Anyone, except David Leitch, can say something about the honorary profession. After all, he had a hand in the most exciting action series of recent years: “John Wick”, “Deadpool” and “Fast and Furious”. At the same time, this is a series that manages to maintain an appropriate distance from each other and conventions. This distance comes to the fore in “The Stuntman.” Because the creators are imitations, parodies and satires – they directly refer to very specific film titles and indirectly suggest a commentary on very well-known figures in the film industry. For this reason, in the long segments the show resembles a game show, consisting of post-quote reveals and satirical caricatures.
There is strength and weakness in Leach's work. It is clear that the film relies on this multiplicity of references. It's the butt of many jokes — usually really successful ones, but sometimes so industry-specific that it's hard to guess. But even the best gags have to tire you out eventually when they're not balanced by a properly constructed plot. It is easy to see that in this case this balance was missing. On the one hand, “The Stuntman” wants to be a romantic comedy, and on the other, a full-fledged action movie, albeit one filled with sarcasm. In the end, it is neither one nor the other.
Ironically, the creators lost what seemed to be the essence of the project: distance. If everything is ridiculous, nothing is serious, every scene is accompanied by a wink from the producers, and the world presented is made up of movie quotes, it is difficult to get emotional engagement from the audience. This is what every good romantic comedy requires. No matter how much it plays with convention, how much it deconstructs and goes against the beaten path of genres, it will never achieve its goal if it is not slightly moved and unable to relate to the characters. And stuntman Colt and director Judy, although they are lovable (after all, they are played by a very cute couple, Ryan Gosling – Emily Blunt), are unlikely to convince us of their strong feelings for each other. Their romantic relationship has a paper rustle to the point of exaggeration. Maybe that was the plan – maybe the idea was to create another layer of self-referential play with the viewer, perhaps intellectually interesting, but emotionally, not necessarily. It's clear to the naked eye that screenwriter Drew Pearce had a great time writing this story, and the actors had more fun playing together on set, but that didn't necessarily translate to the final effect. Adversity brings laughter rather than stomach upset, and the fiery feeling between the characters is only evident through words — which, by the way, are too many for a movie about a stuntman. Instead of love explosions, we have explosions of cars, ships, helicopters, and even spaceships.
Although there are a lot of them, and the story revolves around the stuntman's profession, it does not translate into an engaging crime game. Although there are a group of armed men chasing Colt, there are a couple of plot twists and some additional scenes of hand-to-hand combat, but the heroes' adventures are clearly expedient. Obviously, the creators wanted something completely different from the engaging story – exciting bacon. This is how the film producer calls the entertainment layer of the film. Furthermore, “Stuntman” takes place on the set of its film, which looks a lot like a modern sci-fi film by a Canadian director (those colors! that music!). Gail tries to convince Colt that beneath that thick layer of tempting, crunchy, perfectly fried fat, explosions, and sexy actors, there is value and meaning in her films. The character, brilliantly played by the always wonderful Hannah Waddingham, was clearly intended as a parody of all the Hollywood hypocrites who try to convince the world that the entertainment class of their financial successes is merely a façade. After all, what really matters to them is art.
Leach makes no such statements. It just wants to give us some emotions, action, explosions, laughter and somewhat subtly disguised references to the movies we know so well. It simply wants to tear us apart – nothing more, nothing less. There is a lot of honesty in it, thanks to which the whole thing becomes light and almost unpretentious. Even when the main antagonist, actor Tom Ryder, is a caricature of a certain famous Tom, whose name also refers to a means of transportation, it's hard to see anything more than a malicious joke in him. It's exactly the same with all the other quotes, articles and references – they just seem to be a source of humor. “Stuntman” isn't like “Eight and a Half”, it's much closer to “Hot Shots!” Or another “bare gun”.
At the same time, while we're shamelessly eating our juicy bacon, a somewhat unexpected and disturbing thought may come to us. Isn't this whole project a cleverly camouflaged pressure campaign trying to impose the stunt category on the Oscars? As far as I'm concerned, they don't need to convince me anymore!
