« Mos Def is Ford Prefect | Main | FILM AS A SUBVERSIVE ART »
ONG BAK
Grade: B
Jackie Chan ain't getting any younger. So it's understandable that he's toned down his bone-breaking stunts in favor of bank-building Hollywood fare. If you missed the experience of seeing his elegant, inventive stuntwork on a big screen with an appreciative audience, or just want another dose of solid martial-arts action, you could do a lot worse than getting out to a theater and catching a screening of the furiously choreographed Ong Bak: Thai Warrior.
As a story, it's strictly generic fare — the young Ting (Tony Jaa) sets out to the big city after a sacred Buddha is stolen from his village. He quickly finds himself dealing with thugs. Fortunately, he's a skilled kickboxer. The elaborate, violent and often acrobatic action sequences that anchor Ong-Bak echo Bruce Lee a little more strongly than Jackie Chan; where Chan would go for physical comedy, Jaa opts to lay the motherfuckers out. That's not to say there's no humor here — one witty set piece represents the most elaborately choreographed stunt sequence I can think of that involves a hero who's trying to avoid a fight. But the general mood aspired to is fairly hard-boiled, with director Prachya Pinkaew nodding perfunctorily in the direction of the sordid with, for example, a disconcerting scene involving a forced drug overdose. So it's not as much fun as a great Jackie Chan movie, but at its best it’s similarly jaw-dropping. Finally, I would have sworn that wire work was involved in at least a couple of shots, but U.S. distributor Magnolia Pictures is swearing that it's all real, and I have no reason to doubt them. Which makes the achievement even more impressive. (Cue theoretical discussion about making critical judgments based on extra-textual information.)
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE
Grade: C-
The critical rap on Sundance hit Napoleon Dynamite is that first-timer Jared Hess has directed himself some amalgamation of Welcome to the Dollhouse and Rushmore — extra points given to the Nowhere, Idaho, environs — to varying degrees of success. I don’t really buy that. As nerd movies go, Welcome to the Dollhouse gets value from its honesty about the emotional brutality of high-school peers and empathy for the geeky and needy Dawn Weiner, and while some reviewers have compared ND’s dry cinematic style to Wes Anderson’s stately widescreen tableaux, let’s just note that I could accurately describe some of Kevin Smith’s work as “deadpan” and it wouldn’t turn him into Jim fucking Jarmusch. Despite a few effective stabs at physical comedy that actually benefit from Hess’s directorial detachment, the excruciating Napoleon Dynamite has not much going for it in the realms of honesty and style. What it offers instead is a barely-there episodic narrative hitched to an unsubtle, goonish lead performance by Jon Heder, playing the kind of cartoonish mouth-breather you’d expect to be featured in a too-long sketch on Saturday Night Live, flanked by a supporting cast of camera-facing kids designated as weird by unfortunate clothing and/or hairstyle choices. (Everyone dresses like it’s 1982, which is apparently humorous.) None of them have any spark or passion, and Hess holds them in depressingly simplistic regard. So forget Solondz and Anderson; this is more like an R. Crumb comic with a PG rating — that is, all the grotesquerie and awkwardness with none of the bawdy joie de vivre, and what’s the point of that? Apparently, this really turns some people’s cranks, and Hess himself claims that it’s all semi-autobiographical. Fine. But as long as this kind of derivative and lazy comedy is considered some kind of hallmark of American independent filmmaking, well, God help us.
HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE
Grade: B
OK, this is more like it — an outsider comedy featuring ethnic types with actual personalities. Harold is a reserved, well-groomed Asian with a thankless job and a strong work ethic. Freewheeling Indian roommate Kumar is concerned mainly with putting off anything resembling his career (he has daddy issues). The narrative is a series of episodes involving a nighttime trip across the New Jersey landscape featuring the promise of sex, the threat of incarceration, car theft, casual racism, and really bad skin. Sure, it's hit-and-miss. But the laughs that roll in owe to the film's general rated-R fearlessness — it’s impossible to tell which loony direction it might veer in next. If you don't dig the scatological humor, maybe you'll go for the nudity (and vice versa). At one moment, the boys are riding a galloping, stoned cheetah through the Jersey woods. At another, they're picking up a hitchhiker who turns out to be Neil Patrick Harris (playing himself in a tour de force cameo). Their ultimate goal is nothing less all-American than a bag of tiny cheeseburgers. Underneath the stoner-comedy trappings, you feel a genuine sense of what it means to live in the melting pot and yet be pigeonholed on a maddening, near-random basis.
