Sep 30, 2011

King Kong - 2005

Peter Jackson has (for me) always been suspect as a maker of major motion pictures. Does he have admirable drive? Sure. Does he know how to crack the whip and keep things moving? Sure. Can he be trusted to not run off with the studio's $200 million? Sure. But there's more to making quality entertainment than being able to muster the troops and guard the bank. You have to care about the viewer as well. And Jackson, frat boy that he is at heart, can never quite bring himself to remember that. (His complete disregard for continuity nearly destroyed The Lord of the Rings.)

With that said, and given that I'm always wary of remakes anyway, it's fair to say I approached Mr. Jackson's $200 million version of King Kong with a healthy dose of skepticism. Was this a film that needed to be made? Really? Why? What could Peter Jackson say with a remake of Merian C. Cooper's classic 1933 film that hadn't been said just fine in the original? Would Jackson abandon his contempt for the audience and pay attention to the details this time? (LOTR had a lot of juicy detail to be sure, but those details were embedded in areas where his control was secondary: set design, costume design etc. The areas he had complete control over - direction and editing - were full of examples of a director who thinks "They'll never notice anyway.")

It didn't take long for me to have my answers. The first thing that jumped out at me right away were the horrible casting decisions. Adrian Brody is the worst choice for a male love interest since, well, since nobody. He's the worst. Andy Serkis proves once again that when you take all those cute little locator balls off of him and stick him in front of the camera to actually act he is simply not up to it. I can only assume he gets work with Jackson because he shares Jackson's frat boy mentality and that, because of this, Jackson finds his presence comforting. Either that or he has some photos that Jackson doesn't want to see the light of day.

And then there's Jack Black. Ah Jack Black... What can one say about Mr. Black's performance here? Off-hand, undisciplined and distracting are words that spring to mind but maybe the most appropriate word is, "inappropriate". The comic relief should not be the central character (and by sheer force of personality Black makes himself the central human character whether Jackson and Co intended him to be or not). While his part wasn't written to be comic relief Black doesn't really know any other way to play things, and normally that's fine because he's a comedic actor and as such he's among the best there is. But here it simply doesn't work as he spends three hours with his tongue barely concealed within his cheek.

The other reason this Dodo doesn't fly is the length. Jackson, its seems, has had one too many conversations with James Cameron and the latter has obviously told him "Pete don't let anybody tell you that anything you shot shouldn't go in the film. I say if you shot it, use it." and Jackson has taken his advice to heart. (For the record I'm of the opinion that Cameron's "Aliens" - the theatrical release - is the best movie ever made. But it was made before he had the clout to demand final cut and all of his subsequent films have suffered from his inability to edit himself.)

One way they could have shortened the film (and made it immeasurably better in the process) would have been to remove the entire 'spider pit' scene. This scene is more evidence of Jackson's frat boy mentality; at least I hope it is. Because if it isn't it means that Jackson simply doesn't know the definition of the word "gross" or understand that "gross" should never be a word you want attached to your wanna be blockbuster. I'd register a guess that this scene is the single biggest reason the film stalled at the box office.

"Did you see King Kong last night?"
"Yeah."
"Well?"
"It was okay, except there was this really gross scene..."

Hey, that's the kind of word of mouth that'll have the ladies scrambling for tickets! I remember being in the theater and watching nearly half the crowd turn away and many of them go "Ewwwwwwww". A few even walked out. I'm sure if someone pressed Jackson on why he felt it necessary to include this huge gross-out in the middle of his love story he'd say something about artistic integrity. BS. The integrity of a work of art depends largely on how the piece (regardless of medium) works as a whole and this scene undermines everything else about King Kong. The movie, already on the shaky ground established by questionable casting decisions and the nagging feeling that it lacks justification, never really recovers from it.

And what about that justification? Well, the rest of the movie doesn't add anything to the essential narrative laid down in 1933. It doesn't illuminate any hidden streams of meaning that eluded me when I watched the original. In short, it's not a contemporary updating of a classic, it's just a re-filming of a classic using modern techniques. The only things that are different are that in this filming the relationship between the beauty and the beast is a two-way one (a twist introduced in the Dino DeLaurentis 1976 version), and Jackson includes the spider pit scene which Cooper had the good sense to leave on the cutting room floor.

King Kong then is one of the great follies of modern cinema. A vanity project done by exactly the type of person you don't want doing a vanity project: a vain person. Should you ever be tempted to pony up money for the DVD, don't. Buy the original instead and enjoy some first rate movie making.

Sep 26, 2011

Kill Bill Vol's I and II - 2003/2004

Kill Bill Vols 1 and II, Quentin Tarantino's exuberant nod to himself, is an example I suppose of what extremely talented artists do when they've got nothing better to do. They play with their paints. But as a nod to himself it's also the first (of what I hope will be a very short list) of his films that qualify as being little more than Quentin Tarantino brand product.

There isn't much plot that's for sure, only motive; and that motive is revenge. Once we get that (and we get that right up front when we're reminded "Revenge is a dish best served cold") there's nothing else to really "figure out". In other words, the film is set up from the outset to be all style and no substance. That seems like a good reason to give this film a pass, unless of course you are of the belief that style is substance. Personally I'm inclined to believe that style indicates the presence of substance somewhere; usually anyway.

When Tarantino's characters wink at the audience (and there's so much winking going on here its as if the films stars have all developed nervous twitches in their eyes) it's a fundamentally different experience than most times you encounter this in a film. His character's are not saying "Get it?" they're saying "Quentin knows exactly what you want to see here and now watch him deliver it in a way that only he can". It's chest thumping by the director with the willing consent of the ensemble cast who no doubt want to be called in to work on the next project.

So it takes a certain generosity of spirit to enjoy Kill Bill because you have to admit up front that QT knows better than you; that he's a master and you are at best the acolyte. If I enjoyed it its not because I'm the Buddha or anything but because, to me, there IS something thrilling about watching someone who really knows what they're doing go about their business.

In the hands of a less visually and culturally astute director, the shortcomings of Kill Bill's script would have made the experience unbearable. Instead, in Tarantino's hands, Kill Bill is like standing in front of a Matisse painting of goldfish. Granted there's not much there to engage the mind from a narrative standpoint, on the other hand if you can't appreciate the tension Matisse has infused his seemingly simplistic composition with or the way the crude, cadmium orange shapes of the goldfish seem to spring to life within the skewed visual world of the bowl then I don't know what to say. Go buy a Thomas Kincaid. Likewise if you are unable to enjoy the exquisitely crafted Japanese Garden scene where The Bride has her showdown with Tokyo crime boss Oh-Ren Ishii then maybe you shouldn't waste any more money on movies period.

There's no point getting into the particulars of the plot because, as I stated up front, there isn't one. No one is going to mistake the Bride for Ripley. Tarantino's female avenger is drawn in the broadest possible strokes so as not to confuse the viewer into thinking there might be something beneath the surface of Kill Bill that isn't there. We don't need to know anything about her except that she's pissed and more than able to rain whoop-ass down upon those who wronged her. Likewise the rest of the cast are given scenes to play and they play them. But the individual scenes in Kill Bill really have more to do with the settings, the lighting and the sly pop culture references reshaped and given new life (the Green Hornet tv show theme playing over the sight of the jet carrying the Bride as it descends upon Tokyo is just one example) then they do with advancing a story. In that sense watching Kill Bill creates the strange feeling of watching a "Making of Kill Bill" documentary.

If there's one grievance I have with Kill Bill it is the oft-stated argument that there was no good reason to split this into two films. Part II isn't a separate act where disparate narrative threads are brought together and finally resolved. It's just more great-looking whoop-ass. And because of this the decision to split the film seems like nothing more than a cash-grab by Mirimax, which, despite their protestations to the contrary, is probably exactly what it was. For that both the film maker and studio deserve a good slap on the wrist.

Sep 24, 2011

Orlando We Hardly Knew Ye

He came out of nowhere in 2001 to become one of the most popular actors in the world. In a period of just six years he appeared in six of the highest grossing films of all time (the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films) and had major roles in several other high profile films (Black Hawk Down, Troy and Kingdom of Heaven). Then at the end of 2007 he disappeared.

Where have you gone Orlando Bloom? In spite of his stated desire to return to the stage he's only appeared in a single minor production. And as far as movies go he's been the invisible man.

Hope springs eternal though for fans of the O-man as he is scheduled to reprise the role of Legolas in the upcoming (now filming) version of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit due out at the end of 2012. By that time it will have been five years since he last appeared in a major motion picture, and personally I hope it rekindles his interest in making movies because the 21st century just doesn't seem quite right without him.

"What do your Elf eyes see Legolas?" "I see a return to the silver screen in 2012!"

5 Worst Hit Movies of the 21st Century (so far)

Some movies should never be made. Some should be made by other people. And some should just go to the corner and hang their head in shame.

5) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II - 2011
Confusing, rushed, poorly edited, bad 3D and did I mention confusing? Too bad because as a rabid HP fan I was looking forward to this movie for a long time.

4) The Matrix Revolutions - 2003
The clever story, cyberpunk atmosphere and ground-breaking special effects of the original turned into a community meeting at a Berkeley coffee house and an hour of sentinels swooping this way and that.

3) The Twilight Saga I, II and III - 2008, 2009, 2010
Yawn.

2) The Dark Knight - 2009
Somebody get that man a throat lozenge!

