Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I like this guy. He’s a straight shooter. Say what you want about me or Harry, but it’s guys like PoleOfJustice who are the real backbone of AICN... tireless film fans who take the time to write in and share, no matter what they’ve seen. In this case, he’s got one strange double-header... the new Jackie Chan film and a Werner Herzog movie that’s been playing very limited engagments around the US. Check it out...
Heya, PoleOfJustice here with two films that are about as diametrically opposed as is humanly possible.
The thing with movies like SHANGHAI KNIGHTS is that they're difficult to critique. Really, there's only one question you can ask: is it a good one?
Yup. Even though many of the bits are recycled, even though it has its share of rough patches, even though the producers inexplicably decided to include a Short Round-esque kid into the equation (well, he's more of an Artful Dodger, really,) it all tips over to the plus side. One reviewer nailed it: if you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
The plot is...what the Hell do you care what the plot is? Jackie and Owen kick ass in England (mostly Jackie, natch.) End plot summary.
Jackie's fight scenes are some of the best he's had in YEARS. You can't explain a Jackie Chan fight sequence, you just have to watch it, and here they're every bit as energetic, ridiculous, and slapstick as any of his past glories. They do, however, have the added dimension of someone (whether it was the producers or Jackie, I don't know) deciding to just pull out all the stops and go ahead and let Jackie be Buster Keaton. There's a silent film feel to many of the kinetic sequences here (none more so than a Keystone Cops-esque fight with a handful of cops and a revolving door.) I can't honestly think of a more seamless blend of Jackie style stunts and silent era slapstick (check the fight scene in the marketplace for reference: straight outta Keaton.) A blatant reference to Harold Lloyd in the Big Ben sequence at the end doesn't hurt, either.
Owen Wilson still plays Owen Wilson, just snottier. There's an speech he gives a street urchin that borders on the outright cruel, but it works just because Wilson's such a willing doofus. The bad guy, played by Adian Gillen, looks like the bastard child of Alec Baldwin and Gary Oldman, and he plays it with the appropriate moustache-twirling menace. The film gleefully ignores feasibility, or even historical accuracy, although it dips into history more than a few times.
Flaws? Yes. Many glaring. Why, why, why do filmmakers feel the need to insert a wisecracking kid into a perfectly good buddy film? And for God sakes, I know we're in England, but did the wisecracking kid have to be a cockney street urchin by the name of Charles Chaplin? (And yes, that means exactly what you think it does, right down to the kid sporting a little fake moustache.) The music is jarring and obvious, and underscores with gigantic capital letters what everyone with a pulse was picking up on anyway. There's a pillow fight in the middle that's just wrong. I can't break it down, but it just plain feels wrong. It's also too long, but that's neither here nor there.
Many of the geek persuasion will undoubtedly pick up on the fact that many of these stunts have been done before, as well (they even use the revolving fireplace gimmick from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK...or was it THE LAST CRUSADE?) But like those same three chords that bands have been using for about half a century, they still work: if the repetition bugs you, you're thinking too much. That said, some of the repeats are in the bloopers (some of which simply HAVE to be staged.) Remember Chris Tucker's cell phone going off in the RUSH HOUR II outtakes? It's Jackie's turn this time. Remember how Chris Tucker called him Jackie in one flubbed scene? Now Owen Wilson gives it a shot. Certainly, these kinds of things must happen in the process of making the film, but do you have to stick 'em in the blooper reel AGAIN?
None of this drags too much, however, and frankly, if you're not willing to get in the spirit of the proceedings, you shouldn't have bothered seeing the film in the first place. SHANGHAI KNIGHTS ain't gonna redefine cinema, but it's a damn good one of its kind.
Now, a complete 180 to Werner Herzog's INVINCIBLE. This is going to be short, not just because it hurts me to trash a film by the master, but because it's problems are simple: shallow script, poor acting, no focus.
INVINCIBLE is based on the true story of one Zishe Breitbart, a Polish Jew who, due to his Superman physique, finds himself in the odd position of being worshipped by Nazis in pre-war Berlin. It's a straight retelling, with no real dramatic arc to the whole proceedings. I don't know if Herzog (who also wrote the script) was simply being faithful to the facts at the expense of the story, but the film doesn't add up to much more than a bunch of stuff happening for two hours. The characters also say painfully obvious things, like "You're a good man, Zishe Breitbart," or "Do you know what real power is? Money. That's real power."
The biggest flaw comes from the amateur actors. Jouko Ahola was quite obviously chosen for his muscles, not his skills as a thespian. Herzog has used amateur actors to good effect in the past, but by putting the entire film on Ahola's broad shoulders, he makes a fatal miscalculation. Ahola is quite likeable, and even when he's giving a line reading that makes the audience curl up in the fetal position, they're still rooting for him. To no avail, sadly.
But ultimately, the blame falls on Herzog's shoulders. There is an extended scene where a battered woman plays piano that is obviously intended to be one of those cinematic moments that stick with you: long shots of her reactions, focus right on her face for minutes at a time. But the woman, to put it kindly, is no actor: Herzog should have simply not used the scene. But he did, and this isn't the only time in the film he makes this kind of mistake.
Which begs a few questions: was the prosecution running out of money? Was there no time for reshoots? Too much seems as if Herzog said "good enough, let's move on." One scene, in which Brietbart addresses the people in his village, is Keanu worthy. No. I'll go ahead and say it. Keanu would have blown him away.
Tim Roth and Udo Keir are the only bright spots. Roth chews the scenery enjoyably, but his character seems to be there out of fidelity to the facts, not dramatic necessity. Udo Keir plays a Devil's Advocate type with a gleam in his eye that I really, really wanted more of. He's really only got one good scene, and it's short.
Herzog needs to return to fiction. I drove from Columbus to Cleveland with a couple of friends, and while we enjoyed the trip in general, even Tim, the Herzog geek of the three of us, had practically nothing good to say about it. Here's hoping Werner comes roaring back after this major misstep.
Pole out.
Thanks, man. Nice work as always.
"Moriarty" out.
