Film: Quantum of Solace
Director: Marc Forster
Screenwriters: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade
Primary Cast: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric

Review Summary: I still don’t like the new direction of the Bond franchise, and QoS is no where near as strong a movie as Casino Royale was.

I guess I didn’t review Casino Royale, so I’ll summarize my thoughts on it, as much of that initial review will apply to this one as well. First and foremost, I am not convinced that this was the right direction to take the Bond franchise. I understand the desire to rewind and start from scratch with a new generation of viewers, and the choice see the new, young, raw, vengeful Agent 007 transform into the smooth and suave James Bond that we all know and love is loaded with potential. But until that transformation begins – and so far, two films into the “new Bond” era, it hasn’t begun – until it begins the franchise is reduced to the “just another Hollywood action film” genre. And while Casino Royale was a decent Hollywood action film, it was a very poor Bond movie.

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, wasn’t even a very good Hollywood action movie. The difference between the two falls on two serious shortcomings. The first stumbling block is the script. The only script element I didn’t care for was how heavily dependent it was upon Casino Royale, but make no mistake… this script is, from top to bottom, a classic Bond story. Extravagant chase scenes, evil masterminds hell-bent on world domination, you name it, the stuff that built Bond for 20 films is jam packed into QoS. But remember… they’ve rewound the franchise and started from scratch. You can’t just drop a new attitude on an old package and expect everything to fit. This would have been a terrific film for the Connery era Bond, or even the Dalton era. But with the changes in attitude of the franchise, it simply doesn’t work. At all.

And the reason it doesn’t work lies almost solely with the direction of Marc Forster. He’s a good director. I loved Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland. But his lack of experience with action movies was evident from the very first scene. In fact, the action scenes continually caused me to flash back to the Jason Bourne franchise, and not in a good way. I found it disappointingly obvious that Forster set up QoS to emulate the style and rhythm of Bourne. And not only did he fail to pull it off, it’s a style that isn’t right for Bond, anyway. Bond isn’t reality. Never has been, and never should be. It’s over-the-top super-spy kind of stuff. It deals in extremes and stereotypes, not in nuance and idiosyncrasy.

And that is why, I think, this plan of transforming the franchise will ultimately fail. If they try to show some kind of character growth from film to film, they will need to explore the nuances of the Bond character. They will need to establish the why’s and wherefore’s that turned Bond into the cavorting, misogynistic playboy that we all, somehow, came to love. And I think that if those questions get answered in the current gritty, “realistic” style that they are pursuing, the character at the end of the transformation will appear to be more anti-hero than hero. And that, in my mind, just isn’t James Bond.

Film: The X-Files: I Want to Believe
Director: Chris Carter
Screenwriter: Frank Spotnitz & Chris Carter
Primary Cast: David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Billy Connolly, Amanda Peet

Review Summary: I wanted to believe, too. Really. I did

Back in the day, I was a huge fan of The X-Files television series. In fact, if memory serves, it’s the first show I ever recorded when my schedule didn’t put me at home in time to watch. Perhaps it’s this fondness that caused my expectations to be higher than Carter and company had hope of reaching, but there were some pretty major plot items that I took issue with, almost from the very first scene. But before I go too much further, let me get it out of the way now… as a generic movie, with no franchise affiliation and no preconceptions based on the previous movie or television series, I think this is an ok movie. If it’s just called I Want to Believe (regardless of how stupid a title that would be) it would be easier to overlook some of my concerns, and alot of them wouldn’t apply at all. But the title is X-Files: I Want To Believe, and that creates a certain air of expectation.

Right off the bat, one of those expectations is shattered… even though she had a few episodes that focused on her in the television series, The X-Files was never about Scully. Ever! It was always about Fox… his belief, his pursuit of the truth, his devotion to finding his sister. In I Want to Believe, everything about Fox is secondary to what Scully is experiencing. The film isn’t about Fox, or the Russian doctor, or the kidnapped FBI agent… it’s about Scully’s own internal struggle of religion vs. science. Regardless of the fact that I find it ludicrous that after spending years with Moulder Mulder (oops… thanks heads up One Breath) she still sees anything as black and white, this particular issue and the way it is communicated by Carter simply isn’t strong enough to carry the film. Exterior action becomes secondary to interior conflict and the result is a primary pacing that plods along in opposition to that exterior action. In short, the movie isn’t about Fox’s love of truth being rekindled and the search of a missing FBI agent, it’s about Scully coming to grips with her faith (or lack thereof).

