WARNING!!!
These previews contain vital
plot information and other potentially movie-spoiling stuff!
If you don't want to know, read no further!
(Especially those at Illusion Entertainment whose only job seems to be brown-nosing Oliver
Stone so deeply
that they have to clean his belly-button lint out of their noses at the end of the day.)
U-TURN (aka STRAY DOGS)
Written by John Ridley. Directed by Oliver Stone. Starring Sean Penn, Jennifer Lopez, Nick Nolte, Claire Danes, Billy Bob Thornton, Jon Voight.
Okay, let's get this out of the way right up front... I like Oliver Stone's movies. Not all of them, and not equally, but I think he's made some of the best, ballsiest films of the past ten years. Now you say that and immediately people who don't like Stone's films begin to protest his bombast, his overindulgences, his pomposity, his heavy-handedness, his political points-of-view. Well, that's all the stuff I happen to like about his films. Love him or hate him, at least Stone gives you something to love or hate. These days most filmmakers' idea of a political message is: "The world unites, putting aside all racial, political and ethnic differences to battle aliens from planet Zircon!" Stone takes a hard look at what he considers to be the important topics of the past 40 years in America. And he's not afraid to give his opinions, which is what makes people most uncomfortable with him, I think. Oliver Stone puts his beliefs on the line with nearly every film he makes, and then doesn't back down when it comes time to defend himself in the press. He's passionate, he's driven, he's even maybe a little nuts - all the things that make us uneasy in our increasingly media-friendly, happy-news, hermetically-sealed existences. I also think he's a great director.
Stone's body of work has its high points and its low, but I happen to think the high points are spectacular. Beginning with SALVADOR, and followed immediately by PLATOON, he's exhibited a raw, in-your-face bravado that most filmmakers shy away from. PLATOON is the only film I've ever seen that made me feel as though I was actually in its battle scenes... and further convinced me that I'd have lasted about a day in Vietnam. The guy who shows Charlie Sheen the picture of his girlfriend and then gets killed that night? That'd be me. Except that guy wasn't weeping and shitting his pants from the moment he got off the plane. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY is a sledge hammer movie - there's nothing small or subtle about it. But it had to force us to remember a rosy vision of America that we don't have anymore in order to portray the depth of Ron Kovic's bitter disillusionment and his ultimate triumph. JFK showed Stone in top form as a director unafraid to take risks with subject matter or cinematic style. The film is a primer for conspiracy theories, using the story of Jim Garrison as its narrative spine. It's not about solving the mysteries behind the assassination of John Kennedy, it's about presenting different theories as an alternative to the Warren Commission's official version of events. I mean, let's get real here - anybody walking into a Hollywood movie expecting to hear the answer to who actually killed Kennedy is a doofus anyway. As for NATURAL BORN KILLERS? Who else could get a studio to put up that kind of money for what is essentially an exercise in surrealism? Like I said before - love him or hate him, at least he gives you something to think about. Which would you rather debate: theories about who killed Kennedy, or whether or not Robin Williams could really put on all that make-up every day to act as his kids' nanny? (Which he couldn't. No way. All that make-up? Forget it.)
"Directorial decision... do I do the 'shrooms, or the hash?"
That said, I was anxious to read STRAY DOGS (retitled U-TURN for release), John Ridley's script for Stone's next film. Putting aside his political leanings, Oliver takes on neither the Humane Society nor the Department of Motor Vehicles. This is the story of John Stewart, a guy on the run after stealing some money from the mob. His car breaks down in a hot, miserable hell-hole of a desert town in the middle of a heat wave. When the money he stole is destroyed in a bar fight he is unable to get his beloved 64 and-a-half Mustang out of the shop, and himself out of town. Stranded, he meets Grace McKenna, a woman far too beautiful to be stuck in a place like this. Accompanying her to her house, they are about to make film-noir-ish love when her husband Jake arrives. Jake is suspicious of John, John is surprised Grace is married, and Grace turns cool manipulator. John leaves, but is surprised when Jake follows him - and makes him an offer. Jake would like John to kill Grace for him because he's "sick and tired of her little games" and wouldn't mind cashing in the $50,000 life insurance policy he has on her. John initially declines the offer, but when circumstances make it seem like he may never get out of this godforsaken town he accepts Jake's offer. But! When John goes to kill Grace he ends up sleeping with her instead (a common hit-man goof), and she then tries to convince him to kill Jake for her. See, Jake's supposedly got a bundle of money in a floor safe in the living room. A safe that takes a key to open. A key that Jake wears around his neck. A key that you'd have to kill him to get. So now we're going back and forth - who can John trust (no one, of course... sheesh, you had to ask?), who, if anyone, will he kill (he goes to kill Grace but ends up killing Jake... it's like a twist or something), and will he get away with the money and the girl (no way... it's a cynical film noir, nobody gets anything they desire)?
As I read this script three words kept running through my head: RED... ROCK... WEST. It's basically the same dynamics, all the typical stranger-in-town, who-can-he-trust-the-wife-or-the-husband, will-he-do-the-evil-deed stuff that's so common to film noir. And that's what was disappointing to me about this script, there was nothing terribly new or interesting about it. It's trying to approach the story as a comedy, but it's not all that funny. (Sample gag: the old blind beggar in town... is not really blind! Oh ho! Never seen that before! Christ, that joke is so overused that when you see a blind beggar in a movie nowadays you're more surprised if he actually is blind.) RED ROCK WEST did a smart thing - it gave you a main character who you could identify with. He was legitimately down on his luck through no real fault of his own, and found himself in a situation that got out of hand. The John Stewart character in this script is not identifiable at all. He's a scummy crook on the run from more successful scummy crooks. As a result, when things start to pile up on him, conspiring to keep him in town, you don't laugh at the running jokes... you just wish the script would get on with it. Now, I'm not one of these guys who thinks the main character in a script has to be sweet and likable, but there has to be something there that makes us care enough about what happens to him that we actually want to follow him throughout the film. This script doesn't have that. What it has is attitude, but that's not enough when working in a genre where the plot mechanics are such a given. STRAY DOGS doesn't provide any new twists to the formula, it relies on all the old, familiar twists.
MY PROGNOSIS? This film has an awesome cast, and I think Stone is a terrific, stylish director... but I can't see it being all that successful. Unless Jennifer Lopez spends a lot more time naked in the film than her character does in the script. Then all beats are off. Bets! I meant to say 'bets'.
I'VE BEEN A BAAAAAAD BOY...
It's recently come to my attention that a gentleman claiming to be an associate of Oliver Stone's has objected to the fact that the review you've just read gave away the ending of the movie. He went so far as to ask the author of another website to eliminate the link he provided to this review. Nice, huh? I guess it doesn't matter that this site - as well as the site providing the link - provides ample warning that this review gives away plot details. The gentleman went on to complain that this review is based on an early draft of the script, to which Stone has made significant changes, suggesting that I should wait until the film comes out and review that. You know, I appreciate suggestions, and as a screenwriter I don't mind constructive criticism - heck, as a screenwriter I don't have much of a choice. So I thought about this gentleman's suggestions and decided that perhaps I should make a few of my own...
My first suggestion would be to know what in the hell you're talking about before firing off letters trying to kill access to an article you don't agree with. If the gentleman would have simply looked around this website he'd have discovered a few facts that seem to have slipped past him. First: I give a very strong warning on the contents page leading to the script reviews that important, possibly movie-spoiling details are given. Second: I also state clearly that these are reviews of scripts, sometimes early drafts, and that the final film will probably be significantly different. Third: I urge readers to not base their judgement of the final films on what I write, because I have not SEEN the final films at the time I pen the reviews.
My warnings are designed to give the reader a choice as to whether or not they'd like to continue on. A choice. Which seems to be more than the gentleman wants to give potential readers. Look, I know this is really not that big a deal, but this kind of shit absolutely pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. Who the hell is this guy to try and dictate what people have on their websites? Especially when this guy invokes the name of Oliver Stone. Suggesting that a website eliminate the link to this review rather than simply warn readers about its content doesn't exactly jibe with the freedom of expression Mr. Stone himself has so often defended and relied on.
Do I think this guy is acting as Stone's mouthpiece? Hardly. I doubt Stone could be bothered to give a shit about some little script review on an obscure webpage like mine. But the guy does like to throw Ollie's name around in his letter, which makes Stone (to some point) an unwitting participant in this attempted act of censorship.
And here's the final irony - the webpage providing the link to this review also carries a link to Daily Variety's review of the film. A review which gives away as much, if not more, than my script review does. The difference? The Daily Variety review is a rave. Hmm. I wonder why the guy didn't feel the need to ask that that link be removed as well?
Again - I realize that this isn't really all that important. I mean gimme a break, we're talking about a review of a MOVIE script here - and a film noir movie script at that. Not exactly government secrets. But any act of censorship, no matter how small, still chips away at our ability to speak freely about whatever the hell it is we want to speak about. We should all quit trying to protect 'others' from what we deem unacceptable. You don't like it? Fine - don't like it. But when you try to eliminate it you further weaken our already fragile right to freedom of expression - without which, I dare say, the gentleman who wrote the letter would not have his nice Hollywood job. Or, as Lucy would say to Charlie Brown, "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!"
WAIT - IT GETS BETTER
Remember how I said I thought Oliver Stone couldn't be bothered to care about a review on a little webpage? Wrong again, screenplay boy. Seems Oliver's not an unwitting participant in this attempted act of censorship, but is full-on witting.
See, the gentleman who wrote the initial letter protesting the link to this review apparently wasn't happy that his censorship requests weren't immediately obeyed, so he ran to daddy. The author of the website providing the link received two pieces of e-mail - one from the gentleman, and one from Stone himself. Stone suggested that copyright had somehow been infringed upon - copyright emphasizing the idea of an intellectual product - and that this particular product had been demeaned by an irresponsible reviewer who revealed the ending to his film. He also called me an asshole. Hmm. Called an asshole by Oliver Stone... I think that puts me in some pretty good company!
