“Heaven make me free of it. The rest is silence.”
Adrian.
 |
| Work was murder. |
It's been a while, but here's another film review...
Synopsis;
Well, most people know the story by now; a selfish and
reckless ‘nobody’ (this time by the name of Joe Doucett) is snatched from the streets and
imprisoned, seemingly without reason, in
solitary confinement- only to be mysteriously released 20 years later. Fuelled by a burning lust for vengeance, and
to free his daughter from the clutches of an evil mastermind, Joe goes in
search of answers- and blood.
Most people felt a remake of the original was unnecessary,
and much has been made of the fact Spike Lee, the films very outspoken
director, has all but disowned it (the credits tellingly allude to this with "A
Spike Lee Film" rather than his usual "A Spike Lee Joint"). Despite this, and it may come as a surprise to some, I kept an
open mind (as always) and hoped to find something positive about the film-
despite its poor box-office figures and critical mauling.
The following review contains spoilers and assumes you’ve
already seen the original Oldboy.
Script Logic; 1/2
While this American remake makes some noble attempts to legitimize
the original’s more surreal aspects, it does make a few missteps in the process.
Now, instead of a main character who’s all but forgotten he
even had a family, this time round Joe’s motivations clearly relate to his
daughter’s safety and the brutal rape and murder of his ex-wife (for which he
was framed). That’s a very good move, and the character arc of ‘absentee father’
to ‘protective avenger’ instantly lends the once reprehensible Joe some much
needed kudos.
Of course, anyone who’s ever seen the original Oldboy knows
of the film’s tragic revelation, so the explanation of the daughter’s abduction
(a new plot-point for this remake) is another nice touch- sure to fool more
than a few new viewers.
On the flip side, the “shocking reasons” behind the new villain’s
motivations are, to say the least, a wash-out, and the reason for their
alteration remains a mystery to me, if it’s not broke why fix it? With the original, one could almost understand how the villain came to direct his hate at the protagonist, all be it his revenge was extreme and misplaced, but this time round it feels more of a stretch.
Pace; 2/2
I can say this much; I was never bored. While the first
movie felt occasionally like a choir while it meanders between plot points and
tonal shifts with all the grace of a 2-legged bison, at least this remake builds-up
momentum nicely and never out stays it’s welcome. Every moment felt like it was
moving the story towards its inevitable confrontation.
According to Spike Lee and the film’s star Josh Brolin, the original
running length of the film was 140 minutes, and both are resentful that the studio
intervened and trimmed it to a brisk 105 minutes. I can understand their
bitterness, no artist would like to see something they cherished edited in such
a way, but to be fair a film like this doesn’t need another 35 minutes of ‘character
building’, the characters here are pretty successfully defined by their
actions.
Acting; 1/2
Before I go further into this, I have to say the film feels
a little divided by its intentions…
In part, and for the weight of its revelation to fully work,
the story needs to be played straight. That is to say, it has to feel “real”,
even though it’s obviously pure fiction. That’s one of the reasons why the original
film never felt AS grim as it perhaps could have- it had comic book sensitivity.
To this end, the likes of the ever reliable (and ever beautiful) Elizabeth
Olsen and Michael Imperioli add weight to their meagre roles as love-interest (?!?) and best friend. Elizabeth has the
whole sweet-but-troubled thing down-pat, and Michael is never less than concerned
with a healthy underpinning of self-preservation.
On the flip side, the violence and the action scenes feel
like they’ve stepped right outta Sin City. Hammers break through people’s
skulls as though they were over-ripe watermelons, goons are kicked through the
air like helium balloons, or spun overhead, only to come crashing down on
snapping necks. It was like seeing the Marv fights from the aforementioned Sin City, only without all
the high contrast black-and-white. Some of the performances fit more neatly
into this later style concession, most crucially that of the lead villains; Adrian
Price and Chaney, played (or over-played) by Sharlto Copley and Samuel L “motherfucking”
Jackson respectively. Adrian is camp-moustache-twirling evil at its most hammy,
and Jackson is, well, Samuel L “motherfucking” Jackson, and both of these characters would feel
right at home in (using the same analogy as before) Sin City.
The two strands don’t particularly make for a coherent
style, although both are well acted in their own distinct ways. Only Josh
Brolin, giving a power-house performance of barely withheld swaggering aggression,
is able to straddle both sides of this divide. He would have made a fine
casting choice as an older and jaded Batman…
Aesthetic; 2/2
Nothing about the film looks cheap, yet nothing is particularly
striking. The violence is suitably brutal, and the film manages some subtle
nods to the first film (the angel wings worn by the Chinese street vendor, the octopus
in the takeaway tank and the yellow umbrella). Perhaps, in keeping with the
source material, and the comic-book nature of the material, a more striking
visual style would have gone a long way to giving the film a more individual feel.
Originality & Intention; 0/2
This is where the film loses some real points. The world did
not need, nor want, an Oldboy remake, and it’s hard to imagine why or how such
a thing came to be. Not similar enough to be a straight remake, nor different
enough to be truly original. Perhaps a more interesting idea would be to set a
film in the ‘world’ of the first Oldboy, with a different character held in
captivity before his release, from the American wing of whatever company it is
that confines these victims in their cells? Theirs would be a completely
different story, with a different set of twists and revelations... Still, for
what it is, it can be called neither original nor inventive, and the only
intention I can see for its existence is to spin money.
Final Score; 6/10
Truth be told, this Oldboy is far from a terrible film, just
not as polished or as daring as it needed to be in order to succeed- but if you’re coming to the film ‘fresh’ (or just plain don’t
give a shit about it being a remake) then you could easily add another point or
two to the score. The end result is a faithful, yet patchy, take on the first story. It deserves to be seen on its own merits, of which it has several, not
least a fantastic central performance from the underrated Josh Brolin. I'll finish by saying this; it’s a much easier ride than its predecessor, although
they share the same sucker-punch ending, and (dare I admit it) I much preferred
this Oldboy’s denouement.
Did you know (or care)? Steven Spielberg was, at one point, supposedly attached to direct the Oldboy remake, with none other than Will Smith in the
title role. I can’t imagine a worse choice of combination; the Kings of schmaltz
and smarm respectively as the creative talents behind a tale of brutal revenge
and ‘accidental incest’… The worst pairing for Oldboy, save perhaps for a movie by Michael
Bay and starring Adam Sandler…
