randy_byers: (yeoh)
[personal profile] randy_byers
"It's not as bad as you've heard." Which isn't to say it's good. It has a stylish look thanks to director Michel Gondry, but it's otherwise a mixed bag. It flirts with being a straight-out mockery of its genre, but fortunately when it gets serious, it doesn't get sentimental. The funniest aspect of the parody is that the sidekicks, Kato and Lenore, are actually smarter and more capable than Britt Reid, a.k.a. the Green Hornet. This threatens to make him a pure laughingstock, but they almost manage to make him so-dumb-he's-cool in the manner of a young Bill Murray. But there's too much adolescent bromance -- yet there's some really clever humor and over-the-top action and cool toys.

It's interesting that Gondry signs this "A Michel Gondry Film" when it is so clearly Seth Rogen's project. Not only does Rogen star, but he co-wrote and co-produced it with Evan Goldberg. But there's an anarchic quality to the goofiness that could well be Gondry's influence, and he definitely leaves his imprint visually. For all the lame shtick, it was refreshing to see a take on the masked crusader genre that wasn't stuck in the Marvel or DC modes. It was fun. Which isn't to say it's good.

Date: 2011-01-20 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] swisstone.livejournal.com
It's interesting that Gondry signs this "A Michel Gondry Film" when it is so clearly Seth Rogen's project.

One of these days I will put something coherent together about my views on 'authorship' in cinema, and how it's a slippery beast, and the default notion of director as author certainly is of much less use than you might think.
Edited Date: 2011-01-20 05:00 pm (UTC)

Date: 2011-01-20 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
I would certainly agree that authorship is a slippery concept in film, but I guess here I'm most curious why Rogen allowed Gondry to sign the film. Maybe it was just part of the contract. Generally you would think it would mean something like the director being given control over the final cut, but I very much doubt that was the case here. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

Date: 2011-01-20 05:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] swisstone.livejournal.com
I think it's just default Hollywood practice these days. But it can obscure who was the actual driving force behind the project. I may use this example when I discuss the auteur theory in class next month.

Date: 2011-01-20 05:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ajr.livejournal.com
It's interesting that Gondry signs this "A Michel Gondry Film" when it is so clearly Seth Rogen's project.

You've got it bang-on there. Gondry didn't even final cut, Rogen and Goldberg did. I haven't seen the film yet, not sure if I want to. I must admit, I rather lost interest in it once Stephen Chow was no long attached.

Date: 2011-01-20 05:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Yeah, I would've loved to see Chow's version too. Ah well. It would still have been Rogen and Goldberg's project.

Profile

randy_byers: (Default)
randy_byers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 8th, 2026 10:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios