that our heroes, who boast the education of a 15 year old, keep outsmarting our borderline retarded professional hunters? We're getting warmer.

Maybe it's the fact that the head professional hunter suddenly decides to be a good guy at the end. Maybe it's the fact that all the clones who've been taught from conception to fear the supposedly contaminated world outside wander happily into the sunlight when given the first opportunity. Maybe it's because every plot twist or character quirk was visible miles ahead of itself. Maybe.

But I think it's because the seams were showing. The action scenes were action scenes. The love scenes were love scenes. The exposition was exposition. Even the one-line comedy bits were chucked in like missing puzzle pieces. Nothing was more than one thing. When Steve Buscemi's character tells our cloney heroes what they are, he's sitting in a house drinking booze and casually throwing out those Steve Buscemi-like sarcastic faces. I was bored. I thought about how much cooler it would have been if Ewan MacGregor, who's supposed to be very smart and curious, figured out the truth through clues Steve Buscemi didn't want to give away, all while they were trying to escape from the big bad meanies. Then we could have had some action, some exposition and maybe a little character development all at the same time. Instead, we just had exposition.

From now on, I'm not letting a scene of my script go until I've found a way to make it accomplish at least two things at once.

One of the themes of this film was that people will do anything to survive. I know it's the theme because they kept telling me that. But nobody actually had to do anything questionable to survive. They did exactly what anybody would do. When someone points a gun at you, you fight. No good guy had to sacrifice any innocent victims. Wouldn't you think in a movie about clones fighting for survival, the occasional moral conundrum would come up? Maybe you'd have to allow some decent person to die so that you could live? Nope. Bad guys are bad, good guys are good, and Sean Bean can always be relied upon to play the stuck up British guy who wants to have power over everybody.

Thank goodness this film tanked at the box office. I'd fear for the souls of us all if it did well. It's bad enough that Con Air made money.

14 comments:

  1. You are so right...now granted i'm a dude and Scarlett is hot but no amount of that could affect the suckitude of this flick. Thanks for putting words to that bad taste I had once the movie was over.

    Yes, I watched the whole thing.

    Happy New Year!!
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hehehe...

    I so very much loved this post. Look for a shout-out.

    Hope you have a great New Year, Emily!

    -MM

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's because of Michael Bay. His direction is amatuerish. His camera is ALWAYS moving for NO REASON...

    He should stick to milk ads.

    But it's also because the story is a hodgepodge of every decent SciFi story since 100 years ago, without trying to weave them into something coherent.

    But mostly... I blame Michael Bay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is also what happens when someone pitches something incredibly ill-thought-out as high concept. The basic premise is wrong-headed from the start and therefore tons of yapping exposition needs to be thrown in to make an audience 'get it'. Hey, how about getting someone in that's actually well-read on the subject or genetics, cloning or just science-fiction in general? No? It surely couldn't cost that much to do...

    I completely agree about the set pieces never seeming to join up. I was wondering what else I could be doing within about twenty minutes of the film starting. No hooks, nothing to drag a viewer into the mix and care about the protagonists.

    I think you're right on the money about their need to do 'questionable things' in order to survive. It was all too pat and sunshiney to be remotely believable.

    Still, have a blindingly fab New Year and excellent 2007! xXx

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:37 AM

    Heh, I actually liked Con Air....

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But the bunny back in the box."

    Genius! Michael bay movies are one of my guilty pleasures. But even I couldn't be arsed to watch The Island.

    Best for the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As much as I'd love to agree with everyone here (thereby proving myself foremost among the ranks of jaded screenwriter-critics), I can't.

    The Island wasn't terrific, but it was no worse than many other all-action no-story movies released every single year.

    I can simplify this whole thing. Why did it tank?

    Bad Trailer.

    The trailer was cut wrong. End of story. It pitched the movie as one thing when it was really another thing.

    Moral: Editors Are More Important Than You Think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:56 AM

    The Island is such an inexcusably terrible movie that it's difficult to know where to begin. How about this: I hate The Rock with every fiber of my being, but I know what it is. I get the good guys, the bad guys, the conflict, the quips, Connery, Cage, everything. I just hate it. But The Island is a mystery, a muddle, a true example of something where there was no one who had a strong guiding hand of what this movie was supposed to be.

    What's going on in the first act? What have the characters been told, what haven't they been told? What's with all the product placements? Why is this movie (when we get to the real world) set in the future when except for a flying motorcycle or two it doesn't affect the plot one iota? And if it is the future, why do we spend most of the time in abandoned warehouses, factories and dank basements with dripping pipes running everywhere?

