odonovan: Three Formulaic Films, Three Different Results

Why do Inside Man, Mission: Impossible III, and The Long Kiss Goodnight differ so dramatically?

(This review was published originally on cinekklesia on May 11, 2006.)

I imagine that most filmmakers would not want their movies described as "formulaic." Such a designation conjures images of Hollywood producers chatting excitedly over $30.00 salads and $6.00 glasses of sparkling water, pulling together the details of their next blockbuster: who's available to direct, whose agent will need to be contacted, who can play the love interest, what kind of "twist" the screenwriter will throw in at the end, etc. "Formulaic" connotes an absence of originality, a lack of creative vigor, a mindless cinematic repetition.

Yet, despite the "template" nature of formulaic films, they often differ dramatically in quality. It's almost like a basketball game: the rules are stable, and the action is repetitive—it's just ten players dribbling, passing, shooting, and blocking over and over—but the quality of the game varies immensely, depending on who's playing and who's coaching. The same dynamic applies in formulaic movies: good writing, acting, and directing are essential in determining whether a movie will be an enjoyable popcorn blockbuster or utter garbage. A formulaic movie doesn't have to be deep (most aren't), but it shouldn't waste the viewer's time either.

I recently have watched three formulaic films—Spike Lee's Inside Man (2006), J.J. Abrams' Mission: Impossible III (2006), and Renny Harlin's The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)—and I found their varying levels of quality instructive. Our first question: what makes them formulaic?

Inside Man is about a bank heist and hostage taking that hold a lot more than meets the eye. However, despite the "twist" at the end, the movie uses a lot of conventional motifs: wise-cracking detective, conflict between law enforcement and bank executive who wants to hide "delicate" information, and clever cat-and-mouse tactics on the part of the hostage takers. Yet, despite all of the convention, I found Inside Man fresh, exciting, and altogether enjoyable.

Mission: Impossible III is even more conventional: U.S. secret agent, weapons dealer with heart of stone, kidnapped significant other, explosions, cool gadgets, explosions, computer geek providing IT support from headquarters, shootouts, explosions....It was nowhere near as good as Inside Man, but still worth matinee prices — though evening prices might be hard to justify.

The Long Kiss Goodnight is both conventional and stupid. An amnesic woman who was found lying on a beach eight years prior builds a new life as a small-town schoolteacher. During the course of the movie, she discovers that she was a super-secret agent in her past and subsequently tries to "come in from the cold." The world has changed during the past eight years, however, and her former bosses want her dead. Torture, shootouts, explosions. Awful writing, awful acting, awful directing.

In order to make a formulaic movie at the level of Inside Man, one needs decent writing. A formulaic plot does not necessitate contrived dialogue. The skilled screenwriter can take the boring template that is handed to him/her and add some fresh, witty repartee.

In Inside Man, Russell Gewirtz peppers his script with well-timed, believable wisecracks and zingers that break the tension of the hostage-taking. We're not talking Oscar Wilde-caliber writing, but Gewirtz nevertheless gives us alternating doses of humor and anxiety to hold our attention for the full two hours.

Mission: Impossible III's script is nowhere at the level of Inside Man, but it is tolerable and certainly doesn't fail to meet (low) expectations. Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and J.J. Abrams gave Tom Cruise the right amount of dialogue to match his mediocre acting. Besides, it is perhaps unfair to judge this film by its script since the dialogue is interrupted constantly by gunfire, chases, and explosions.

If I were not a libertarian, then I would insist that Shane Black be incarcerated for writing The Long Kiss Goodnight. He clearly does not know how to add clever dialogue to a formulaic plot. In fact, he breaks one of the basic rules of creative writing: show, don't tell — just in case we miss the fact that the spy-turned-teacher-turned-spy is undergoing an identity crisis, Black essentially has his characters describe their feelings to the audience. In addition, unlike Inside Man's banter, the "humor" in The Long Kiss Goodnight is mind-numbingly flat — appropriate for a middle-school student's creative writing assignment, perhaps, but not for a professional script.

Without a decent script, the best actors cannot salvage a sinking movie, and our three films exemplify this harsh reality with stinging clarity:

Because they have a tightly written storyline to work with, the cast members of Inside Man don't have to stretch to make their characters believable. Denzel Washington does a good job of playing the wisecracking police detective, while Clive Owens holds his own as a thuggish hostage-taker harboring a clever secret. Jodie Foster's character (a discrete private investigator for the rich and famous) comes across as a little contrived, but the overall strength of the script renders her character a mild annoyance at worst.

As is the case with Mission Impossible's script, said movie's acting does not fail to meet (low) expectations. Every single character is a prop, serving the will of the action and the gadgetry. Yes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is probably the best prop out of the bunch, but he's still a prop; we know that he accepted this assignment both for the money and for the opportunity to work on a less demanding project. Ving Rhames, of course, was just playing the role he gets hired to play in every project — when you've seen one Ving Rhames performance....

The horrible acting in The Long Kiss Goodnight was both amusing and embarrassing. I felt bad for Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson since they probably did the best they could, given Shane Black's execrable writing. Nevertheless, Davis' portrayal of the teacher-spy is so choppy and immature that it reminds one of the embarrassing performances in high-school drama class — actually, no, those performances are usually better.

The reason why the director of a formulaic movie has to concern him/herself with at least tolerable writing and acting is because he/she is making a bargain with the audience. Provide a fun, smooth script with decent actors, and the masses will suspend their disbelief, no matter how improbable the story and/or action sequences.

While Inside Man isn't an action movie, it certainly can be described as improbable. Sure, exceedingly clever, jaw-dropping heists do happen in "real life," but they are rare — so much so that news accounts often describe them as "coming out of a movie." Nevertheless, because all of the other elements of Inside Man worked so well, the audience is willing to cut Spike Lee some slack and let him spin his tale.

Mission: Impossible III is, of course, all about action. Yet, while the script and acting were peripheral, they also were tolerable. Thus, they did not distract me from J.J. Abrams' main point — i.e., blowing up stuff. As I said, it's well worth matinee prices.

The Long Kiss Goodnight is full of highly improbable action sequences, and since the script and acting were abysmal, I was not willing to deal with Renny Harlin — he did not provide me with pleasurable entertainment, so I was not willing to suspend my disbelief.

So there you have it, Hollywood. If you want to make a good formulaic film, then make sure that you include some witty and fresh dialogue, which facilitates decent acting, which then motivates audience members to sit back, munch on some popcorn, and ignore the fact that the probability of the protagonist surviving that particular crash/fall/firefight is one-in-a-billion. The final scores for our three formulaic films: