Cuparia

The most eagerly awaited Spider-Man movie is also the least satisfying of the three. There are too many villains, too many origin stories, too many superfluous CGI shenanigans, and too many cheap and easy plot tricks. Perhaps our expectations are too high. Perhaps we have been spoiled by the quality of its predecessors. No, I don’t think so. The action scenes seemed consciously choreographed for adaptation to the lucrative computer game market — although “seemed” is probably phrasing it charitably — and the rest of the movie is a melodramatic muddle. It isn’t all bad, but too little of it is good.

Whereas my appreciation for Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 grew with subsequent viewings, Spider-Man 3 engenders in me no desire to see it again. It rates 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 and leaves me indifferent.

• Writing: Poor
• Directing: Mediocre
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Fair
• Special Effects: Good

Overall Rating: Mediocre/Fair

Some movies were made to be watched in a hot rod at a drive-in… in the 1950s. Thunder Road (1958) is one such movie. Starring Robert Mitchum (who also produced it and wrote the story), it is the tale of Lucas Doolin, a troubled veteran of the Korean War who is working in the family moonshine business as a runner, or transporter. The family business (which is also largely the regional business) is caught between a rock and a hard place: a gangster who wants a monopoly on the illegal whiskey trade, and the Feds who want to stop him (and the moonshiners). Complications abound. His younger brother (played by his real-life eldest son, James Mitchum) wants to be a runner like him, other moonshiners think his daredevil stunts are drawing too much attention to their activities, he has two girls in two different towns (one played by Sandra Knight, and the other by jazz chanteuse Keely Smith), and his experiences in Korea continue to haunt him.

Among other things, it is a tale about the clash of cultures: the rural descendants of Irish immigrants who want to be left alone to do what their ancestors have always done without interference; a government agency charged with enforcing laws and stopping organized crime; and an enterprising gangster from the big city who will not shy from murder to consolidate his empire.

It is a situation ripe with dramatic opportunities, but those opportunities are grasped a little clumsily by the script, although well enough, I suppose, for a target audience that was more interested in the cars and the chases than the quality of the dialogue or the intricacies of plot. Essentially, it contrives to tell a folk tale, and taken as such, it does well enough, but not without the feeling that it could have been done better.

Mitchum’s acting is better than the script, which is unsurprising. There are many movies in which his presence is the sole redeeming feature. Gene Barry is plausible as Treasury Agent Troy Barrett. Sandra Knight, Keely Smith (whose real profession was as a singer, not an actress), and James Mitchum were all newcomers (it was the film debut of all three, although James Mitchum had an uncredited role as a child in a previous film), and their inexperience is noticeable at times.

To state things bluntly, where the writing is weak, the car chases and violence compensate, for it is obvious that this movie was made out of a love for action. This is not a cheaply made hack job. The directing of the action scenes and the behind-the-scenes work involved in creating the special effects demonstrate a level of ingenuity, dedication, and passion comparable to that of the mechanical prodigy who soups up the runner’s cars. Overall, it’s an impressive movie if you can mentally situate yourself in the environment where it belongs: at a drive-in theatre under the stars.

• Writing: Poor
• Directing: Fair
• Acting: Mediocre
• Cinematography: Good
• Special Effects: Great

Overall Rating: Fair

Ghost Rider (2007) is a basic superhero tale that could have been one of the better film adaptations of the genre, but which decided to settle for lazier goals. Yes, the film is entertaining. I found myself chuckling where it was intentionally humorous, and I enjoyed the visual effects, but I do not find myself at all anxious to see it again.

At the heart of the dissatisfaction is the writing. In particular, the weakest link is the choice of villains. For the most part, great heroes benefit from having great enemies. One doesn’t have to like the villains (although that happens often enough), but one ought to find them interesting and entertaining to watch. Epic struggles between Good and Evil should not be boring. The villains of Ghost Rider are boring. One can easily imagine the process of devising them. “I need a villain. How about the son of the Devil? Great! Now I need some superpowered henchmen. How about demons? The demons need a shtick. How about air, earth, and water? Great! Villains: check. Now I need a plot…”

Yes, there is a plot — a predictable plot involving sundry battles with demons and arguments with his confused girlfriend… Sorry, I almost dozed off writing that sentence.