Which brings us to the absolutely shocking revelation that (gasp!) Moulder Mulder has grown a beard! During the course of the setup for this sight gag I lost count of how many shots we went through of just seeing the back of Moulder Mulder’s head, but it was overdone to the point of absurdity. Once is hinting, twice and thrice are creating suspense, anything more than that and the effect diminishes. By the time Moulder Mulder turns around, not only did I know he had a beard, but I knew it would be very Ted Kaczynski-ish. Not only that, but with the series just about a decade old, there are bound to be audience members unfamiliar with Fox Moulder Mulder and completely lost as to what the big deal is that he even has a beard.

Next up… A pedofile priest? Really? That’s the best Carter could come up with? I know it is supposed to play against Scully’s whole science vs. religion struggle, but please… old and busted doesn’t even begin to describe this trope. It seemed so constructed, so convenient, so unintelligent compared to the writings of both the series and the first film. I will say, however, that Billy Connolly was a surprising bright spot in the film. While I thought the script he was given was petty and trite, I thought he did as much with the role as he possibly could to try and break it out of the stereotype that Carter created for him.

Lastly, with every scene blanketed in at least eight inches of snow, why was this film released in the middle of summer? Likely it’s a personal thing, but  everything seemed so out of place simply because of all the snow. When combined with everything else, I found myself unable to get past it. I just couldn’t buy into the settings at all. They just didn’t ring true to me no matter how much I wanted to believe.

In the end, X-Files: I Want To Believe would be an ok movie for a rental, but it is a terrible X-Files film. I saw a review somewhere (if I find it again I’ll link to it) that said it was more Saw than X-Files and I think that’s a dead-on comparison, only I’ll take it one step further… Saw was a better film than X-Files because it didn’t try to be anything that it wasn’t. In order to capture the younger audience as well as the generation that grew up with the TV series, Carter tried to tap into the kind of audience that Saw so successfully grabbed. The result was a film that, in pretending to be something it wasn’t, strayed too far from what it should have been.

Film: The Dark Knight
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenwriter: Johnathan & Christopher Nolan
Primary Cast: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman

Review Summary: Don’t believe the hype! Well, ok… believe it a little bit.

I’m not entirely sure what I was expecting, but whatever it was, The Dark Knight certainly wasn’t it. That’s a good thing, though, it really is. You see, when it comes to films, my expectations tend to be inversely proportional to the nature and vehemence of the hype created by the studio and media. So when I saw Christopher Nolan compared to Hitchcock and Heath Ledger to Brando, you can almost imagine the little hairs on the back of my neck beginning to stand up. Add in the dubious fact that this is summer blockbuster season and I was already bolstering my check-brain-at-door tolerance levels. Mix in that this was a comic book adaptation, or, more precisely, yet another comic book adaptation, and I was fully prepared to change my mind at the last minute and rent it on DVD in 4 months.

I’m glad I didn’t. Oh, I don’t think that The Dark Knight is a brilliant piece of cinematography by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn’t what I was prepared for, either. It is atypical of summer fare in that, first and foremost, this film simply demands to be taken seriously. Nolan addresses some heady issues beneath the Batman legend, and has attempted to put together a film that not only entertains, but also questions public morality and political policy and procedure. While the film generally succeeds on the entertainment standpoint, the presentation of overriding social, moral, and political dilemmas leads to the story becoming mired in it’s own seriousness. In short, Nolan simply bit off more than he could chew by trying to address so many big issues in a single film. The biggest setback he encounters is not with the questions themselves, but rather with the frenetic pace he maintains throughout the entire film.

At over two and a half hours, the Dark Knight is unjustifiably long. The pacing Nolan utilizes to fill up the 152 minutes never gives the audience a chance to really take in the inflammatory situations that have been presented to them. The questions he asks are timely and pertinent… Is torture of a terror suspect acceptable? Are some lives worth more than other lives? Does the end truly justify the means? All questions that echo headlines of US news outlets over the past five years. But the scenes come and go, one after another, with explosions and chases and the great gusto of brilliant special effects, never allowing the audience to sit back and really take in what is being presented. There is just too much of the summer blockbuster getting in the way of Nolan’s story, so all that depth is lost. And though it may demand to be taken seriously, there is little that remains beneath the surface beyond the typical summer blockbuster. While this film is wonderful summer movie fare, it is nowhere near the deep, intellectual cinema that Hitchcock so brilliantly created.

“Batman movies are never about Batman. They’re always about the bad guy.”

