Review: The Green Hornet

The news of a Seth Rogen Green Hornet film, scripted by Rogen and his usual collaborator Evan Goldberg, intrigued me when I first heard it. While I have less than zero attachment to the original property, knowing only of it from Quentin Tarantino’s wonderful appropriation of the theme song for Kill Bill Vol. 1, I am a huge fan of the duo’s previous screenwriting endeavors. The scripts for Superbad and Pineapple Express took worn out genres and infused them with a laid back amiability and crude humor that always seemed to come from the characters rather than writing contrivances or plot mechanics. The thought of these talents being applied to the overplayed (to put it mildly) superhero genre was enough to get me interested. Combine with a visionary director who seems to function best when paired with a strong script that can control his indulgences and this seemed to be a sure thing. The finished film turns out to be a rather shaky, but fun experience, one that only sporadically flirts with the greatness that the talent involved would seem to promise.

As expected one of the highlights of The Green Hornet is the central relationship between Seth Rogen’s Britt Reid (The Green Hornet) and his Chinese partner/all around badass Kato (played by Jay Chou). Though Chou’s clearly hasn’t fully grasped the English language they establish an easy rapport early on in the film that is appealing and helps the film get over some of its issues. The relationship gets even more mileage from transposing the typical “bromance” male infatuation (found in many Apatow-influenced films of late) into the superhero genre, making explicit the often barely submerged homoerotic subtext found in many a superhero film. The film doesn’t do too much to emphasize that aspect, but it provides an interesting slant throughout much of the runtime. Rogen’s Reid, the son of a recently deceased newspaper magnate decides to team up with his father’s employee Kato to pose as shadowy denizens of the criminal underworld and bring it down from the inside. The reason for the deception is never explained to full satisfaction, but that is forgotten as the film settles into a comfortable rhythm with the duo learning the ropes of being an effective crime fighting unit. Throw in a knowledgeable temp at Britt’s newspaper (an unnecessary Cameron Diaz) and a ruthless criminal overlord (a wasted Christoph Waltz) and you’ve got the essentials for your standard superhero plot.

The direction of Michel Gondry would seem, initially, to promise something less conventional and more overtly weird and offbeat. Unfortunately his creative sensibilities only really manifest themselves in a few (admittedly great) sequences. The fight scenes where everything seems to be moving in slow motion except for Kato are great fun to watch, while a split screen montage and sequence that visually unfolds the machinations of the plot are also impressive. The film needed more of this sort of thing, as the scenes in between display little of the whimsical artistry of the man who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Unfortunately Gondry has to make do with Rogen and Goldberg’s weakest script thus far. Perhaps out of fidelity to the genre the film goes out of its way to involve itself in the convoluted plot mechanics, something that has never mattered much in the previous works of Rogen/Goldberg. The villain, played by the fantastic Christoph Waltz, never manages to become all that interesting, providing only a distraction to the story. Diaz’s character is even worse, with seemingly no contribution to the film and no reason to be there other than a studio mandate that there must be a female character.

There are pleasures to be had in the film. The interaction between the two male leads provides a decent supply of laughs, and Rogen and Chou have great chemistry that is well suited to this type of buddy comedy. The action scenes are often ingeniously staged and always exciting to watch. The 3-D is at least unobtrusive and inoffensive, which is a step up from most post converted 3-D films. The main problem with The Green Hornet is that it comes from a group of artists whom we’ve come to expect much more from. While the movie could and should have been much more, it manages to be a diverting and humorous time waster that never becomes more than the sum of its parts.

Review: Tron: Legacy

All things considered, the original Tron seems an odd film to turn into a franchise. Released in 1982, the visually striking, groundbreaking for its time adventure was filled to the brim with ideas about the nature of technology and how the internal world of computers would come to mimic our own reality. It was also, for all that, not a very good film, a dramatically inert narrative with a plodding pace and rather dull characters. Hell, even the well remembered action scenes (the Disc Wars and the Lightcycle sequences) are not particularly exciting. Still, something about the genuinely accomplished look of the film, combined with the (at least theoretically) interesting concept led Tron to become a favorite amongst a certain subset of people – namely geeks.

Which brings us to 2010. Nowadays the geeks have inherited Hollywood and it seems that every weekend brings some new property geared specifically towards them: Comic Book movies, movies based on cult tv shows and videogame films to name just a few. This new tendency towards nerd-friendly films, combined with a seemingly pathological desire to remake, sequelize or reboot any and all pre-existing properties has led to the inevitable conclusion of a sequel to the strange but still-beloved Tron. As the Disney marketing machine tries with all their might to turn this into a new franchise, the question remains: Is Tron: Legacy a worthy successor to the first film? And does it even have to be a good film to accomplish that?

There is one area where Tron: Legacy immediately betters itself from its predecessor: It is engaging to watch. While the events of Tron often seemed as if they were occurring underwater, first time director Joseph Kosinski makes his sequel a sensual feast. The action scenes, when they occur, are genuinely thrilling on both a conceptual and a visceral level. The lightcycle race, in particular, is a standout. I don’t often compliment the “mood” of an action scene, but these sequences (aided immeasurably by Daft Punk’s incredible score) are infused with a hypnotic rhythm that renders them mesmerizing on a different level than your typical chaotic action scene. The glassy, geometric design of the world is always gorgeous to look at as well. I’m usually wary about the claim that a film can (or should) exist purely as eye candy, but Legacy makes the case as strongly as any film I’ve seen, as I found myself totally immersed in the world of Tron.

