As I said
in my review, I saw the Asian version of Tony Jaa's
The Protector (AKA
Tom Yum Goong) and thought the plot a right mess. I wouldn't call it 110 minutes of incoherent bullshit punctuated by awesome martial art scenes, but I wouldn't argue much if someone else did. I was curious about what they'd change in the US verison though, and if the editing would improve things. Well, the film's opening this weekend, and while I'm not curious enough to buy a ticket, I can read the reviews without leaving my seat.
There are
58 reviews on RT now; evenly split between good and bad. The good ones say they liked the action despite the rest of the film, and the bad ones... well, here are a few quotes:
Scene after scene is fashioned together in the most confusing (read that as meaning 'dull') fashion, like a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle missing half the pieces.
Michael Ferraro, Film Threat
The Protector is a disaster, barely made viewable by Tony Jaa's incredible physical abilities, often trapped inside shitty fight choreography anyway.
Devin Faraci, CHUD
... it's little more than a disjointed succession of kick-ass action scenes motivated by a country bumpkin's quest to rescue his giant pets from big-city baddies.
Maitland McDonagh, TV Guide's Movie Guide
So muddled as to be virtually incoherent...but the chases and fight scenes are the raison d'etre of The Protector, and in purely athletic terms they're great.
Frank Swietek, One Guy's Opinion
And so on. They made edits too; our DVD is 110 minutes, and the theatrical is listed at 90, which includes the credits, meaning it's more like 83. Cutting half an hour had to make the plot more incoherent, but it was such a bad plot with awful acting and characters that we didn't care about that I'd say US audiences are still coming out ahead. The Asian version isn't incoherent, really, it's just bad.
The bigger issue is mentioned by a few critics; Tony Jaa, for all his outstanding physical abilities, has zero screen personality. He is almost expressionless, he can't speak English, he's got a baby face that doesn't have any character, he can't emote or act anything but a sort of "let's fight" determination, and he doesn't have that feral, glowing sort of ferocity action movie stars need to manifest. Hardly anyone has all of those traits, especially when you're talking about martial artists, but you'd better have at least a few of them if you're going to be a movie star, rather than just a glorified stunt man.
Jackie Chan couldn't look mean and he didn't have presence, but he was playful and fun and invented a lot of fun stunts. Jet Li can't act or smile or emote or speak English, but he's got a glowering presence and a pock-marked face that makes him stand out. Bruce Lee exuded presence and charisma, and had a twinkle in his eye that made the camera love him. As of now, Tony Jaa has none of these things, and there's no way to say if he'll ever develop them. He'll need to, to move beyond low budget chop socky that people like me (and perhaps you) enjoy. On the other hand, he'll also have to considerably tone down the violence if he goes mainstream, and that would suck.
You can shoot hundreds of people in a mainstream action film, but you can't beat them to death, or break their arms and legs, or hit them with clubs, the way Tony does in his largely-realistic action sequences. Yes, good martial arts does exactly that, but there's a reason quite a few people can't even watch boxing, much less MMA-style brawls; realistic violence is upsetting to them. The same people who will gleefully watch Ah-nold blow away 50 terrorists wince and cover their eyes at the sight of a well-executed arm break. So maybe I shouldn't root for Tony to break into the mainstream, since that would just ruin what I think are the best elements of his films.
Labels: tony jaa