A friend of mine said that not long before we walked into the theatre. At first I was a bit taken aback, but I think now that she may have been on to something. Think about the Batman films of the last two decades or so. It’s the villains you think about, isn’t it? Batman is there, and he will save the day in the end. It’s what superheros do. They confront the bad guy, get in trouble, get out of trouble, and then kick the bad guy’s ass. The only variable is, really, the bad guy, and it doesn’t matter how dramatic or comic booky you make the film. Whether you are talking about Burton’s Batman or Nolan’s, that generic template is followed, and the bulk of the film is going to rest squarely on the shoulders of whoever is playing the villain.

I have liked Heath Ledger in everything I have ever seen him in. I can’t think of a single film where he has turned in even a mediocre performance. His redition of The Joker is absolutely no exception to this. The character he created is devastatingly pathetic, eerily pitiful, and charmingly evil. I get the feeling, however, that his performance was held in check by Nolan. While I simply loved watching each and every scene he was in, I never got the feeling that he was going anywhere. He was introduced to the audience at a specific level, and he stayed at that level for the entire film. So while I sat in complete awe of the character Ledger created, I never saw him get the chance to really sink his teeth into The Joker and go on a journey with him, allow his character to change or grow with the film. Instead, I found him to be static, and, ultimately, predictably comic-book-like in his one-note presentation of character. For a film that so desperately strives to transcend the comic book adaptation tag, I found this particularly annoying. I want to reiterate, however, that my issues are not with Ledger’s performance. Granted, I don’t think he has earned the comparisons to Brando, but he did, for lack of a better phrase, blow me away with his character work in this film. I simply wanted more than Nolan was prepared to let Ledger give me.

The weakest element of The Dark Knight is the sub plot that revolves around Harvey Dent (Eckhart) and Rachel Dawes (Gyllenhaal). Simply put, not enough time is devoted to furthering this particular storyline and it falls flat. Dent, in particular, is difficult to believe in his nearly over-the-top change in character. This storyline is, I think, the primary reason the last 30-40 minutes of the film drags so terribly.

Overall, The Dark Knight hits the mark from the very first scene. It isn’t nearly as deep and thought provoking as it has been made out to be (or could have been, for that matter), and even though I think he’ll get at least an Oscar nomination, this isn’t Ledger’s best film by any means. His best character creation, perhaps, but not his best film. In the end, The Dark Knight is a good movie, and an unexpected treat during the typically lackluster summer film months.

Film: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Screenwriters: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Chris Morgan
Primary Cast: James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie
Tag Line: Choose your destiny.

Review Summary: If you leave your brain in the glove box, then you might just enjoy this one!

Just to make sure we all start out on the same page, Wanted is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, not a good movie. The characters are cardboard cutouts, the story both socially and morally reprehensible, and the screenplay itself so full of holes that it was likely used as the target during McAvoy’s firearm training sessions (before he had a chance to read it). All that said, Timur Bekmambetov directs the action scenes with enthusiasm (to say the least), and they are what bring any kind of redeeming cinematic value to the film and make this an enjoyable summer “check-your-brain-at-the-door” kind of flick.

Bekmambetov, a Russian filmmaker whom I was previously unfamiliar with, shows great promise as far as the Hollywood action genre goes. He seems to know exactly what the formulaic studio execs want: big names, big boobs, and big explosions. And while his delivery of the big boobs quotient is more Wanting than Wanted, the other two items he delivers in spades. More importantly, I think, is that his work on Wanted shows quite clearly where his primary influences lie. In particular, while the opening sequences go echo the Wachowski brothers’ Matrix saga, the action scenes in general reflect a more direct influence of the master of the modern action film, John Woo. Bekmambetov took a tremendously weak script and salvaged it the best way he knew how. He gave the summer blockbuster audience exactly what they expected… blood, bullets, and just enough story to keep the audience in their seats for the full 110 minutes.

But Bekmambetov was not the only one hampered by the script. Considering how many times the writing called for the actors to go against their own characters, it’s remarkable that the stereotypical characters were somehow classic enough that they each managed to pull off a respectable performance. Perhaps the single largest character travesty belonged to Morgan Freeman, who went from a member of the intelligentsia to a common gangbanger in a single sentence. Much of this could potentially be laid at the feet of Bekmambetov’s, as there was little evidence that he is what is called “an actor’s director,” but given how poor the script truly is, that would be tremendously unfair. Suffice it to say that while Wanted isn’t the vehicle that any of these actors likely hoped for, neither need they be embarrassed by the performances they turned in.

