Tweet
So;
I finally got around to watching the new “Green Hornet” movie. I actually liked it; it’s not a great film, but it was entertaining. I kinda wonder why so many folks didn’t care for it though.
Spoilers; but I think by now anyone who cared has probably already seen it.
My exposure to the character is limited to the old tv show, and the comic from the 40's. I didn’t watch the show as a kid, but a few years back they were showing it on cable, and I’d see it while having breakfast. The movie (even though they credit the radio play) seemed to draw mostly from the tv show. I remember the Hornet being a smarmy wiseacre in that, and it looks like THAT was what they decided to hype up for the new version. A lot of folks complained that it wasn’t true to the source material; but I didn’t see that. Not entirely. The tv Hornet was more suave, but I could see that coming with time for the movie one. Kato was the biggest change. In the show he was clearly the sidekick, in the movie he was the super stud.... although I could see the movie version being what went on behind the scenes of the tv one. (DO millionaire playboys change the tires on their super-car?)
The 40's comic version was a generic “mystery man,” so I dunno if it matters either way.
One thing I can see throwing folks is that this is absolutely NOT a kids film.... and I don’t mean ‘cos of the swearing or violence. Most of what motivates characters, and progresses the plot is of the sort that kids wouldn’t appreciate or care about. The discussion Britt and Kato have in the beginning about Britt’s dad is a good example: none of it was the kind of thing a kid would think. A disgruntled 30 year old, sure. Another thing I don’t think kids would care about was that the WHOLE FILM is based around the idea of PR. The Green Hornet is entirely a media creation, and is only effective if he’s thought of as one of the bad guys (as is explained in the film) and that role is achieved through media manipulation. Even the bad guys are based around rep.... PR, in other words.... and it’s due to POOR PR work that the main baddie “Chudnerf.... what the hell is his name?” is losing his edge and not achieving his goal of a united crime empire. (And his repeated failures are a constant consternation for him throughout. Leading to his alter ego of “Bloodnofski.”) Scanlon’s career is based on maintaining a public facade too.
One thing I really liked was that the Hornet was a schmo through the entire film. (Tying into the previous point, even his ABILITY was nothing more than good PR.) You don’t just slap on a funny suit and all of a sudden you’re competent: Britt decided to become a hero accidentally, during the course of a drunken prank, ‘cos it’d be a kick. That kinda person doesn’t become Batman. (At least not without a training montage.) Throughout the film you could see him develop, both skill-wise and morals-wise. I thought that was a nice touch, that he didn’t just become a superhero, but throughout the flick things happened that pushed him in that direction. But he wasn’t useless; since the Hornet provided the one thing that nobody else had: ambition. Kato was a super genius, kung-** master, engineering whiz who would have been a mechanic and the guy who made the coffee for the rest of his life if not for Britt’s weird ideas. Even Lenore was meandering until she (inadvertently) became part of the team. (Like during the “any info on the Hornet?” scene.) I think that might throw people too, since most superhero films have the hero either super awesome to start, or super awesome by the end; and that didn’t happen here. (He tried, but ended up tripping during the big rescue scene.) I liked that ‘cos it’s a bit different, and it rings true to me.
I DO have a hard time calling it a comedy. It’s funny, and there’s a lot of wackiness; but given a setting where LA has a burgeoning supervillain industry like this one the stuff that happens is perfectly plausible. That’s part of what makes the funny stuff funny: it’s what would actually occur if an untrained, inexperienced guy like Britt tried the stuff he did.
There was one thing that I thought was poorly done though; and that was the script. Not the basic plot or anything, but the film had a problem I’ve noticed a LOT of films in the last 15 years or so have had: there’s a lot of scenes where we KNOW what’s happening, and we know WHY.... but not because of the actual scene but because we’ve seen it play out a zillion times before. And the problem is that the dialogue isn’t quite polished enough to bring home the point. Biggest example: at the beginning, when Britt’s dad calls him a loser and pulls the head of his toy. We KNOW that the scene sets up the problems between him and his dad, and we KNOW it shows how he has the potential for heroness ‘cos he was sent home for fighting bullies picking on someone else.... but we know these things ‘cos that’s what this scene ALWAYS shows in this kind of film. But, why did his dad give him the “you fail at everything” speech, when he really didn’t fail at anything? (He should have got the “why do you always have to be so difficult?” speech.) There were lots of little scenes like that.... but like I said, that’s something that plagues a lot of movies any more. The plot surprised me with how well they tied everything in, and how they resolved the major points.
So, overall I thought it was a decent flick. I didn’t feel like I wasted 2 hours of my life.... of course I watched it on cable, so I didn’t spend $10 on a ticket. Which probably helps. I’ve also heard from a lot of folks that the 3D it was shown in was useless (which I can understand) and distracting. Which probably cheesed a lot of folks off as well.
