There are more movies released every year about assassins than there are actual assassins in the world. It helps that the common knowledge about hitmen and their lives is largely restricted to the meager number of people in and around the murder business, ensuring that even the novice writer can quickly churn out a story concerning a member of that understandably secretive profession, inventing details as he or she goes along.
Movies about hitmen share something with the slasher genre; once you’ve seen a couple, you’ve pretty much seem them all. I’ve never seen a film about a hired murderer where the subject doesn’t have a crisis of conscience (always the result of a woman or child) that results in their virtually spontaneous decision to spare their next target, always while looking at them through a telescopic sight. And then this leads to their employer sending an army of cannon fodder after our protagonist to punish him for a job poorly done. At that point, can’t we sympathize more with the employer than the hitman? If I pay someone an exorbitant fee to terminate a rival, then I expect the job to be done properly and with as much fuss as I have deemed allowable.
But yes, this is the Pulse, and I’m reviewing a movie, not a genre. “Bangkok Dangerous” is the newest entry into the ranks of hitman films. Nicolas Cage, whose excellent resume nonetheless suggests a man who loves watching hisself killin’ folks on screen, plays the assassin, a laconic shooter named Joe who lives by a set of absolutely unbreakable rules that he casually breaks by the halfway point.
Joe trots the globe with a reliable blueprint for getting away with murder: he recruits a small-time thief to run his errands, separating him from his employers. Once the last round has been fired, Joe waxes the thief and bolts to the next market. After gunning down a gangster in some European city, Joe makes his way to beautiful Bangkok, capital of Thailand and perhaps Tokyo’s less ostentatious cousin.
It goes without saying that Joe will come to like the thief (Shahkrit Yamnarm) he chooses as his assistant, and that he’ll fall in love with a local girl, whose good nature will teach him that murder is wrong, a lesson that could have been useful some years prior. What is different about Joe’s infatuation is that the object of his desire is Fon (Charlie Young), a beautiful deaf-mute woman, who turns out to be the ideal companion for a man that lacks the gift of gab. I found myself tapping my foot through the murders and awaiting the scenes where Joe and Fon spend time together, silently enjoying one another’s company. The film shifts back and fourth from moments of romantic serenity to morbid scenes of murder, the exception being a clever moment that mixes the two, playing on Fon’s deafness in a moment that’s very nearly poetic in execution, pardon the pun.
“Bangkok Dangerous” is directed by the Pang Brothers, Hong Kong filmmakers remaking their own 1999 hitman movie, which I’ve admittedly not seen, but from what I’ve read is considerably different. It’s surprisingly Asian in temperament, understandable considering the source material and helmers, but unexpected in its lack of Hollywood pacing and its willingness to embrace a downbeat close. Even with a shootout filled trailer and an A-list star, it’s difficult to see how the filmmakers planned on recouping their investment, at least in this country.
It’s funny how the movies are so frequently insisting that deep down inside every contract killer is a sad soul who’s not such a bad guy once you get to know him. Their theme could be summed up with the question “how many murders does it take to get to the troubled center of an assassin?” Few, if any, are about a seriously evil monster. “Bangkok Dangerous” tries to play it both ways, Joe seemingly kind one moment and murderous the next. Although a vicious man can also be a good on, we need to know if he’s redeemable or doomed. Here, I’d have like to have seen more of Joe’s thoughts, his specially-qualified ruminations on life and death, and the impetus behind his attempt at change. We might be getting another thriller covering ground that has been traversed ad nauseam, but since we’re in the seats, shouldn’t we get to know our killer a little better?
2.5 out of 5
4 comments:
Good review! (as always)
Quote: Few [hitman genre movies], if any, are about a seriously evil monster. “Bangkok Dangerous” tries to play it both ways, Joe seeming kind one moment and murderous the next.
The most recent movie I saw about a seriously evil monster was No Country for Old Men, although the movie is not from the vantage point of the monster.
I cannot think of any stories where the main character is a seriously evil monster, and also the story is exclusively from the point of view of the monster. I think thats because it makes the audience uncomfortable to see things from the vantage point of monster. Whenever we experience a story from some vantage point, in some way we are sympathizing with that point of view. If story assumes the monster's point of view, it's like we sympathize with the monster, and if the monster is evil, that would make most people feel like they were in a moral conundrum.
Saying this, I am starting to see what is most interesting about your "Murky" stories, which find a way to make this very unusual point of view -- the point of view of the reprehensible sociopath -- and make it comical rather than uncomfortable.
Thanks, Ramin! It is indeed rare that a film asks us to sympathize with the villain to the point where he or she becomes the protagonist.
That's one of the tricky things about writing "Murky." He's a truly dreadful human being, and at times while writing I have to resist the temptation to make him more likeable. However, there are to be a few moments of pathos for him, particularly at the novel's close.
Great opening line
Christian: I don't know about you, but I always find the opening to be the hardest to write. With this one, I at least had a start!
Post a Comment