And thus I come to the script itself. There will undoubtedly be some spoilers below, so let me sum up my impressions for those of you who don’t want to read them. Wanted is perhaps the most ineffective screenplay of the summer. The script itself is worse than that of The Happening, and you all know how I felt about that film. The only thing that saves it from utter mockery is Bekmambetov’s direction of the action sequences.

Now, on to the spoilage so I can really pick apart where the major issues are.

First and foremost, the script is built upon a rock-solid and proven three act structure:

Act 1: Unlikely hero is discovered and recruited.
Act 2: Unlikely hero is trained to be a badass.
Act 3: Unlikely hero opens up a can of whoop-ass on assorted badguys.

That should sound pretty familiar. From Star Wars to The Matrix we saw, and for the most part loved, action movies that relied on this particular framework. Where Wanted fails, and fails mightily, is in the details of this structure. Lucas saw the problems in the details and expanded his saga to three films. As far as I know, the Wachowski brothers started at three films. By trying to cram that kind of structure into 110 minutes, Brandt, Haas and Morgan created a convoluted nightmare for themselves where, in the end, nothing made even the least bit of sense. They asked the audience to take such leaps of faith with their storyline that it was never a matter of “willing suspension of disbelief,” but rather “required suspension of disbelief.” So much was left undeveloped that there was simply nothing solid for the audience to hang on to.

Let’s start with, as I call it, the Loom of Doom. In and of itself, this is a really interesting idea. It has elements of the supernatural and mysticism and even some loose religious symbolism. It harkens to the fantasy stories of Robert Jordan, Ursula K. Le Guin, and so many others. But it goes nowhere! It is given only the most cursory of explanations and the viewer is left thinking… huh? A Binary Loom of Doom that spits out the names of people who need to die? Huh?! How?! Why?! This is a major element of the story, and no explanation is given about… well… anything! If it is indeed a 2000 year old device, how did it get to Chicago? And were those computer monitors it was hooked up to? Why? And how the hell did people read binary 2000 years ago. Nothing about the Loom of Doom makes any sense at all.

Next up would be characters assassinating themselves. The best example is Sloan when all of a sudden he abandons the speech patterns of a romantic academician (“Within the fabric of this world, every life hangs by a thread. We are that thread – a fraternity of assassins with the weapons of fate”) and adopts the patter of a stereotypical gang-banger (“kill this mutha-fucka right here!”). It is a break in character so out of place that it elicits laughter from the audience in a scene where the protagonist’s life hangs in the balance. It’s a scene that should be filled with tension, but the dialogue is completely inappropriate for the characters.

The third issue is the love interest. There isn’t one. Never mind the fact that Angelna Jolie is in the film (why would you not put a love interest in your story?). Neo had Trinity. Luke, and then Han, had Leia. Why wouldn’t you have at the very least the potential of a Wesley-Fox hookup? There were moments when it seemed like it was supposed to be there but got lost in the editing. Regardless though, without that love interest, the overall effect of Fox’s death at the end of the film is almost completely benign. It has no effect on Wesley’s decision making process, and no effect on Wesley emotionally at all; therefore it has no effect on the audience.

Lastly, any time a single question can disrupt your entire plotline, there is a pretty substantial problem. For example…

Question: Why does Wesley give a rat’s ass about a father who walked out on him when he was seven days old?

That’s the big one. The entire scripts is built around that single question, and yet never are we given any kind of indication that Wesley even misses his father, or believes things would have turned out differently had his father been around. We never learn anything substantial about his parentage at all, in fact, not even from pictures in his cubicle or apartment. Even his mother is left a mystery. His parents have little to no presence in his daily life, yet for some reason he is hell-bent on avenging the murder of a man that a complete and utter stranger says is his father. The premise of the film is shaky from the outset, and that brings into doubt each and every element that addresses the premise even indirectly.

And one last question: When did Wesley have time to attach a bajillion tiny bombs to a bajillion tiny rats?

Sounds funny, but really, when did he have the time? That’s not an overnight project he undertook. It was so involved, in fact, that his father… you know, the one who (walked out on him) came up with the plan, never bothered to implement it in order to save his son (and, as it turns out, his own neck). It doesn’t even matter that it is the most ridiculous scene in recent memory. It is just so “out there” that the only possible reaction to it is one of laughter. This “plan” was something that should have been in a Mel Brooks film, not an action film that begged to be taken seriously.

Wanted is a film of omission. It wants to more than it is, and overall the film suffers more from what isn’t there than what is there. What is there is solid, summer entertainment. It’s a no-holds-barred action thrill ride that lasts a bit too long for it’s own good, but doesn’t leave an overtly bad taste in your mouth when you leave the theatre. What isn’t there is what would have made this a great film. Character development, plot details, and a little more common sense would have made Wanted a film to be remembered longer than a few days. As it is, when it comes on TNT in a year, I’ll likely end up tuning in because I won’t remember ever having seen it in the theatre.

Film: The Happening
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Screenwriter: M. Night Shyamalan
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo
Tag Line: We’ve sensed it. We’ve seen the signs. Now… It’s happening.
Review Summary: Move over, Uwe Boll… there’s a new sheriff in town.

The biggest mystery behind The Happening isn’t actually what’s happening… it’s why exactly I stayed in the theatre for the full 91 minutes. On the broadest of scales, the premise is fairly strong: An unknown substance is infecting the population of the Northeastern US and making them commit suicide. There’s a lot of potential there, I think. But when you boil it down to what Shyamalan actually put on the screen, it falls past weak and right down to laughable. And laugh I did, which I am guessing was not the reaction Shyamalan was hoping for.

To be fair, though, it’s quite a difficult conflict he is broaching. It’s beyond just Man versus Nature, as the nature of Nature has changed (ok… that was fairly fun to say). The rules don’t apply anymore, and no one knows what the new rules are all about. As such, this is (or should be), at it’s core, an adventure movie. The unknown needs to be discovered. Where the thriller part comes in is that if the unknown isn’t discovered, it will kill everyone. What makes this setup fail so spectacularly is that the unknown stays unknown and, because of this, never really achieves the status of “villain” the way it desperately needs to. Things are left in doubt for far too long for any kind of twist ending to be effective. If no one knows what’s going on, characters and audience included, the ending isn’t a twist,  it’s a revelation.

More importantly, the story of the Happening simply uninspired filmmaking. The opening is easily the strongest scene in the film, but then it quickly degenerates into little better than a late-night drive-in slasher flick that sucks the life out of actor and audience alike. Mark Wahlberg plays Eliot, a high school science teacher who doesn’t know why his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) has become increasingly distant. When a deadly neurotoxin is somehow released throughout the NE United States, they run off and try to escape the strange events surrounding those who become infected.

The major plotline is, of course, the neurotoxin that is infecting everyone and where it comes from, what’s causing it, and why it makes people kill themselves in the most gruesome way possible. From the man who runs over his own head with a lawn-mower to the fellow who feeds himself piece by piece to a lion, the suicides show exactly how little imagination Shyamalan actually has. The were necessary, though, as without them there would have been nothing to distract the audience from the gaping holes in the storyline.

The secondary story is that of the relationship between Elliot and Alma and is horribly underdeveloped. Once the source of tension is revealed, the entire sub-plot becomes laughable in its utter foolishness. Not only is it wholly unbelievable that these two people actually like each other let alone love each other, it’s difficult to fathom that the frivolous nature of their “issues” results in the kind of emotional trauma Alma is suffering. The result is that neither Elliot nor Alma are particularly likeable characters, which, considering they are running for their lives, kind of sinks the film before it even has a chance to float.

It also doesn’t help matters any that Wahlberg gives what could be the worst performance of his career. It must be noted, however, that it is not entirely his fault, as he is horribly miscast as a sensitive, intelligent teacher. When he sticks to his wheelhouse roles of bad boy or tough guy types, a la Four Brothers, he is in his element and can pull off a solid and entertaining performance. In this case, however, he just doesn’t have the chops to venture so far out of his comfort zone. This is painfully obvious in his very first scene in the movie where he is teaching his high school science class, and sets the tone for each and ever scene thereafter. Although it must be said that his ludicrous attept to carry on a conversation with a plastic ficus gave me a much needed laugh.

As for Deschanel, she is largely dead from the neck up for the majority of the film, and her response to every emotional crises is to stare blankly off into the distance. A mannequin would have been a wiser casting choice, as then at least Elliot would have been forced to interact with Alma in a meaningful manner.

On the whole, The Happening is easily the worst film I have seen in the last ten years. Take a tip from Hitchcock, Shy… a thriller takes me up the stairs and shows me the door. Schlock-horror throws me head first through the door into an empty room. The empty room is a disappointment and now my head hurts.

Film: Stardust

Cast: Charlie Cox, Clair Daines, Robert DeNiro, Michelle Pfeiffer

Tagline: This summer a star falls. The chase begins.