1) Transformers; Dark of the Moon - 2011
Wow! I mean, like, WOW! Michael Bay should have his citizenship revoked, his license pulled, his bank account seized and be jailed immediately, for many years to come, if that's what it takes to keep him out of the director's chair.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - 2000

Ang Lee's best film was an unlikely success. Produced on a shoestring budget of $15 million with dialogue entirely in Mandarin it crept into the public consciousness in the US based almost entirely on word of mouth. It went on to become the highest grossing foreign language film in US history and was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning three. But the numbers don't really tell the tale here. This is a film that requires multiple viewings. It's story, while outwardly straightforward, is more deeply felt than first meets the eye. Set in 18th century China it revolves around Jen, daughter of privilege who is facing an arranged marriage with a man her family feels will bring them prestige by association. Jen wants no part of it and longs for the life of the Wudang warrior. At the Governor's palace where she is staying while she awaits the wedding she meets Shu Lien, a warrior herself who is there to deliver something: a sword called the Green Destiny that belonged to the legendary warrior Li Mu Bai, who has renounced violence. Jen wants nothing more than to listen to endless tales of the carefree life of the warrior from Shu Lien but Shu is reluctant, cautioning the young woman that the life of the warrior is not all its cracked up to be.

One night the Green Destiny is stolen by a mysterious masked figure. Shu Lien pursues the thief and corners him/her only to discover that, whoever they are, they are well versed in the secret martial arts techniques of Wudang. The thief slips away after intervention by an equally shadowy third party, and the hunt is on. The fight sequences here are breathtaking, the wire work is mesmerizing and the scene of Shu Lien chasing the thief over the rooftops of Peking at night is some of the most enthralling, beautiful, dreamlike imagery ever captured on film.

Li Mu Bai arrives at the palace himself, hoping only for some quality time with Shu, only to become embroiled in the intrigue. He discerns that somehow a woman nicknamed Jade Fox is involved. It was Fox who had poisoned his master 10 years earlier and Li's inability to avenge that murder has lain heavy on his heart ever since. Sensing his opportunity he intervenes in a fight between an undercover police detective and Jade Fox and has her pinned to the ground awaiting his final blow when the thief suddenly appears, Green Destiny in hand. Jade Fox escapes and kills the detective while the thief takes over the fight with Li. This fight sequence is also beautifully choreographed by Hong Kong action master Yuen Wo Ping who skillfully demonstrates the difference between a talented but undisciplined wannabe in the thief and the ultimate control of the Master, Li. It is touches like this, subtle, graceful, never insisting upon themselves but essential to the telling of the larger tale that separate Crouching Tiger from the competition.

Shu soon deduces that Jen is the thief and discreetly offers her a way out, which Jen rejects. But Jen becomes scared when she learns who the man Jade Fox killed really was and moves to return the Green Destiny and put an end to the affair. Li, however, is waiting for her and offers to become her master if she will submit to him. Jen recoils out of loathing, unwilling to play second fiddle to any man be he husband or master. It is this running from something (domination, either real or perceived) rather than moving toward something (loyalty and self control) that is both Jen's saving grace and achilles heel.

Ultimately the story moves to the country side as Shu and Li pursue the fleeing Jen who is leaving a trail of destruction everywhere she goes. Jade Fox (who intervenes yet again to save her during a confrontation with Li) tries desperately to re-establish the bond that once existed between the two women. When she is rebuffed by Jen she drugs her and holds her hostage while planning her next move. But her lair is discovered by Li and Shu. The outcome of the heartbreaking final confrontation between Jade Fox and Li presents (for me anyway) a much more appropriate take on Ang Lee's major recurring theme (unrequited love) than the more feel-good ending of his near masterpiece from several years earlier, Sense and Sensibility. And the ending, while open to interpretation, allows the tale to float off into the world of myth from whence it came.

Chow Young Fat does an excellent job as the marital arts master who has suffered for his self control. Michele Yeoh brings an everywoman's air of authenticity to her role but the real discovery of Crouching Tiger is the almost impossibly beautiful Zhang Ziyi who not only sends sparks skittering across the screen every time she appears but plays the part of the headstrong but vulnerable young woman to perfection. The music, unencumbered by the Hollywood success algorithm (Get John Williams on the phone!), is a perfect accompaniment to the story with Yo-Yo Ma's cello piece over the final credits some of the most emotionally riveting movie music I've ever heard.

If you have the option I'd recommend watching the English sub-titled version. Though the overdubbed version was well done there is still something a little off-putting about watching mouth movements that don't match with what you're hearing. But either way you can't really lose. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is an unexpected epic you will not soon forget.

Here's a clip of the first fight between Jen and Shu Lien.



Sep 20, 2011

Welcome

UPDATE: Doing this thing right is going to be a lot of work and for that reason I've asked my good friend Chris Stopper from Nonstop 80s to come on board as a contributor and I'm happy to report he's accepted. Chris will be handling movie reviews I'll be handling most everything else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Films is going to be just that: all about films made from the year 2000 to the present day. We'll have reviews, box office results, development news, trivia and more. So check back soon.