Posted by Bryant Frazer at February 21, 2005 07:41 PM
Comments
Bryant,
The "Napoleon Dynamite" critique: wtf?
I thought you were cool and hip. Gosh.
Oh yeah - "Clueless?" That's just about the worst movie EVER.
Still your fan,
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon at February 22, 2005 03:41 PM
Re: Napoleon Dynamite
Right the fuck on. I really don't get why people find this thing so blasted funny. It's so self-conscious and convinced of its own brilliance (note the pre-packaged "quotable" material on the film's poster) that I wound up disliking it almost as a matter of principle.
(By the by, have you got a Top Ten list for 2004?)
Posted by: Shay at February 22, 2005 06:16 PM
I agree about Ong Bak (my condolences go out to all the poor chumps on the receiving end of all those knees and elbows), but Napoleon Dynamite really made me laugh. At the stuff intended to make me laugh. And a couple of scenes were really touching without being mawkish. It's a love it/hate it movie, I guess. So much for my principles!
Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 23, 2005 02:49 AM
Top 10 list is coming, I swear. I'm putting some final touches on it right now. (Yes, that does mean affiliate links to Amazon.com and iTunes. A boy's gotta eat.)
I'm with you, Shay, on the apparent marketing genius behind Napoleon Dynamite. What got me was an interview with Jared Hess where he talked about an "extra scene" -- the wedding -- that the studio had him shoot so they could reissue the movie to theaters while it was still on its first run. Hess said he didn't like the scene, but that if it would sell some extra tickets, it was all right by him. I mean jeez, what happened to standing your ground etc.
Sharon, I am cool and hip. Thus my recognition that Napoleon Dynamite is a sham meant to separate hipsters like you from their money. Bask in my absolute rectitude.
Jim, I know there are a lot of people out there who get big laughs from Napoleon Dynamite. Since I like big laughs, and especially since I shelled out five bucks to rent the thing (at the near-insistence of "Sharon," above), I wish I was one of them. But the whole thing seemed particularly, um, witless to me. Irritatingly so. But humor is a peculiar thing. All I can say is I don't understand why a discerning human such as yourself would get the yuks from a film like Napoleon Dynamite when, honestly, you could do so much better. I mean, have you seen this thing called Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle ... ?
Posted by: Bryant at February 23, 2005 11:04 PM
The best illustration I can offer Re: Napoleon Dynamite is when we watched it in my guidance class (I'm a senior). Us geeks were in the back, mostly stone-faced, while in front of us, the jocks were whooping and hollering. They thought it was fantastic. And why shouldn't they? It's tailored for them.
Meanwhile, I thought H+KgtWC was a blast. I bet it would've been even better if there had been actual other people in the audience. I mean, what's up with it flopping? It was actually decent.
Posted by: Rachel at February 26, 2005 07:15 PM
Hi, Rachel. Here's the thing: the guy who made Napoleon Dynamite claims that he sympathizes with the geeks and weirdos in the movie. So it's interesting that the reaction he gets from some of us is exactly the opposite -- we see mockery instead of sympathy.
I don't know much about Jared Hess or where he comes from, but I read an interview where he said he used to sit in class and draw pictures of mythical creatures, just like Napoleon in the movie. Which is fine; he was a budding filmmaker with an active imagination. But based on the evidence in the film, Napoleon Dynamite is a nothing. A nobody. A big clumsy lunk without much in the way of hobbies, imagination or skills. (Can you make a living as a dancer in Idaho?) He's also obviously a poor kid, which might help explain his lack of ambition as well as his wardrobe. But Hess isn't interested in any of that. That's why I wonder if Hess is on the level -- this is way too one-dimensional to be autobiography.
And compare it to Harold and Kumar, where there's never any question at all who's got the sympathy of the filmmakers.
Posted by: Bryant at February 27, 2005 02:22 PM
What gets me about Napoleon Dynamite is not that I find it unnecessarily cruel towards nerds (it's pretty cruel to everyone), but that it seemed way too convinced of its own successful appropriation of what I'll call "fashionable nerdiness." Unlike Rushmore or Ghost World -- two films that Hess is clearly trying to emulate -- it has none of the honest self-critique that Anderson or Zwigoff/Cloves bring to their examination of social outcasts. Hess basically just creates a dork, uses him for some laughs, and then congratulates him for being a dork. Compared to Max or Enid or Seymour, Napoleon may as well be made of cardboard.
Posted by: Shay at February 27, 2005 03:21 PM