Skip to main content

I'm stuck in a motel room!

Oldboy
(2013)

(SPOILERS) I’m not averse to remakes so long someone has a good reason for going there. Generally, I wouldn’t regard “It was in a foreign language” as a valid motive. Just occasionally however, even a straight retelling can provide the lazy distraction of a different-but-the-same iteration, although one invariably ends up reaching the same conclusion; why did they bother? Most of non-English language films picked by Hollywood for a remake fail at the box office, and yet the lesson is never learned. If there’s a whiff of a name property, even from a somewhat insular bean counter standpoint, something with any chance of audience recognition, that’s enough. I seem to be in the minority with regard to the original Oldboy, as it didn’t do very much for me. Some bravura sequences and a compelling premise aside, I was became increasingly disenchanted as it became progressively more ridiculous and hysterical (and not as in funny) during the final act. It doesn’t surprise it took the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes, as it’s just the sort of material an excitable Quentin Tarantino would fall for hook, line, and sinker. Consequently, my lack of veneration probably left me at least vaguely open to someone else’s take; perhaps the issues I had would be approached differently? That someone, after many fall starts, turned out to be Spike Lee. He makes a few cosmetic changes, but ironically (given how wired Park Chan-wook’s movie is) the sombre, disengaged, tone proves to be OIdboy 2013’s undoing, further underlining just how unlikely and far-fetched the scenario is. And with that, the fundamental intention, the emotional punch line, is swept away.


Lee at least warrants the benefit of the doubt. The released movie is not his preferred version, as producers lopped off 35 minutes against his wishes. It’s possible that in its unexpurgated form it’s a really good movie, and that the pacing really clicks. But his Oldboy seems long and listless as it is, unable to find its groove. Additionally, a longer edit wouldn’t fix core problems with the narrative. I suppose there might be an element where it’s explained that hypnosis has been used used to ensure Joe (Josh Brolin) and Marie (Elizabeth Olsen) fall in love… But that’s a wholly unpersuasive element of the original movie; I suppose it at lease evidences the makers were aware of the disconnect in their plot, but mostly it shows they had no idea how to make sense of it. Here, Joe and Marie fall for each other through an engineered coincidence, and we’re asked to swallow the idea that the rampantly affected Adrian (Sharlto Copley, whose performance kicks and strains against the dour tone while being simultaneously quite uncompelling) brought his plan to fruition by cajoling her through a troubled foster environment.


We don’t believe it for a second, and it makes the climax all the more misconceived and dismissable. If, rather than breaking down and begging for death/Adrian not to tell Marie, Joe had been dumbfounded that such a cockamamie plan had actually worked, the makers might have at least shown self-awareness.  This version is based directly on the 2003 film, rather than the Manga (as originally intended when Spielberg and Will Smith briefly flirted with the property). The thrust in both film versions is that something meaning nothing to one person, a youthful foolishness, leads to irrevocable consequences for another. But the alterations made by Lee and writer Mark Protosevich (something of a remake man; with Poseidon and I Am Legend behind him, inspiration is clearly not his forte) serve to cast an even harsher light on the original’s shortcomings.


Changing the relationship that leads to Adrian’s actions adds symmetry and ick factor, but it is correspondingly less believable that young Joe never heard about the consequences. The rise of Adrian, a billionaire no one has ever heard of, including Joe’s school chum Chucky (Michael Imperioli), who hasn’t spend 20 years locked in a room, is also difficult to countenance. Luminous and lovely as she is, Olsen’s acting talent can’t overcome the problem with Marie any more that she could sell Elle Brody in Godzilla. Olsen is stuck with a character of incoherent and unbelievable motivation, a cypher created to fulfil a plot point.


Whatever my opinion of Park’s film as a whole, the filmmaking skill is undeniable. On the most surface level, the corridor fight scene has justifiably become a legend in its own right. Lee refits it here and, while there is some excitement from seeing this kind of one shot (well, a few more, since its split level) choreography, it’s diffused by the weakness of opponents who only ever pull their punches in order to make the sequence flow. Better is the savage beat down of a football squad just after Joe is released. And the exit from solitary itself, via a trunk in the middle of a field, retains a surreal splendour unfortunately lacking elsewhere. Joe’s incarceration has its moments, such as hallucinating the bellhop picture on the wall come to life (played by Cinque Lee, Spike’s brother, this is surely a nod to his role in Mystery Train 25 years ago). Samuel L Jackson works with Lee for the first time since Jungle Fever, and his performance as Chaney, Mohawk aside, would blend in seamlessly with pretty much all his shouty roles of late. Joe’s torture of Chaney is wince inducing, but reflects the movie as a whole; impersonal, functional, efficient filmmaking that looks accomplished and has the occasional flourish but fails to make the viewer care about what happens.


The final scene also departs from Park’s original. Lacking the hypnosis angle, Joe sees justice for what he has done as re-interment in his motel room. At which point he smiles. Conceptually, it’s a neat and effective choice, but to have resonance Lee and Brolin need to translate the horror at Joe learning of what he has done. And they can’t pull it off. Perhaps that’s why Park opted for such insane excess. Brolin is fine; moody and taciturn, he lacks iconic presence of Min-sik Choi; perhaps he needs roles with more differentiation or flair to make an impression, as he isn’t sufficiently commanding on his own.


This is one of Lee’s few overtly studio-minded movies, following Inside Man seven years ago.  It’s ironic then that it’s proved to be one of the biggest stinkers of his career (up there with Miracle at St. Anna in terms of budget far exceeding box office).  It’s difficult to see how anyone thought a picture with such a grim twist would ever be more than a cult property in the US to begin with, and therefore probably not a smart idea to throw big (-ish) bucks its way. All the handsome production values in the world can’t justify this movie’s existence any more than the similarly pointless Let Me In a few years ago. That, at least, retained many of the original’s strengths. Oldboy only goes to confirm its predecessor’s weaknesses.


**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.