Lesser movies

Everybody has those guilty pleasure movies that are generally frowned upon, yet you like them. Usually these films are the lesser productions of Hollywood.[1] And, of course, the more impressively bad a movie is (Super Mario, The garbage pail kids, Teen witch) the more impressive my response would be.

Now you can't blame people. Everybody's got one or two of these movies. As long as you know that the general consensus is that these aren't the best in the bunch it's all fine.

However, there are some movies that aren't (overall) considered that bad at all. They weren't financial hits or groundbreaking cinema they did what they had to do at the time, tell a compelling story. It's this niche that I want to delve in. Those movies that didn't quite make the cut and are usually considered to be a lesser movie. But not as horribly bad as, for instance, Troll 2.

Paycheck

Nowadays we live in a world of anthologies, serials and whatnot. There isn't a single blockbuster that has any chance in hell of becoming the greatest on its own anymore. And trust me, in a few years time summer season is going to be filled with parts twos and threes

Then why is paycheck a great movie? Well, let me start by asking you. Did you like it? Did you enjoy the villain getting his comeuppance in the end? I sure hope you did because I did. And if you didn't you might as well stop reading the article now because it is going to get a lot worse from here.

Second question: does it need a sequel? Nope, not needed. It could be done but why should it? Besides, since the movie wasn’t a massive hit at the time the chances of any money-hungry producer green lighting a sequel are not very likely (I’m looking at you Katzenberg and your ‘Want-More-Breaking-Bad’ claptrap.  If it’s good, leave it alone.).

For starters this film was a breath of fresh air for the two main actors. Ben Affleck just spent a year or two in the glossy column because of his relationship with Jennifer Lopez (this was way before he proved himself to be a capable director). And Uma Thurman just did Tarantino’s Kill Bill wherein she kicked all kinds of behinds. So for her to play the female lead in this movie and let all the behind-kicking to her male co-star was probably a relaxing few weeks of work for her.

The movie is a fun times at the movies. It’s got action. It’s got mystery. It’s got a love story. And the movie doesn’t expect you to remember it after you’ve seen it. Just enjoy the ride.[2]

Now before we delve into the story one thing you have to know about me, I’m a big sucker for a good script. Acting or directing doesn’t really interest me (unless something spectacular is being done). A good movie –to me- depends on how good the script is. Whether all the cause-and-effect makes sense.

And Paycheck's script works like a charm. Let me explain:

It starts great with Ben Affleck’s character showcasing his skills. A very simple trick with a 3d-television just to show how smart he really is. Next on the agenda is to show how capable he is in fighting (it is an action movie after all). Supported by the -always great- Paul Giamatti, Affleck shows those light pillars whose boss. And then the evil plot starts.

You see, Affleck’s character’s job involves –basically- stealing patented tech from other companies and taking it to the next level. After each time he does this he has his memory wiped of all knowledge of that particular project; Instant deniability. And of course the evil Aaron Eckhart (and let’s be honest you know he’s the main villain the minute he walks into the room) wants Affleck to do a little project for him.

Now we are going to delve in spoiler territory so be wary:

Affleck makes a machine that can see the future.[3] And, as the story tells us later on, he sees death and destruction in it. But he has no memory of it afterwards. Moreover, the minute he is released from the project and collects his paycheck (hey!) instead of money he gets a bunch of random items.  Now each of these items he uses along the way to find out what project he was working on whilst trying to escape the villains trying to kill him.

And this exact thing is the whole reason I’m deeply in love with this movie. Not only is it an action movie. It is also puzzle. The film asks viewers to figure out what item would belong where. Affleck even makes a big show of it by (one-by-one) showing the items to the camera and placing them all in a big question mark.

So there you are in the movie theater asking the same question as the main character: “What the heck does one do with a necklace and a bullet?” It’s a bit like the ‘whodunit’-question except you already know who did it –he just can’t remember why and what for.

Second, I love the fact that in the universe of this movie –once the magic future machine has been revealed- it actually makes logical sense that Affleck’s character uses every single one of these items along the way –he planned it as such.

Normally I hate movies wherein the hero finds several ‘Chekhov’s gun’s’ (look it up) at the beginning of the movie and in the end, ends up using all of them. Example, James Bond who uses exactly every gadget Q-branch ever gives to him and in the next movie, he doesn’t have them anymore. Wouldn’t it be great if Bond kept that dart shooting wristwatch from Moonraker? It would have gotten him out a lot of problems later on.

