Baywatch

Dir: Seth Gordon

2017

*

I loved a bit of Baywatch back in the day as did most people but when the series ended in 2000 after a decade of being on air, it felt right. There was a made-for-TV Hawaii special in 2003 if I recall but it wasn’t very good and lacked the magic of the original series. I enjoyed the days of Erika Eleniak and Billy Warlock but, unlike most series, it enjoyed a second wind half way through it’s run. They first announced a big movie version in 2004 but it became lost in development hell for many years, with multiple writers penning drafts that were never acted upon. I’m guessing at this stage people had moved on and the studios had other projects that took priority but with an already established name it is puzzling as to why they couldn’t get their act together. This was around the time that studios were remaking old TV shows like The Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky & Hutch, so I guess Baywatch wasn’t old enough to be retro, and thus considered. The comedy approach of those old remakes was clearly the only way that Paramount saw it being made, so in 2017 it finally happened. I can’t help but think it was made without passion, that the rights they owned were about to revert back because they’d done nothing with them, so decided to make it quickly, make some profit and essentially get rid of it. I get it, no masterpiece was ever made through this process but that’s fine, Baywatch never needed to be a masterpiece, it just needed to be fun and at least celebrate the original, if capturing the essence that made it popular in the first place seemed too impossible. Basically, they just needed to do what The Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky & Hutch did, but improve on that formula that was now over a decade old. In many respects that is exactly what they did but it is a worse film for it. After scathing reviews poured in from critics and fans alike, Dwayne Johnson tweeted that the film wasn't made for critics. While he might have been correct about the critics (even though that’s a ridiculous statement for an actor to say), he forgets that the fans hated it also. So who was this film made for, apart from the studio? Not the original fans, and why would a new audience be interested? It seems to be the go to feeble excuse when a film experiences negativity. ‘We’re aiming this film at a fresh audience’. Bull and shit, you can’t ever hope to capture the essence of the original so you’re just going to do your own thing. That’s fine, obviously you should never touch the classics (Ghostbusters) but most things a fair game, don’t expect anyone to buy tickets but go for it. Baywatch was a bit of fun, its nothing precious, so a comedy edge seemed reasonable. A full on send up, in the style of 21 Jump Street was also acceptable, preferred even. What they eventually came up with though is pretty horrible. I’ve always said that you can put Dwayne Johnson in any movie and it instantly becomes fun, but I think Baywatch is the film that proves me wrong. I like Johnson and I like Zac Efron but both of them made a huge mistake signing up for this disaster. So I liked the way the film subtly makes comment on the way the Life Guards think of themselves as above the law, like a police force of the beach and surrounding area and I liked how they made light of the fact that the original series was as much about the skimpy swimsuits as it was about the story and characters. The real problem comes with the script, the exaggerations and the grubby humour. The dialogue is dire, the screenwriters seem unable to string a simple and coherent sentence together. I loath the way the characters speak to each other, it’s completely unnatural and troublesome to watch. The ad-libbed lines are also rather painful, it seems that every film of this ilk has to have that ad-libbed scene, even though it hasn’t been funny since The 40 Year-Old Virgin. The character of Ronnie Greenbaum is particularly annoying, as he serves very little purpose and is incredibly unfunny, even though he’s clearly meant to be the funny one. I can’t help but wonder whether one of the producers is Jon Bass’ uncle or something (‘He was always such a funny child’). The David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson cameos were welcome but ultimately confusing. The Hoff turns up twice but it is unclear if he is real, a dream, or whether Johnson’s character was taught by him and they just so happen to have the same name. It’s odd that both names have high billing and aren’t uncredited to act as a surprise, like most cameos of this nature. Pamela Anderson also didn’t have any lines, which was odd and was a money saving/rights issue I’m sure. What kept me watching was just how odd the whole thing was. However, for as awful as all that is, I don’t care enough about it to care about it. What I really hated though was the low-level gross-out humour. It’s hard to believe films are still doing this? One scene has Johnson and Efron in a hospital’s morgue, looking under the testicular sack of a dead man for evidence of poisoning. Who on earth comes up with this sort of idea, who on earth green-lights it and who on earth finds it funny? Shock and laughter have always been linked but comedy has lost its way in Hollywood when this sort of thing is churned out again and again, without any focus on what is genuinely funny, and what is disgusting and shocking. By this point people are pretty numb to this sort of thing anyway, it has totally lost its edge and just isn’t funny anymore, the ball in zip scene in There’s Something About Mary having been the peak of its success. I’m certainly not taking the film too seriously, I really don’t care, but for those who suggest I lighten up and just let myself go (because the film wasn’t made for the critics anyway), I would suggest you are the ones taking it so seriously that you have to defend it so. To be clear, I like a bit of silly, I just don’t like stupid very much. Again, if you think that’s too critical then punch yourself in the face and then maybe I’ll laugh.