The key players for making a good movie
What makes a good movie. April 23rd, 2008I have been examining movies in a new way recently. I have been breaking them down and really determining what makes them good, bad or a total waste of my time. I have been having some really good conversations with people on the subject as well. So who would The Movie Whore get to make a good movie, let’s find out.
Writer: It all starts with the writing. The script is the single greatest tool that film makers have to work with. The script gives you the dialog. The script gives your imagination a place draw your visuals from. It is the script that is the back bone of the movie. With out the script you have nothing.
Script Supervisor/Editor: Some people write great things and others take those great things and make them better. You have to have some one that can punch things up. Some one that can do some research and make sure the script is solid. Some one to look at the writer and say “You want them to say what?”
The editor also has to look at the context of the story and make sure that the content matches up. It makes no sense to have a movie placed in 17th century and have them speak modern English unless you are making a parody movie of sorts. Worst context to content error is the remake of Romeo and Juliet with Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio. You can not update your world and not update your dialog. I hated this movie with every fiber of my being. Now Uncle Lloyd (Lloyd Kaufman of Tromaville Productions) got it right. Shakespeare was satirist. He looked at the world around him and saw the stupidity. How do you think he came up with Romeo and Juliet. So if you are going to update it you have to update everything and engage in the process with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Your editor also has to check out the technical part of the story. If you making a movie about time travel you better get your science right because the audience is not stupid. You have to stick to your science all the way through. If the script does not hold up it’s the editors job to go back to the writer and help him/her fix it.
Director: The director has to be able to understand the writers vision. The director has the job of bringing the writers vision to life. The director has make sure that he picks the right actors to deliver the dialog. Great dialog can be killed by bad delivery. The director has to decide about what kind of special effects are needed to tell the story correctly. Overdoing your effects can kill your story just as fast as bad line delivery. Just ask Michael Bay. Mr. Bay has always made visually pleasing movies but forgot about telling the story. This is why I was so surprised by Transformers. Say what you want but it was a solid movie from beginning to end. The directors choice to take Bumble Bee and make him a Camaro upset a lot of fans. But then in the scene that we get introduced to Bumble Bee he parks right next to a yellow Bug. This shows how ridiculous it would have been to keep him as the classic VW. Bay even takes a shot at himself with the guy running down the street after one of the Autobots crash lands, he screams “This is a thousand times better than Armageddon.”
The director sets the tone of the movie. He/she tells the writers story. A bad director can kill a good script faster than anything.
Actors/Actresses: They have the daunting task of breathing life into the writers dialog. Delivery can kill dialogue. Again you have to find balance between context and content. You have to know the character. You have to be the character. Bruce Campbell became Ash. I know odd reference. Why reference a B-Movie actor, because he is a great B-Movie actor. Watch Bubba Ho-tep and watch it only for the acting. Then come back tell me if he is a good actor or not. Just because the man chooses to star in smaller indy flicks does not take away from his talent at all. It just means he has his own principals and he sticks by them unless Sam needs him for a cameo. Sam Raimi (The guy that did the Spidermans) and Bruce have been making movies together since high school. Now I want to picture some one else playing Ash in the Evil Dead remake. Did you start twitching, I did. The right person for the role is essential to telling the writers story.
Costume Designer: “The clothes make the man.” There is a reason this cliché has been around so long. When you apply this cliché to movies it is absolutely 100% true. Bill and Ted wearing polo shirts and Dockers just does not work. Enough said.
Set Designer: The place has to fit the story. It has to be believable surroundings. You can’t have a movie set in the 17th century in a castle with a Lazy-boy recliner facing a big screen TV. Pretty straightforward.
Make up: Look at Coming to America. The make up on Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall was astounding. Eddie Murphy as a crusty old white dude was one of the most amazing make up jobs I have ever seen. Until I saw the credits I would not have known that was Eddie.
Special Effects: Michael Bay made CGI work in Transformers. The CGI team hated him. He kept coming back and telling them that it was not good enough. He wanted kung fu robots. Watch the movie and tell me the CGI was not top notch. Now there is also something to be said for using old fashion gags. Look at Underworld. Sure Len Wiseman used CGI but they avoided it at all costs. They actually had the effects guys design stilts and costumes so they could use real werewolves as much as possible. The movie was a perfect blending of CGI and good old fashion special effects. Let’s take it a step further and go with the movie FX. The movie is about a guy that is supposed to be a special effects wizard and he uses no CGI. The movie is filled with good old fashion gag work.
