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.
