How to: Cliché

I recently saw two Netflix movies which had a great deal in common and yet were so far apart in their deliveries that it got me thinking: how do you do a played out genre well? As a writer, trying to squeeze ingenuity and push innovation from tired tropes and clichés is a constant struggle. I've sometimes abandoned long projects because I thought they were already done to death, and unless I've got a somewhat unique spin on a classic story arc, I tend to avoid them like the plague. So when I watched Interceptor and The Adam Project, I couldn't help but wonder why one film fails in its cliché's where the other succeeds.

Now, to be fair, they're different movies in as many regards as they are the same. Interceptor is an attempt at a classic thriller with a race against the clock. Apparently, in this world, the United States only has two missile interceptor bases designed to stop nuclear missiles from Russia in the air. When the first base falls to mysterious hands, it's up to a small group of protagonists in the second base to fend off the intruders while trying to stop a global nuclear catastrophe. The Adam Project is a wild action comedy where middle-aged Ryan Reynolds teams up with kid-Ryan Reynolds to fix the future in the past.

Notice already that one plot sounds incredibly contrived while the other is simple. The plot of Interceptor reads like the inside front cover of a hardcover novel by an obscure author whose name sounds vaguely "authorly" that you'd find in an airport bookstore, tempted by its severe front cover and "critical acclaim" on the back. The Adam Project sounds like a silly yet straightforward pitch which has potential if it's put in the right hands.

And that's the second big factor: the right hands. At first glance, perhaps the cast isn't a fair comparison, as one film is led by the aforementioned Ryan Reynolds, along with Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Garner, and Catherine Keener, while the other is manned by Elsa Pataky, Luke Bracey, Mayen Mehta, and Aaron Glenane. However, I believe that all of the people in Interceptor are fairly good actors, but at some point even the best performers can't overcome a bad script. When I say the right hands, I'm talking only of the people who directed and wrote these movies.

Interceptor is written in a hasty, jumbled fashion. Every character is all too ready to spill their entire backstory with no prompt whatsoever, and on top of that, every character feels like some sort of parody of themselves. The caricatures walk around mundane setpieces spewing lines which may have been acceptable in the era of 80's zany action movies, but in the dire situation the film tries to establish, they fall utterly flat. The villains have no nuance except "America isn't the country it used to be," and, "We're going to tear it to the ground to build it up again." Elsa Pataky's caricature is the only one with some substance, but even that exposition is just spilled out all at once with no warning. It honestly reminds me of Avatar: The Last Airbender; every line of dialogue is either concocted ultimatums or exposition. Add an uninspired soundtrack and poor action direction, and you've got a stinker in the making.

The Adam Project is written for Ryan Reynolds, and he absolutely would have carried this movie, had it not been for his kid-counterpart, played by Walker Scobell, who hits it out of the park with his nearly two hour Ryan Reynolds impersonation. I jest, as Scobell also manages to deliver power dialogue with composure. The writing and directing of the film both feel decidedly more professional than Interceptor. Characters are reluctant to reveal too much about their past, they often don't want to participate in the plot, and there's growth in the hardship. From the outside looking in, a plot detailing time-travel with a villain who of course wants totalitarian control of the future, riches, etc., may seem doomed from the start. However, through witty writing, well-directed action, and heart wrenching moments, The Adam Project pulls through with flying colors. It doesn't linger too long on the techno-babble science; it doesn't try to be anything more than it can. It's a story about family and learning about oneself, told through humorous dialogue which teeters on the edge of overly-quippy, but saves itself perhaps purely on the backs of Reynolds, Ruffalo, and Scobell.

So I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is that when writing stories that involve played-out concepts, don't take it too seriously. Start with the characters, and if the story is one we've seen or read a thousand times, it's okay. Relatable humans with natural lives and goals will carry you through a myriad of cliché. On the other hand, if your story is plot-driven, you risk the characters falling into comfortable yet maddening banality. If your story is character driven and lighthearted in the face of tropes, then at worst you end up with a fun movie that may lack rewatchability or re-readability, but at best you'll get a movie which fits right in with the classics from which it heralds. Plot driven stories are at best mildly entertaining and at worst... Well, go see Interceptor.