Cinematographer: AKA the camera guy. The man behind the shutter has the ability to capture or miss what is going in any scene. What’s the one thing every one knocks Kevin Smith for, even Kevin himself, his movies look like crap. A cinematographer brings a visual style to the movie that can enhance the telling of the story. This person can make the call on lighting and wide or narrow angle and many other choices and techniques they have at their disposal. While making it look good can have a tremendous positive impact, having it look really bad better mean you did it that way on purpose. Let’s go to the shaky cam. Developed for the filming of the Evil Dead. How do they get those scenes of the camera movie through the woods. They strapped a camera to a piece of would and two guys started running lifting and lowering the camera to give the effect of an other worldly presence racing through the woods. Oh and no one had done that before.
Composer: Mood music does just that, it sets the mood. It enhances the movie goers experience and draws them into the story. How many guys have used music to seduce a woman, all of us at one time or another. Well the music in your movie seduces the movie goers, bringing them into your evil clutches that much easier.
That is some of the key players for making a good movie. In accordance with the prophecy. If you don’t get that one you need to spend more time with your Stumble button.
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |








April 24th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I have never been a fan of Eddie Murphy, but I do find the films where he plays most of the cast genius. I have yet to watch Norbert, but I will at some point. Maybe. I dunno. Is it worth the watch?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
No it was not. I try not to say too many bad things about people but this movie was not good.
MovieWhores last blog post..The key players for making a good movie
April 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I never even heard of Norbert, probably for good reason. There is a lot that goes into making a movie good; I never realized it, but the cinematographer probably really impacts whether I like a movie or not. If I am not visually entertained, I won’t watch it. Thats why I can’t sit through and watch old black and whites or even shit from the 50’s/60’s.
As far as CGI is concerned, I think it sucked in Star Wars 1-3; the originals 4-6 will always be better. I agree the key to using CGI is balance; if abused it can singlehandedly ruin a movie.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Jim, this is all dead on. Transformers was an amazing use of CGI. I always think of the Matrix as being groundbreaking with special effects. There are still CGI people that don’t know what they did in the last two movies.
Star Wars always seemed to demonstrate that Lucas had the baddest and sickest technology in CGI use. The opening of Episode II (Padme’s shuttle with the decoy queen) demonstrated sick computer graphics. Just as the opening of Episode III did in the star fight. Come to think of it, Lucas loves to open his movies this way (star destroyer fly-overs in original trilogy). Anyway, cool post!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:53 am
I am trying to think of a film that I couldnt watch because of the CGI. I have the film Ultraviolet in my head. If it wasnt for staring at Milla Jollo…jolo…villojo…you know the one, then I wouldnt even have lasted the 10 minutes I watched it for.
Sys last blog post..It seems like a load of balls to me.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Colt, Sometimes CGI can tell a story better. Beowulf had to be 100% CGI for the story they were telling using the actors they used but usually a more balanced approach is what you want.
Jon, Thanks. The George knows his despite what a lot of fans say.
Sy, I loved Ultraviolet. It was cheesy on purpose and it was fun.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I just couldnt watch it. And I am a huge fan of Milla. OK, so that is in the “lets spend some time alone. You, me, jelly wrestling and a large tub of cream” kind of way. But I just couldnt do that film at all.
Sys last blog post..It seems like a load of balls to me.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
You know whats funny, I just watched Beowulf for the 1st time last weekend and I thought it was good, not great but good. The story could have been better and more accurate to the book but overall I would give it a C+/B-. I just felt like I was watching a cartoon the whole time, and if I am going to be watching a cartoon, I think I would rather see hand drawn figures like in Clone Wars (excellent movies) and the Anamatrix. At least I think they were drawn, I could be wrong.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sy, it wasn’t bad and put the jelly away you sick bastard.
Colt,I don’t think it would have had the same effect had it been done as a cartoon. I think it actually would have made it cheesier.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I saw Beowulf in 3D Imax. Although there were innacuracies, it was a heck of a sight/sound experience. 3D Imax is almost a full sensorium.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I’m getting really pissed off with CGI in movies - more so because a lot of the times, I just really think practical effects would look better. “The Mist” was one of my favorite movies of last year, but there were a few times where some of the stuff just bugged me [mostly the tentacles in the first big "scare" sequence]. Michel Gondry is one of the few guys I see still working with practical or in-camera effects and I wish I saw more of that. Not saying all CGI sucks - you couldn’t have had a good X-Men or Spider-Man flick without it, but don’t be afraid to let the audience use their imagination!
End rant.
Bang on post Jim.
[still gotta see "Beowulf". i heard the dragon is badass]
April 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Jon, I bet that was awesome. Definitely a movie that lends itself to that kind of venue.
Dom, I totally agree with you. One of the reasons I was so happy to hear that Spielberg was going with the low tech approach to Indy 4. The man is actually using film instead of digital cameras. I can’t wait to see this flick.
I also read an interview with Jon Favreau this morning and he talked about how he tried to use as little CGI as possible for Iron Man which will just take this movie over the edge as far as the WOW factor.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Think I read the same interview. I love that guy. He’s gonna do big business this weekend, guaranteed.