As a side note to this I like that Affleck and Thurman are in love in the movie. Simply because they became lovers during that time that Affleck can’t remember (and thus –you, the audience- doesn’t get to see). So there isn’t a shoehorned boy-meets-girl subplot that gets in the way of the action. No, one moment they meet, next moment they are a couple. And the script doesn’t need to explain this because it happened off screen.

Third, when you think about it afterwards, the silliest thing happens. Affleck and Thurman are never truly in danger because Affleck made sure (with this future machine) that they would survive. So we have an action thrill ride that actually acknowledges the fact that the heroes will survive until the end. Normally we –the audience- based on previous movie-going experiences, assume this on some sort of meta-level before ignoring it because we indentify and move along with the characters.

So, yeah, every action sequence –well done by John Woo- looks spectacular but there is no real sense of threat. And that’s great because the movie kind of tongue-in-cheek manages to tell you that everything will be alright in the end so you don’t have to pretend like other movies.

So yeah, Ben, Uma and Paul all survive the movie and live happily ever after. Even though Ben still hasn’t gotten his money – but hey he saved the world so that’s okay. And then, to finish it all up, they win the bloody lottery! Ben Affleck’s character might have waved away his original paycheck to do the right thing for once. But he sure as heck wasn’t stupid. I mean, it’s not like he’s tossing a million dollar diamond necklace into the ocean because…why really (the only scene from Titanic that still makes me cry –and murderous against little old ladies at the same time).

So this movie even ends on a happier note. Ben and Uma are in love and happy together and, sugar on top, they now also own a few million bucks. And the fun part is, (again) it works in the script. Moreover the movie is actually telling the audience that you should’ve know that Affleck hadn’t used all the items he received as his paycheck. It’s a polite add to the mystery-element of the movie and a small friendly twist-ending. Nothing fancy but that’s not what the movie wants to be. It wants to enjoy you. Give you a good time at the movies, like the next one.

Stargate

The movie Stargate doesn't get the love it deserves in my opinion. People usually refer to the television series as the better outing. The movie is -in this view- merely the rough, forgettable (bad?) version it was based upon. Pretty much like, Buffy the vampire slayer. Then again, I liked the original campy movie. However, Josh Whedon (who also wrote the original movie) made the concept entirely his own in the television show-elaborated on it. To such an extent that you can't really compare the two anymore.

The same goes for Stargate. The TV-show(s) and the original movie are two very different things so it doesn't do to compare them.

But then why do I like Stargate-the movie? For starters (again!) it is a great standalone movie. Nowadays I get pretty fed up with a movie ending with a potential sequel attached to it. No, this movie ends when the main troupe returns to earth. A sequel could have easily been written (the TV-series), but on its own this movies stands like a rock.

Again it is a fun ride of a movie that doesn’t pretend to be more than it actually is. Also the whole movie has an air of ‘everything will be alright in the end’. Great, I’ll just enjoy it then.

For starters it is fun to see James Spader as the good guy for once. He has played a whole lot of villains during his career so whenever he is a ‘goodie’ is always a treat.[4]

Second the story creates the possibility to have sci-fi elements in old times. Movie makers try this combination once in a while but it hardly ever truly works (cowboys and aliens).[5] Here it does because they play around with alternate reality.

Yes we are in ancient Egypt where people dress in rags and there is a lot of sand present. But not really ancient Egypt, actually a planet that looks a lot like it, so there is room for the filmmakers to be inconsistent with what we know about ancient Egypt (plus they don’t have to deal with time-travel paradoxes or whatnot).

But, what adds to this is that because the true ancient Egypt is such a mystery to us there’s also a lot of room to have some fun with. I assume it is widely known by now that Egyptians developed some sort of battery. So they were technologically advanced –just how advanced we don’t really know.[6] And in this mysterious realm it’s a simple step to take it up to an Atlantean eleven and introduce dictatorial aliens. Who gave them that technology? Well E.T. did.[7]

Now, the script is simplicity itself: Great American heroes go to undeveloped country, get acquainted with the weak but friendly natives, find evil power lord, start a revolution and (generally) kick evil lord’s butt.

Pocahontas on steroids if you will.

It’s not the most politically correct movie.[8] And I assume that the average (cultural) anthropologist will be rather shocked.[9]

But it is fun.  The villain is a true villain who couldn’t care less about his people and enjoys the Godlike status.[10] So you are very happy to see him get his due in the end -in a rather smart move to be exact.[11]

The natives aren’t mentally retarded (like Kipling’s the man who would be king) or even simple folk. They got brains, courage and strength; they just simply lack the moral and the knowledge of the situation. The actually believe that the evil alien is a God because they’ve never seen anybody like him before. Naturally the minute our American heroes arrive the power scale shifts. Now the natives start to realize –not only- that this God-thing is a scam but also that those new ‘Gods’ are actually a lot friendlier than that prick in the pyramid (say that ten times in a row).

Now, of course, the movie uses a lot of clichés: All American heroes are white. Kurt Russell’s character mourns the loss of his child and is on a suicide mission. James Spader’s character accidentally marries one of the natives. There’s an old woman in the beginning who has all the answers. Spader's science-geek character (a cliché on its own) solves the whole mystery. And so on and so on.

But, for me, this was the first movie in which I saw those movie tropes so it never bothered me. Now, being a bit older, I do see them, but I also see that these clichés are necessary to the script. How else do you bring an atomic bomb to a far away planet if you don’t have a suicidal colonel to accompany it? If you introduce a science geek to figure out the translation of the Stargate and decide to bring him along on the ride then of course you need to give him something to work out once they get there.

Third thing I liked are the special effects. The big problem of course with movies between (about) 2000 until 2013 was the heavy reliance on CGI. 2000’s Star Wars I partly sucks because of this overabundance of computer graphics that (even then) looks outdated.

In Stargate the moviemakers play with CGI (e.g. the mask sequence) but overall use practical effects. Now, I’m not going to delve in the discussion if practical effects are better than CGI. Or whether a combination of the two brings the best result. I just wish to point out that the makers of Stargate knew just when to use CGI and/or practical effects and when to simply tell the story.

Star Wars I overcrowds the movie with effects which gets in the way of the story. It is like George Lucas tried desperately to put an effect shot in the background of every shot in the movie. Remember those rereleases of the original trilogy. That moment in Empire before Lando betrays Skywalker and his friends to Darth Vader. The corridor they walk through suddenly has open windows with space-ships flying past. This distracts me –the viewer- from what the guy is actually saying.In Stargate they use some effects and sometimes the movies just places two people on a dune to talk things through. No effects, simply story.

Now, as a final note on this, because the story is simplicity itself there is a lot of room for character development and beautiful landscape shots. Because you don’t have to invest time in getting elaborate plot points across.[12] In short: you feel this strange Egyptian world come to life. And, as a result, all the characters that inhabit it come to life as well.

So to sum up: Stargate is a movie that presents itself as another fun ride. It has the simplest of stories with characters straight out of the how-to-make-a-movie booklet. But because the story doesn’t require an awful lot of explanation it has time to make these characters come to life. Throw in the fact that the script of the movie explains that it isn’t in fact true ancient Egypt it allows a certain amount of leeway with history and the portrayal of native inhabitants. You want to see sci-fi in ancient Egypt? You got it. Enjoy.

---

[1] Even though I did once meet a person who named Shindler's List as his/her guilty pleasure. Now what am I to make of that?

[2] The fact that I do remember this movie is a great thing. Because movies like Transformers or Eagle Eye; I’ve seen them several times but if you ask me to recount the story I draw a complete blank. Fascinating that some movies can be so easily forgettable. 
[3] Now I’m not going to delve in time-travel theory or anything. Because trust me that’s at least ten pages more. Just accept it. 

[4] I also liked him in the Watcher. Keanu’s performance in that movie however….

[5] Often by constructing some time-travel plot –e.g. Time Cop where the moviemakers wisely kept it pretty much a gimmick.

[6] Although it is safe to assume flying temples weren’t around back then.

[7] I not a big fan of the movie Cats and Dogs (I don’t hate it; it just doesn’t really do anything for me –maybe because I prefer cats over dogs). But I do always chuckle at the ‘explanation’ given in the movie that in ancient Egypt cats ruled the Egyptians. Because our archeologists don’t know that much about that time –in the fantasy of film- that could very well be the case.
Or, as Terry Pratchett would say it: “In ancient times cats were worshiped as gods. They have not forgotten this.” 
[8] That military salute of the natives at the end (oh dear). 

[9]  Though not as much as the end of Emmerich’s other film; Independence Day wherein he actually had some people dressed in loincloth and holding spears cheering when the spaceships went down. Like –yeah- that’s all that Africa is people in loincloths and twelve centuries behind the times. 
[10]  Also a very well cast part (Jaye Davidson). I wouldn’t be able to guess his age in this movie. He looks timeless (and a bit androgynous). The way I would imagine a God.

[11] I mean, how to get rid of the villain in a spectacular fashion and manage to get rid of the atomic bomb without destroying everybody (As mentioned before the A-bomb in this movie is like Chekhov’s gun, once introduced it has to go off at one point.)? 
[12] The more elaborate a plot the more you have to focus on people explaining things to further the story along and the less time you have to show the setting to immerse the audience into the story.