Review Summary: A fun romp worth the price of admission.

Based on the book by Neil Gaiman and Charlie Vess, I had high hopes for the movie Stardust. While those hopes weren’t quite realized, the film itself remained thoroughly enjoyable. Though it has been compared to The Princess Bride ad nauseum, Stardust is in no way a modern equivalent. But neither does it try to be, and it is important to note that, stylistically, these are two extremely different films.

The biggest problem the film suffers from is its amazingly slow opening. The first third of the film, and perhaps as much as the first half, needs much stronger editing and more action. Switching back and forth between the journeys of 4 characters was time consuming and, in the end, boring. The primary obstacle each of the characters face is time, and as a result the story becomes a kind of competing travelogue saved only by some pretty snappy dialogue. Unfortunately, the dialogue isn’t enough to carry these early scenes and they lag horribly.

But then DeNiro hits the screen and the entire mood of the film changes. There I was, struggling along, not sure whether this was a comedy taking itself too seriously or a drama trying to maintain a humorous edge, and DeNiro defines it in his first 30 seconds on screen. From that moment on, Stardust is an absolute joy to watch, and the tedium of the first 45 minutes is forgotten. The build to the climactic scene is extremely well crafted, and though much of the film I found predictable, including the ultimate resolution of the conflict, I very much enjoyed the journey on which I was taken to get there.

Aside from the first 45 minutes or so, I do have 3 other minor complaints:

1- By and large, I hate voiceover narration. It is extremely difficult to pull off well, and I can count on one hand the films in which I believe it was successfully implemented. Unfortunately, Stardust isn’t one of them. In fact, I think it is likely the main reason the first third of the film tends to drag.

2- The ending was disappointing. Again, this is primarily due to the voiceover. By shifting back to it in the film’s final minutes, the personal connection developed between the audience and the hero and heroine is severed and lost. When all is said and done, this lessened the overall effect the film had on me.

3- Charlie Cox as Tristan. While he does a perfectly fine job and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his performance, throughout the film I couldn’t help but see Paul Rudd in his place. I think Rudd would have brought a much needed comic-flair to the opening of the film, and he is easily a strong enough actor to carry the more dramatic moments. So while Cox isn’t miscast in the role by any stretch of the imagination, I think Rudd would have made a more robust Tristan.

The Bottom Line: All in all, Stardust is a good film with strong performances, especially by DeNiro who needs to do more comedy.

(originally posted 20 September 2004)

Hero (aka Ying xiong)
Cast: Jet Li, Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Maggie Cheung, Ziyi Zhang, Daoming Chen, Donnie Yen

Director: Yimou Zhang

Writers: Feng Li, Bin Wang, Yimou Zhang

Other than a couple of raving reviews, I hadn’t heard much of Hero when I went to go see it. After watching it, however, I dug around and read about a dozen or so more reviews, all of which were similar to the first 2. The reviewers raved and raved, gave it the highest possible score, and generally equated this movie to the coming of the messiah. Me, I just don’t get what all the fuss is about.

Hero is the story of Nameless (Jet Li) and his quest to assassinate the most powerful warlord (Daoming Chen) in pre-unified China. Told in flashbacks, the storyline itself was simple enough, made complex by the way in which it was told. An interesting approach, but in the end it fell far short of it’s mark. My general rule of thumb… if your story spends more time talking about the past than it does moving in the present, you are telling the wrong story. It’s a rare film that can successfully get away from this rule, and this film isn’t among the gems that succeed.

While I thought that both the cinemagraphic and digital imagery was gorgeous, I felt like I was being bludgeoned with it. Other than create interesting visuals in a mode not unlike still photography, the vast majority of images did nothing to further or enhance the story and, for me, came off as a director (Yimou Zhang) stroking his own artistic ego. In the end, I felt as if I had been beaten with the imagery stick about the head and shoulders for 2 hours… an altogether unpleasant experience.

The actors had a rough go of it in Hero. Due to the structure of the film, there was very little hope for any of them (aside from Jet Li) to really experience any kind of “journey” or growth. While their performances were all rock solid, I felt that they all came off rather flat and 2 dimensional, ultimately hampered by Zhang’s direction and story structure. Jet Li took a huge risk in accepting this role, as it is nothing like what he has done in the past. Li fans expecting his typical martial arts style film will be sorely disappointed in Hero. I do think, however, that it will open the door for Li to more complex character films in the future, as he does an admirable job as the only character to really develop over the course of the story.