    The bulk of the second half of the film is focused on Ewan McGregor's character seeking out the person he was cloned from, but this never comes off as a strong enough goal for the film to spend so much time on.

    Here's a story about The Rock that comes from a bio on Don Simpson: A writer and Simpson are sitting arguing about the script. The writer says it makes no sense. They can't have the lead be a guy who escaped from Alcatraz, because everyone on the planet knows that there is no such guy, that he doesn't exist. Finally, Simpson says, Fine. Nobody knows about him because nobody knew he was there. He was a secret prisoner! And they came up the Connery character
    and everything related to him. Again, I hate The Rock but there's a sort of genius working there. Which is totally absent from everything having to do with The Island.

    It is very easy to say that Michael Bay is one of the worst directors
    of our time. But that's just way too simple. If you sit down and really look at his films like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor and The Island and really study them, examine them as an adult, willing to look at them with the utmost seriousness as you should look at most movies anyway, you will actually come to the realization that Michael Bay is in fact
    one of the worst directors of all time. Hopefully people will begin to realize that.

    Happy Holdays, Emily. You've got one of the best blogs around.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is very easy to say that Michael Bay is one of the worst directors of our time. But that's just way too simple. If you sit down and really look at his films like Armageddon and Pearl Harbor and The Island and really study them, examine them as an adult, willing to look at them with the utmost seriousness as you should look at most movies anyway, you will actually come to the realization that Michael Bay is in fact one of the worst directors of all time."

    That made me lol.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd just like to chime in and say that not all movies are created equally. Not every film can be Citizen Kane, nor should they try.

    I think when it comes to movies, and most art in general, intent is very important. Some movies are made to be pure enjoyment. Some are made to be more, make us think, make us feel.

    Now, that said, it doesn't mean movies made for entertainment shouldn't be held to certain standards. But I don't think those standards should be comparted to a film that, say, Lynch would direct.

    If The Island is meant to be entertainment first and foremost, then they question is, "Did it succeed in entertaining the audience." For me the answer is yes. I was entertained. So I don't consider it a bad movie. If The Island was trying to be an allegory about modern man and his reliance on technology, sheding light on the road we may be headiing...then well, it failed.

    IMHO, movies should be judgely largely by their intent, with a dash of objectivity in terms of how the film is percieved.

    If you are trying to make the worst movie ever, and you come up with Freddy Got Fingered, then hey, you succeded. The movie is good on those terms. But if FGF was trying to be a great teen comedy, then it failed.

    I do like your idea about scenes being about more than one thing. I can think of a lot of examples where that has worked and help to make for a really good scene. But I do think there are times when scenes need to be obviously about a single thing. I think having every scene be about at least 2 things would be taxing for the audience, and may lead to some confusion about goals and motivations...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love you guys. Mr. Peel, you are wise on many levels.

    I see your point, Claude. I suppose I should TRY to make my scene about two things but not force it. We've done enough forcing of things around here already.

    "Why does Michael Bay keep on making movies? I guess Pearl Harbor sucks just a little bit more than I miss you."
    -Team America

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3:22 PM

    Someone I respect with good taste otherwise liked "The Island", so can't share the fun ripping on the movie. And I spent a few minutes listening to Bay's commentary on the DVD. About the only thing more worthwhile listening to is Arnold's on T3.

    Agree about your mention of layered scenes. Reminded me of this movie I saw again last night. Of course having that cast and director doesn't hurt any.

    Hope to see one (or more) of your projects make it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for sharing that clip. I've never seen that film, but that was a really good scene. I'll have to go watch the whole thing now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I saw The Island last night during a flu with a high fever. I am not sure whether that really affects my impression of the movie in a more negative way or not. I constantly kept on thinking: what.. wait... did highly paid Scriptwriters write this nonsense? Didn't anyone say: this doesn't make sense. You dont conduct a manhunt using two helicopters and two hummer trucks driving all the same direction when you don't know which way the clones have run. A train axle that you are able to roll by hand will not make An armored truck flip over... you don't get shrinking liver from having sex. When is this story supposed to take place? In the far future? Well then why do we see so many products of today in the film?
    Its just plain stupid and could have easily been better with 30% less action... and 4 times more pauses for thought.

    ReplyDelete

Please leave a name, even if it's a fake name. And try not to be an asshole.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.