Friday, January 21, 2011

Movie Review: "The Green Hornet"

Most superhero movies require a familiarity with the source material. "The Green Hornet" may be the first to demand tolerance for the star.

Those who find Seth Rogen's sarcastic, slacker shtick grating will likely not make it to the end of "The Green Hornet" without wondering whether their headache is from the 3D or his smoker's-cough laugh. Fans of the "Knocked Up" star will fare better, although even they may find themselves wishing he were more like his silent sidekick.

A mashup of "Pineapple Express" and "Batman," but not nearly as cool as that sounds, "The Green Hornet" is entertaining in fits and starts but ultimately disposable, empty fare.

Not that Rogen isn't trying. The formerly rotund comic slimmed down for his role as Britt Reid, immature son of a newspaper magnate (Tom Wilkinson) who spends his days acting out his daddy issues by throwing wild parties and making out in the family garage. The role is basically an amalgam of all of Rogen's previous roles, and if you found him funny in "40-Year-Old Virgin," you'll probably find some chuckles here.

Things get serious, though, when Britt's father dies of a bee sting. Unsure of how to proceed without his dad's domineering shadow over him, Britt refuses to become involved in the newspaper business and fires all of his family's personal staff. When he learns that his morning coffee will no longer be made to his liking, Britt demands to see the man responsible, his father's mechanic, Kato (Jay Chou). Kato's something of a renaissance mechanic, fixing up Britt's father's cars with indestructible armor and weaponry, ably sketching beautiful women and possessing incredible martial arts knowledge. After a night of heavy drinking and ill-advised heroics, the two decide they should team up as superheroes who masquerade as villains. I'm still not really sure why they go that route, except that it allows for several scenes of Rogen being able to fake acting tough around drug lords.

It's not really a secret that Kato was always cooler than the Green Hornet. After all, mostly everyone knows that Kato was played in the 1960s TV show by martial arts icon Bruce Lee; few people are aware who tackled the role of Britt Reid (trivia: it was Van Williams). And while Rogen has notably slimmed down for his first superhero role, it is Chou who does all the heavy kicking and punching. Rogen's just around for the wisecracks.

It may sound like I'm ragging on the funnyman, and that's not my intention. I've been a fan of Rogen's work since "Knocked Up" and think he's funny, likable and surprisingly nuanced, even in films that don't completely work, like "Funny People" or "Observe and Report." There's a lot of humor to be had in "The Green Hornet," particularly because of the chemistry between Rogen and Chou, who rarely speaks, which nicely compliments the movie's star, who never shuts up. Britt's "I don't give a care" attitude is funny in the film's early scenes and there's a fanboy humor to his elation at actually going out and being a superhero.

Were this a straight comedy, like "Pineapple Express," the humor would be fine. But the script by Rogen and his frequent co-writer Evan Goldberg wants us to truly invest in the superhero story at its heart. Rogen is so constantly mugging and cracking jokes that he makes Britt an unlikable jerk throughout much of the movie. When he makes his inevitable turn to the light at the end of the movie, it doesn't register because we never believe Rogen's sincerity for a moment. Again, were this strictly a comedy it might work - but we're supposed to be engaged in the adventure, laughing with, but never at, our hero.

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" director Michel Gondry is surprisingly adept at the action sequences and brings a nice visual charge to Kato's battles; when the sidekick gets ready to attack, the world slows down and the background elongates - a pretty cool effect, especially in 3D. Gondry delivers a few fun action sequences, including a climax that goes wonderfully over the top, but he fails to hold together the patchwork plot whenever the focus shifts from Britt and Kato, letting both Edward James Olmos and Cameron Diaz flounder in supporting roles that somehow weigh down the story even though the characters are nothing but fluff. Only "Inglourious Basterds'" Christoph Waltz registers some laughs, as a villain who only wants to be feared. Waltz brings a slightly different shade to his low-key villain and garners some entertaining moments, although the film struggles to shoehorn him into its already convoluted plot.

My reaction to "The Green Hornet" is fairly complex. Yes, I laughed quite a bit while watching it, particularly at the chemistry between Rogen and Chou. But even as I headed out to my car I found myself irked and irritated by how weightless and unnecessary the entire affair was. Perhaps were we not in an age where superhero movies are consistently great - or if we went back four years, where Rogen was still fresh and new - I would have laughed more. Here all I can do is ambivalently swat "The Green Hornet" away.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Movie Review: "Best Worst Movie"

A few years back, a friend and I used to make a habit of having a "bad movie night."

Basically, one of us would pick out a movie that was getting panned by critics and audiences. "Glitter," "Left Behind," "Carman: The Champion." We had a blast looking watching those movies and laughing at their awfulness. Our breaking point, I believe, came with "Gigli," when we realized that some movies' badness just wasn't worth it.

Bad movie connoisseurs know that not just any bad movie is a "good" bad movie. Some films are just plain terrible and better left alone (I'm looking at you, "Last Airbender") while others are just so wrong-headed and made with so much misdirected passion that they spawn a cult following, with people gathering just to revel in their awfulness.

So what is it that makes an awful movie become beloved, and what are the fates of those who dared lend their names to the credits of such infamous flicks? That's what Michael Stephenson's documentary seeks to find out in "Best Worst Movie."

I haven't seen "Troll 2," a horror flick from 1986 that has garnered infamy as the worst movie ever made--accruing a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 0%. I should also probably state that I haven't seen the original "Troll," although I quickly learned that this was a quickie sequel made by an Italian director that has no connection to the original film. "Troll 2" is actually not even about trolls at all--it's about vegetarian goblins, who attempt to turn a family into vegetables so that they can eat them. Just hearing that description was enough to make me add it to my Netflix Instant queue for watching later this week.

As films about vegetarian goblins are wont to do, "Troll 2" took a critical drubbing and failed to make a peep at the box office. Most of the amateur actors involved went back to their day jobs and some didn't even see the movie until they had VHS copies shipped to them. But as the film began to circulate on videotape and in rotation on HBO, it gathered a cult following. People began throwing parties and midnight shows, with some calling it the new generation's "Rocky Horror Picture Show."

As these screenings begin to pop up throughout the country, Stephenson gathers the film's cast to assemble and take a look at the phenomenon they've become a part of. It ends up being a funny and surprising look at pop culture and the weird things people latch onto.

Having seen and cherished my share of low budget, horrible horror movies over the years, I've often wondered what becomes of the cast. Every once in awhile, you'll have a movie star who started in drek, like Jennifer Aniston ("Leprechaun") or Kevin Bacon ("Friday the 13th"). But most of the time, these horrid little flicks are just opportunities for local men and women who wanted to try their hand at being in a real movie.

That's what happened with George Hardy, who commands most of the doc's screen time. A Dentist living in Alabama, Hardy is a friendly and talkative chap who is always smiling or chatting someone up. He readily admits that when he saw the film for the first time, he was immediately aware of how bad the film was and promptly went on with his life of dentistry. When he gets word of "Troll 2's" unexpected popularity and attends a midnight screening, he begins to have a blast with interacting with the crowds, signing autographs and regaling audiences with his classic line, "you can't piss on hospitality."

The film largely follows Hardy as he attends screenings and conventions, trying to assemble as much of the cast as possible. Sometimes this results in getting other people eager to share in the experience--such as the actor who played his son and is game to sit around a recreate scenes for the camera. Other times--such as when the two attempt to recruit the woman who played Hardy's wife--the results are so bizarre that it could only happen in a documentary like this...upon their visit they find a reclusive, cat-obsessed woman whose own shut-in mother seems constantly annoyed at her own child. When they ask her to join them at a screening, they get a bizarre rant about how scary and risky it would be. Also, this woman truly believes "Troll 2" turned out to be a meaningful, magical film.

One thing I've always suspected about these low budget fiascoes is that, despite how horrible the film turned out, the cast had a great experience just being in a movie. Hardy is probably the best type of person to center a film like this around--he's pleased as punch to have the lime light shown on him. And while the cast reminisces about a shoot where they constantly had no idea what kind of movie they were making and were further confused by the crew's language barrier, we get the sense that they all enjoyed their one shot at making a movie. It was fun and, for the most part, they have a fun time talking to the movie's unexpected fan club.

Stephenson is a little less successful at capturing why "Troll 2" has become such a beloved bad movie. He has no trouble in finding large groups of people who gather for viewing parties, midnight shows and Question and Answer session. Some of these people appear to genuinely believe that--despite its bad acting, directing and everything else--"Troll 2" is actually a truly enjoyable and even magical film. Others seem to be content just to admit that they love to laugh at ever terrible line of dialogue. I might have liked to see some more film experts polled on what makes a bad movie a cult hit and maybe a digression further into the works of Ed Wood or some sort of analysis about why people love to laugh at these movies. I would venture to say, at first glance, it's a result of our postmodern culture--but I also then have to remember that generations before me loved to laugh at "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

Of course, I could be expecting a little too much scholarly work from a movie that follows the global impact of "Troll 2."

One fan posits that people flock to bad movies that have been made with sincerity and belief in the product, and I would agree that a good bad movie has to truly believe that it is, in fact, good (which is why "Snakes on a Plan" has its merits, but doesn't hang on as a cult classic--it's too aware of its badness.) But surely, I thought, "Troll 2" would have to be excluded from that--it was a sequel to a little seen horror movie, a cash-in by an Italian film crew.

And then Stephenson brings in Claudio Fragasso, the film's director. Claudio, through a translator, recalls that he made "Troll 2" as a movie about family values with an important comment to make. He still believes that it's an emotionally moving film and sees its new found popularity as a vindication from critics who panned it upon release. He gladly visits the midnight screenings and shakes hands with "fans," even believing that he inspired some to go into the film business.

Claudio, of course, has no concept of irony. And he's baffled when people are laughing not only at the film's humorous moments but--even harder--at the moments intended to be serious. At the end of the film he lashes out at the actors who have all taken part in the joke, calling them "dogs." When someone asks him why there are no actual trolls in "Troll 2," Claudio's only response is "you know nothing." Watching him slowly catch on and react to what people really think about the movie is one of the most entertaining--and awkward--moments of the documentary.

But the film also finds a bit of resonance in Hardy's experience reliving "Troll 2." At first, he seems to take every moment to go to screenings and talk about the film. He talks about it with all his patients--not really understanding that some people just don't think bad films are all that funny. He throws a screening his hometown and even begins to think about quitting his dental career to go back into film. But there's a sadness to scenes set at horror and sci fi conventions, where Hardy and his crew are ignored by fanboys who aren't part of the cult and they see how out of place they are in the world of geeks. "Troll 2" fans, I guess, truly do breathe rare air and aren't found everywhere in the country.

The film never truly gains the momentum or heart to be on par with a "King of Kong," probably the champion of quirky documentaries. But "Best Worst Movie" is enjoyable in its own rights, as a look at the legacy even the worst movie can have and for watching people truly get some enjoyment out of a movie that they thought was long forgotten.


About Me

My photo
30s, engaged and living in Motown. Wrestling with life, love, faith, art, film, culture and everything in between.