Ghost Rider could have and should have been much better, but a weak script can be the greatest hurdle to overcome in making a good movie. Actors can only do so much with the material they are given, and the best effects in the world can’t entirely save a forgettable story. I’m not saying the story ought to be another dark comic book psychodrama (there’s more than enough of that), but I do expect more effort in storytelling, because the superhero genre, despite its appearances, deserves to be better represented in our culture. Like it or not, the superhero comic has a place in the history of our civilization and its themes and ideals have been instilled in the dreams and aspirations of generations. Doesn’t it deserve to be adapted to film with a little more regard for its heritage, even if, on the surface, it seems to be nothing more than the business of entertainment?

On a more “pragmatic” level, isn’t it just good business to make a better product that more people will enjoy and recommend to others? Hollywood, could you please make writing a priority again and treat writers with the respect they are due?

• Writing: Mediocre
• Directing: Fair
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Good
• Special Effects: Good

Overall Rating: Fair

H.M.S. Defiant (known by the title Damn the Defiant in the U.S.), is a 1962 film that tells one small part of the story of the Great Mutiny of 1797, which beset the British Navy at a time when it was at war with Napoleon’s France. Alec Guinness stars as Captain Crawford of the titular vessel; Dirk Bogarde plays the evil, well-connected 1st Lt. Scott-Padget.

The attention to historical accuracy and detail in this film is gratifying, especially considering its rarity in other films of the genre. The depictions of naval warfare are well above average, and it will meet with the approval of fans of Master and Commander. This review may be brief, but my appreciation is expansive.

• Writing: Good
• Directing: Great
• Acting: Great
• Cinematography: Great
• Naval Combat: Great
• Verisimilitude: Great

Overall Rating: Great

I just don’t know how to start this review of Ong-bak, a 2003 martial arts film from Thailand. It is almost everything I could want from a martial arts film; it restores my faith in a genre that is elsewhere being diminished by wires, cgi, and choppy camerawork devised to hide the inadequacy of actors, stunt doubles, and fight choreographers. Thank the gods someone is offering an alternative.

Ong-bak is, I believe, the first film to introduce Tony Jaa (the star of The Protector, which is currently playing in U.S. cinemas, I believe) to a Western audience. There are no stunt doubles, and the director ensures that you can actually see the amazing martial arts rather than merely suggesting them. And the fight scenes are phenomenal. You will probably tire of hearing it, but Tony Jaa appears to be the greatest martial artist in movies since Bruce Lee.

The story behind Ong-bak is a simple one. Ong-bak is the name of the statue of the Buddha that protects our hero’s village. Alas, the head of the statue is stolen, and the rural villagers believe that they will certainly suffer poverty and starvation unless the head of Ong-bak is restored. Our hero selflessly volunteers to single-handedly retrieve the head of Ong-bak whatever the cost, and sets out for its obvious location: the sin capital of the world, Bangkok. Before he leaves, however, the monk who trained him forces him to promise never to use his martial arts in a fight.

Inevitably, our hero unintentionally gains a sidekick, and as a result of the sidekick’s shenanigans gets unwillingly involved in a number of fights (alas) conducted for the sake of gambling and entertainment by some of the most ruthless crimelords in Thailand. There is action, comedy, mystery, and drama, but it has to be said: the moral of the story is a trifle off-kilter. Although, my misgivings about it might be partially attributed to a less-than-complete understanding of the Thai sects of Buddhism. Nevertheless, there is something about it that just doesn’t quite jibe, and it might be the writer’s fault.

If you get a chance to rent the DVD, I implore you to watch it in the original Thai language with the subtitles of your choice. I wouldn’t ordinarily stress the importance of subtitles over dubbing in a martial arts movie, but it really is a pleasure to hear the spoken Thai and the real voices of the actors.

I highly recommend Ong-bak to anyone with even a passing interest in martial arts movies. ‘Tis amazing.

• Writing: Mediocre
• Directing: Good
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Great
• Stunts: Superb
• Martial Arts: Superb

Overall Rating: Good

Martial Arts Rank: Superb