Don C.
I finally got around to watching the new “Green Hornet” movie. I actually liked it; it’s not a great film, but it was entertaining. I kinda wonder why so many folks didn’t care for it though.
Spoilers; but I think by now anyone who cared has probably already seen it.
My exposure to the character is limited to the old tv show, and the comic from the 40's. I didn’t watch the show as a kid, but a few years back they were showing it on cable, and I’d see it while having breakfast. The movie (even though they credit the radio play) seemed to draw mostly from the tv show. I remember the Hornet being a smarmy wiseacre in that, and it looks like THAT was what they decided to hype up for the new version. A lot of folks complained that it wasn’t true to the source material; but I didn’t see that. Not entirely. The tv Hornet was more suave, but I could see that coming with time for the movie one. Kato was the biggest change. In the show he was clearly the sidekick, in the movie he was the super stud.... although I could see the movie version being what went on behind the scenes of the tv one. (DO millionaire playboys change the tires on their super-car?)
The 40's comic version was a generic “mystery man,” so I dunno if it matters either way.
One thing I can see throwing folks is that this is absolutely NOT a kids film.... and I don’t mean ‘cos of the swearing or violence. Most of what motivates characters, and progresses the plot is of the sort that kids wouldn’t appreciate or care about. The discussion Britt and Kato have in the beginning about Britt’s dad is a good example: none of it was the kind of thing a kid would think. A disgruntled 30 year old, sure. Another thing I don’t think kids would care about was that the WHOLE FILM is based around the idea of PR. The Green Hornet is entirely a media creation, and is only effective if he’s thought of as one of the bad guys (as is explained in the film) and that role is achieved through media manipulation. Even the bad guys are based around rep.... PR, in other words.... and it’s due to POOR PR work that the main baddie “Chudnerf.... what the hell is his name?” is losing his edge and not achieving his goal of a united crime empire. (And his repeated failures are a constant consternation for him throughout. Leading to his alter ego of “Bloodnofski.”) Scanlon’s career is based on maintaining a public facade too.
One thing I really liked was that the Hornet was a schmo through the entire film. (Tying into the previous point, even his ABILITY was nothing more than good PR.) You don’t just slap on a funny suit and all of a sudden you’re competent: Britt decided to become a hero accidentally, during the course of a drunken prank, ‘cos it’d be a kick. That kinda person doesn’t become Batman. (At least not without a training montage.) Throughout the film you could see him develop, both skill-wise and morals-wise. I thought that was a nice touch, that he didn’t just become a superhero, but throughout the flick things happened that pushed him in that direction. But he wasn’t useless; since the Hornet provided the one thing that nobody else had: ambition. Kato was a super genius, kung-** master, engineering whiz who would have been a mechanic and the guy who made the coffee for the rest of his life if not for Britt’s weird ideas. Even Lenore was meandering until she (inadvertently) became part of the team. (Like during the “any info on the Hornet?” scene.) I think that might throw people too, since most superhero films have the hero either super awesome to start, or super awesome by the end; and that didn’t happen here. (He tried, but ended up tripping during the big rescue scene.) I liked that ‘cos it’s a bit different, and it rings true to me.
I DO have a hard time calling it a comedy. It’s funny, and there’s a lot of wackiness; but given a setting where LA has a burgeoning supervillain industry like this one the stuff that happens is perfectly plausible. That’s part of what makes the funny stuff funny: it’s what would actually occur if an untrained, inexperienced guy like Britt tried the stuff he did.
There was one thing that I thought was poorly done though; and that was the script. Not the basic plot or anything, but the film had a problem I’ve noticed a LOT of films in the last 15 years or so have had: there’s a lot of scenes where we KNOW what’s happening, and we know WHY.... but not because of the actual scene but because we’ve seen it play out a zillion times before. And the problem is that the dialogue isn’t quite polished enough to bring home the point. Biggest example: at the beginning, when Britt’s dad calls him a loser and pulls the head of his toy. We KNOW that the scene sets up the problems between him and his dad, and we KNOW it shows how he has the potential for heroness ‘cos he was sent home for fighting bullies picking on someone else.... but we know these things ‘cos that’s what this scene ALWAYS shows in this kind of film. But, why did his dad give him the “you fail at everything” speech, when he really didn’t fail at anything? (He should have got the “why do you always have to be so difficult?” speech.) There were lots of little scenes like that.... but like I said, that’s something that plagues a lot of movies any more. The plot surprised me with how well they tied everything in, and how they resolved the major points.
So, overall I thought it was a decent flick. I didn’t feel like I wasted 2 hours of my life.... of course I watched it on cable, so I didn’t spend $10 on a ticket. Which probably helps. I’ve also heard from a lot of folks that the 3D it was shown in was useless (which I can understand) and distracting. Which probably cheesed a lot of folks off as well.
Don C.
Comment