Unfortunately the film suffers in other areas. Strangely enough, Tron: Legacy features many of the same problems as the original film. The characterizations are purely functional and the acting is extremely spotty. Garrett Hedlund is, I suppose, no worse than many of the stars of today’s action spectacles (Sam Worthington, Channing Tatum), but he nonetheless does not display the charisma to truly carry the film, Olivia Wilde, while suffering from an ill-defined character, does lend the film a bit of wide-eyed wonder that the film frankly needs more of. Jeff Bridges is in an interesting position, portraying both the aged Kevin Flynn and his evil, younger doppelganger Clu. His turn as Flynn is one of the best parts of the film, portraying Flynn as a mixture of The Dude and Obi Wan Kenobi. His Zen maxims and laid back charm are an asset in a film as ostensibly serious as this. Unfortunately the role of Clu is somewhat problematic due to the CG de-ageing that has been done to his face. In certain shots (his first confrontation with Sam, the scene in Flynn’s apartment) the effect is convincing, but in other areas Clu looks slightly off, rooted firmly in the Uncanny Valley. Special mention must also be made of Michael Sheen, whose totally nuts performance provides a jolt of electricity just as the film requires it desperately.

The script is probably the biggest problem with Tron: Legacy. Much like the first film there seem to be fascinating themes and ideas that could be explored that seem to be ignored or treated perfunctorily. Not to say that there isn’t anything interesting or discussion-worthy about the movie, just that it doesn’t always take full advantage. Beyond the thematic issues, however, the film has a confused script that sometimes explains too much and sometimes fails to clarify crucial plot elements adequately. The nature of the ISOs, Clu’s master plan and the circumstances of Sam’s arrival on the Grid are just some of the most notable plot elements that are only vaguely explained. Important character revelations just sort of happen, with no build up or fanfare and characters seem to change their motivations simply because the script tells them to. Luckily, while these issues certainly detract from the film, Legacy as a whole is entertaining enough to make one mostly forget these issues.

Tron: Legacy is, in many ways, the perfect sequel to the first film. It is a gorgeously designed, dramatically lacking experience in which developed characters and a strong story take a backseat to technology and spectacle. Luckily in this case the spectacle is enough to carry the film past these deficiencies, making it a somewhat frustrating but always fascinating sensory experience that I found exciting and engaging from beginning to end.

Review: How Do You Know

I see a ton of films every year. I like to think of myself as a filmgoer with very diverse tastes and if signs point to something intriguing or enjoyable then I’ll go for a western, an action film, a drama, you name it. One genre that I’m (not entirely without reason) rather averse to is the romantic comedy. This is not due to me hating “chick flicks” or romance; it’s simply that the state of the modern American romantic comedy seems to be bogged down in formula and predictability. While things like “The Proposal” and “27 Dresses” might, on balance, be no worse than things like “The A-Team” and “Faster”, it would take exceptionally strong critical notices or friend recommendations to get me to watch most romantic comedies.

Which brings us to “How Do You Know”, the latest offering from James L. Brooks. The trailer did nothing to appeal to me, looking like yet another stock romance from the Hollywood machine. Its middling (leaning negative) critical notices and bad reception from some close to me (“It’s one of the worst films I’ve ever seen” remarked a family friend) had convinced me to never waste my time on it. Let this be a lesson: Never write a film off entirely until you’ve seen it, as I found HDYK to be a delight almost from start to finish, with smart writing and strong performances from everyone involved.

The premise for HDYK is rather standard: a woman (Reese Witherspoon) is suddenly forced to reevaluate her life and finds herself torn between two romantic options: A rich womanizing jock type (Owen Wilson) and a neurotic but boundlessly nice guy (Paul Rudd). That sounds like a typical setup, but within the confines of the plot the film holds many surprises. The main strength is Brooks’ writing, which lends each of the characters dialogue that, while certainly not naturalistic, rings true to the characters and is often exceedingly witty. It recalled for me the dialogue from Billy Wilder’s The Apartment (a vastly superior film, but the apt for comparison); it’s not the way real people talk, but only slightly stylized. Brooks’ characterizations are so strong that it turns weaknesses into strengths. The film’s structure is rather shaggy and early scenes seemed in need of an editor. As the characters develop, however, it becomes a pleasure just to watch them interact in a given scene, with conversations seeming to have a delightfully spontaneous quality. Characters who seem in the early going to be superfluous end up adding color to the proceedings. Overall the film’s chief delight is how it takes these rote or familiar elements and invigorates them with humor and intelligence.

The performances are also excellent across the board. Reese Witherspoon navigates the uncertainty of her character perfectly, portraying a woman whose life has been thrown into disarray with charm and confidence. Owen Wilson takes the most two-dimensional role in the film and infuses it with his laid back demeanor that manages to endear you to him rather than repel. His character is one that genuinely wants to change his ways and mature, but seems uncertain of how to go about doing that. It’s a loose and funny performance that reveals unexpected poignancy by the end. Special mention must be made of Paul Rudd. He is an actor that has had many good supporting roles, but has struggled to find the right fit for him as a leading man in Hollywood. Well this is it, as he is the film’s heart and soul. There is a “first date” sequence between him and Witherspoon where he conveys, solely through his facial expressions, more depth and insight into his character than lesser actors could with pages of dialogue. And Jack Nicholson, having long since settled into “paycheck mode”, seems to relish his snarky, devilish old man role that could so easily be overplayed. He and Rudd have some of the best and most affecting scenes in the entire film.

I don’t mean to oversell HDYK. It certainly isn’t perfect, with some of the subplots not being concluded satisfactorily as well as the aforementioned shaggy structure. But whether it was my lowered expectations or some other explanation, HDYK really took me by surprise and stood out even in this crowded holiday season of Oscar bait and big budget spectacles. So don’t let the bad press and poor box-office performance fool you, this is an unexpected winner and the best romantic comedy of 2010. Flaws and all, this is one I look forward to revisiting. After all, a low-key success is still a success.