You know, it's funny how peoples' perceptions differ. My definition of an asshole is someone who tries to infringe upon free speech and free access to information while relying on the same to get his often controversial messages out. Silly me.
I'm gonna say it again - I GIVE AMPLE WARNING TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE PLOT DETAILS REVEALED WITHIN THE REVIEWS. Jesus Christ, what is so frickin' hard to understand about that? But apparently warnings are not enough, as Stone's associate writes that the placement of such warnings next to a link only entices people to read it. WHAT? Are we all six years old here? You know, it's this arrogant, elitist insistence that the general public (too stupid to make their own decisions regarding what to read, or think, or do) must be protected from themselves that leads to more vile, pervasive acts of censorship.
The sad thing is? It worked. The author of the website removed the link to this review - partially at my insistence. The subtle political pressures used ("If I can't convince him to take down the link I'll get Oliver to write him - that'll make an impression.") were not lost on him, and as he runs a site devoted to Stone, it's better to stay on his good side than mine. There are no hard feelings on my part - I was happy to have the link in the first place, and the author of the site treated me with more common sense and respect than Stone and his associate could ever be bothered to muster. But I will say that the next time Oliver Stone wants to champion freedom of speech and unrestricted access to information he should make sure his own house is in order. Stone also invoked 'le droit de l'auteur' to support his arguments. Well, I invoke 'l'air du temps' when I say that I think his argument stinks. It's amazing to me that he has the nerve to bring up the rights of authors while shitting on one of those basic rights - the right to be read by the widest audience possible.
So how do I feel about all this? I feel like I've been cut off at the knees by forces more powerful than I. I feel like my honest attempt to provide information to those who want it has been hindered. And I feel a little betrayed that I've been demeaned and called names by someone I thought might have a little more understanding of what I'm trying to do. I guess I feel a little like... Jim Garrison.
AND THE CRITICS SAY...
NY TIMES: "U-TURN is a steamy film noir anomaly in the never dull, ever-checkered career of Oliver Stone... It tells a relatively unencumbered tale of greed, lust and the usual etceteras... However simply he approaches this familiar milieu, Stone winds up treating his story's sin-soaked connivers the way Francis Ford Coppola treated vampires. Neither of them is really capable of anything plain... Indeed, Stone's gleeful experiment is often as liberating for the viewer as it must have been for him."
CRITICS CHOICE: "Folks who purchase a ticket for Oliver Stone's most current offering, U-TURN, might be disappointed. They are not going to be hit over the head by political theories that only a few hold dear, and they will not be barraged by pretentious sociological mutterings paired with split-second editing of images only freshman film students could be amazed by... Instead, one of our most controversial directors has returned to the top of his form, employing a film noirish plot to both entertain us and to slightly reinvent the medium... This often hilarious, always visually stunning, thriller has a well-known cast playing it to the hilt... each caricature is perfection... But what's really special in U-TURN is the manner in which Stone punctuates what the character is saying with what he is thinking. This is a terrific director not playing it safe and here he succeeds as never before."
ROGER EBERT: "Only Oliver Stone knows what he was trying to accomplish by making U-TURN, and it is a secret he doesn't share with the audience. This is a repetitive, pointless exercise in genre filmmaking - the kind of movie where you distract yourself by making a list of the sources... Much of the story comes from RED ROCK WEST, John Dahl's 1994 film about a man and a wife who both try to persuade a drifter to kill the other... Stone is a gifted filmmaker not afraid to take chances... Here he's on holiday. Watching U-TURN, I was reminded of a concert pianist playing 'Chopsticks': It is well done, but one is disappointed to find it done at all... The film is well made on the level of craft... But it goes around and around until, like a merry-go-round rider, we figure out the view is always changing but it's never going to be new. There comes a sinking feeling, half an hour into the film, when we realize that the characters are not driven by their personalities and needs, but by the plot. At that point they become puppets, not people. That's the last thing we'd expect in a film by Oliver Stone. * 1/2"
NY OBSERVER (keep in mind this is Rex Reed, folks): "No amount of St. John's Wort will get you through U-TURN. You need stronger stuff, since it's a movie so stupefyingly bad it seems to have been made by people stoned on Prozac and helium. Not so much directed as hallucinated by madman Oliver Stone, this lurid, violent and pretentious cross between BLUE VELVET and DUEL IN THE SUN is not as much fun as it sounds... The cinematography is ugly, the actors look embalmed (especially Nick Nolte, who resembles the head of a centipede), the writing is uniformly lousy. It seems to have been made by an idiot savant... Vultures circle overhead in every scene while it just lays there stinking... What U-TURN is, really, is an unmitigated pile of crap - and one of the worst non-movies ever made." (Reyowwwwrrr, Rex. So I guess that means he gongs U-TURN. Okay - on to Jaye P. Morgan's review...)
WHILE THE PUBLIC SAYS...
U-TURN made $2.7 million in its first weekend of release, finishing in ninth place despite a marketing blitz by Sony Pictures. Gosh, do you think it's because all of America read my review and had the ending ruined for them?
Hunt and peck to return to
the Script Review Archives!
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free
Home Page!