The End of Film - Lethal Franchises

(By special Mung Hour contributing writer, Double-S)

It is easy for the intellectual elite to point at recent cineplex fodder and declare the end of 'good'storytelling in mainstream film. Before embarking on a vivisection of the bloated Pirates finale, a meandering installment of the Spidey franchise, or the umpteenth variation on Ben Stiller's humiliated schnook, it is important to differentiate mainstream movies aimed at a broad demographic from those made with the intention of winning awards.

Bourgeois film experts can go all day long comparing Michael Clayton to The Verdict. Juxtaposing Eastern Promises against Scorsese's grittier work from the seventies will not tell us if film has evolved. No, if the modern American Movie Buff wants to take a
serious look at the evolution of film, he or she needs ascertain objectively whether or not Rush Hour 3 is a better film than Lethal Weapon 4.

Both are pointless installments for franchises long past their primes. Each featured leading actors just a little too old to recapture the physical acting magic from the first film(s). Though, six years had elapsed between movies in both instances, the original director was still at the helm. A veritable laundry list of other similarities could be identified if someone were so inclined.

My theory is simple. Mainstream film is better in today than it was ten years ago, because Rush Hour 3 is a much better movie than Lethal Weapon 4. Neither offered much in the way of storytelling, though Rush Hour 3 feebly attempted to weave in a bland arc about the meaning of friendship. LW4 was pretty much an episode of Three's Company with virtually all of the film's 'dramatic' tension derived from Danny Glover/Mr. Furley's obliviousness to the marital status of his character's daughter.

With RH3, the writers had at least read some instructional books on basic screenwriting. They drew a thin story thread from the first film and used it as the glue to connect some chases, kung fu fighting, and snappy one-liners. LW4 did no such thing.

It was just a series of noisy unrelated events bogged down by the needless inclusion of far too many characters. The film literally did not follow the three-act format. There were no acts. Characters
behaved in accordance with plot requirements. The illusion of motion was maintained by constantly rotating back and forth between humor and violence.

RH3 stuck to the two character original concept and did an okay job of being entertaining for ninety minutes despite the fact thirty years of stunt work had obviously hobbled one of its stars. LW4 featured
a plethora of ancillary characters that barely served to distract the audience from Mel Gibson's thinning hair.

In short, a rising tide lifts all boats. If a paycheck driven and pedestrian sequel is better today than in 1998, that simply must mean movies are better now than they were then. After all, had the bar not risen, it would stand to reason that Steven Seagal and
Jean Claude Van Damme movies would still warrant theatrical release.

But, that is another story.