MovieChat Forums > The Hunter (1980) Discussion > 'If you want to be a screenwriter watch ...

'If you want to be a screenwriter watch The Hunter'


The subject above is the title of one of the user reviews on this page and I couldn't disagree more (unless you interpret it as "watch this to learn what not to do").

Now, I know that most of the people who visit this page will be McQueen fans and defend this film to the hilt, but I'm not really attacking the film, just the idea that it has a good screenplay.

First up, don't you think it's a little episodic? (*Spoilers Ahoy*) For example:

* Picks up sheriff's nephew in southern state, warned by sheriff not to (storyline doesn't develop on from this);

* Also picks up Levar Burton (in opening scene!), whose only subsequent contribution to the film is he tries to repair a lot of things with generally poor results;

* Big chase scene with the Barnardo psycho, which comes fairly late into the story, and once once despatched, again has no significance;

* The Mason nutjob - the big villain of the piece, the only bad guy who threads throughout.... and yet he doesn't turn up until the 30 min mark, and then takes less time to dispose of than the random Barnardo kid!

* And what's the deal with the alcoholic friend who kills himself?? I mean, what would you do?? You visit a friend they're drunk, depressed, waving a gun around and threatening to kill the local drug dealer and then themselves. Naturally you open another bottle of whisky, get pissed and then leave. And when you hear the next day that your friend has topped himself you won't be surprised..... madness.

If this were good screenwriting (i.e. everything contributing to the overall narrative in a clean, lean manner with no flab) then perhaps.....

* The Southern sheriff would have sent some 'boys' up to Cali to sort out Poppa;
* Levar Burton's technical aptitude would have solved some problem in the final stages, with poppa using his skills to fight the bad guys;
* the big chase wouldn't have been with some random, only-for-this-scene generated character. Instead it would have been better as Mason (to give him some screen time).

The whole reluctant father thing might be sweet, (although only because it's McQueen playing it) but again, it doesn't really develop well or set up and pay-off.

Face it, this was a hack-job script, more suited for TV, perhaps one episode for each of the ideas in here (but more fleshed out). No disrespect to Stevie, but I had to respond to the idea that this is a good script. It ain't!

reply

Excellent points all. And the scene with the cops' standoff with the black guy with the flashy threads was likewise a big buildup to nothing. I liked a lot of the dialogue, which fit McQueen's unusually laid-back persona well, but the storyline was too episodic and TV pilot like you said.

reply

Every point you make is true, but I still llike the movie. I suspect because Steve McQueen made the character interesting and credible. I also liked seeing Papa as the bartender. (Made me feel 'in-the-know', when I recognized him.)

reply

I absolutely agree the script is the problem with the film. It is all episodic and nothing really ties together. We meet these people Papa is after and then they disappear and we move on to the next character. Much like television series are so maybe it isn't a surprise that direector Buzz Kulik was best known for his television work. Still in all I do rather enjoy the film - a guilty pleasure.

reply

Good points OP,

I remember first seeing this and thinking that the movie looked like a television mini-series that had been cobbled together for a film release - I was genuinely surprised to find this wasn't the case.

This is a very meandering film which seems to change it's tone drastically about every 5 to 10 mins and dosen't really work but I do enjoy some parts of the film all the same. But it is very weak compared to other McQueen action films such as the Getaway etc.

reply

excellent summary
agree completely
watched the film as 'the King of Cool's last work' and enjoyed it for what it was,
but all your points are valid and the screenplay is 'worthy' of TV during the decade, maybe...but not as good as James Garner's vehicles
compare to Charlie Varrick...not

reply

I understand what you're saying about this movie, but I think you have missed the point. Life itself is largely plotless, and not every movie has to follow a paint-by-number format for the screenplay. I liked this movie a lot, and was not the least bit bothered by the characters or what they were doing and why. I think McQueen knew the end was near, and played a role as near to life as he saw it. If you're looking for answers, maybe there aren't any. I especially liked his "house", full of people, and the woman who said "who are you". Oh, I live here. What's wrong with that?

reply

The house full of people was very confusing. It was only toward the end when he told them to get out that I realised it was his place. Until that point there was no indication whether it was indeed his, a boarding house or a commune. That's what I call weak writing. They could have just inserted a line to indicate the house was his in the first scene there. And, besides, I didn't find the idea of having a merry crowd of freeloaders in his place every time he goes home charming at all.

I'm here, Mr. Man, I cannot tell no lie and I'll be right here till the day I die

reply

Actually, I might agree - if you want to be a screenwriter, watch The Hunter and learn what NOT to do.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply