Wild Wild West (1999)When reflecting on this rather notorious film, I can't help but notice that this film combines two elements I discussed in two previous "Oldies Spins." Those elements being the revisionist Western and the heavy influence of nostalgia when looking at a film years divorced from initial viewings. This film is a perfect example of both types, particularly the latter since this was the first film I saw three times before a video release and was also one of the films I remember seeing during the long ago drive-in days. Everybody on the planet seems to hate this movie. I am going to attempt to give a defense to what many might call an indefensible film.
If late '90s pop-culture somehow escaped you, then some might consider you lucky. In any case, this is the feature adaptation of the famous 1960s television show. In the good-ole-days of mid-nineteenth century America, the main hero in this story is Will Smith as the aptly named Jim West, a well dressed cowboy that gets around surprisingly well considering he's a black man right after the Civil War. His partner, the foil, is the intelligent and gadget obsessed Artemus Gordon. The two are on an insane plot to stop Dr. Loveless (Kenneth Branagh), a Confederate mastermind whose loss of the entire lower half of his body has fueled his rage to overthrow the United States government. And hey, a young Salma Hayek joins them to bring the sexy into this picture.
Let me answer the most important question upfront: is Wild Wild West a goofy, stupid movie? Yes it is. That's because it's based on a goofy, stupid show. It's a well known story that Robert Conrad, the original Jim West, showed up to the Razzie ceremony himself to collect the Worst Picture prize this film won, proclaiming that the film was a diversion from the original show's integrity. Well, this was a show whose most famous villain was a Mexican little person with such grand schemes as mind control and (I'm totally serious) using vibrations to send people into paintings with their own interactive worlds.
When we talk "Wild Wild West," we're not talking about Maverick or Gunsmoke. The original television show is not beloved for its attention to historical detail. It's admired because of its fun energy that was able to take advantage of the majestic scenery without being shackled by the technology. It's like watching Mission: Impossible set in the West. That's why I like the show and that's why I like the movie. Barry Sonnenfeld, coming from a cinematographers background, always sets up his frames beautifully, and I do think the film is a marvelous technical achievement. But Sonnenfeld also brings back that playful energy, one that is not trying to work a believable plot into the mix. I agree, the plot is ridiculous, but so is the entire foundation. I believe that, despite Sonnenfeld disowning this film, he actually creates a quirky world that is fascinating to look at and uses a playful energy very well.
The performances, you may find surprising, I think are quite well executed. Smith and Kline may not have the best chemistry, but I do think that they are confident enough to score laughs on their own terms. Richer comedic gold cannot be mined in this situation, though, because each of them are trying to be funny on their own. If the straight-man-funny-man scenario had been employed more (like the Sonnenfeld/Smith Men in Black), perhaps the comedy could have gotten a better chance to rear its head. But I don't think these two actors harm the film at all and work well with the material given to them. Branagh is the best thing in the film; he devours the scenery in a hammy villain role and its fun to see such a seriously trained actor like him take on such a cartoonish character. I adore it; he finds the right tone to strike with the film. I admit that players like Hayek and Ted Levine are given very little, especially Hayek in a nothing role. But I enjoy them still.
Without a doubt, I will concede that the screenplay is the deadliest part of the film. It's so bad that it bleeds into the downfall of many other elements that I like about the film. Forget the ludicrous plot that I don't mind being ludicrous. The juxtapositions of scenes create an odd rhythm, and Sonnenfeld fails to work around that to try to keep a consistent pace. The dialogue features many clunky lines that hinder the actors performances as they force a grin that brings down their energy. The humor, for the most part, isn't very well conceived which leads to an all out downer, not to mention that making Jim West a black man creates a whole other set of problems. I don't want to say that all these other parties are blameless and the script is the only terrible thing. What I am saying is that the script puts forth not even a tiny effort to indulge in its source material while everyone else works their damnedest to mold it into something, and it instead negatively affects everyone else. It's the most deadly part of the film.
I will never say that this is a perfect movie, but I vehemently uphold the notion that this film is not terrible. More than not terrible, I think it's actually a good action comedy. Yes, it has some slow spots and bland humor and odd pacing and questionable performances, but I think the majority of the film keeps the promise to provide a goofy film that is nice to look at while having a crazy energy that is thoroughly entertaining. Yet, I know I'm in the extreme minority, and many people agree with the Razzie's decision. But I would say that if this was the worst that 1999 could offer, then I'd say that was a very good year.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment