Hong Kong (Influenced) Phooey: Bangkok Dangerous
by Guest Contributor Arturo R. García, originally published at The Instant Callback
So, you’re Thai directors Danny and Oxide Pang. You’ve got a shot at making a Hollywood remake of your debut hit, Bangkok Dangerous. How do you do it without subverting your original vision?
Simple: F!#k the original vision! This lumbering, hollow re-vamp takes the Pangs’ original and goes anti-Dragnet with it: the names are the same, but the story is completely changed, and plays out like a $2 plate of John Woo soup.
In this version, hitman Joe (Nicolas Cage) ventures to Bangkok for a series of kills he hopes will propel him into retirement. Joe has a loosely-defined moral code, but no identifiable personality; he’s your typical Byronic cipher, the Lonely Man doing One Last Job. The Pangs and co-writer Jason Richman wisely play up his outsider status in Thailand — he doesn’t speak the language, and the local cuisine kicks his ass worse than any opponent — and Cage gets to use his patented tics and nervous glances to express that. What the material doesn’t give him is the ways to make you care about the character as one did for, say, Jean Reno’s Leon or even John Cusack’s Martin Blank.
The problem, of course, is that the original wasn’t about Joe at all. It covered — with more visual vigor and identifiable emotion — the rise of Kong, a deaf gunman who was tutored by a veteran. Here, the Kong character (Shahkrit Yamnarm, slumming it) is nothing more than Cage’s Rochester (”You got it, boss!”) and a convenient hostage during the film’s third act.
When not teaching Kong martial arts or the Art of Killing, Joe tries to make time with pharmacist Fon (Charlie Yeung), who takes over the deaf character slot while guiding him through the “non-corrupt” parts of town, including, of course, a temple. So, she’s pretty, spiritual, has a good job, “exotic” and doesn’t speak a lick. Does she have a sister?
Inevitably, Joe starts slippin’ on his business as his personal life blossoms, culminating in the Job being botched and the rescue mission for Kong. But you’ll be wishing you spent the rental money on the original long before that. Strong recommendation to avoid this dyspeptic, disjointed, dreary mess of an import.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Dan wrote:
They really struck casting gold by getting Cage and all of his three facial expressions.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 8:58 am ¶
Philly Phil wrote:
ah yes… bangkok dangerous. i’m living in bangkok now and thai people are pretty excited to see it… mostly because it was shot IN bangkok and that they actually remade a THAI film with a big Hollywood actor… i will talk to the few thai friends i’ve made thus far and ask them what they think/thought…
but has anyone seen TESSERACT by the Pang Bros? a far superior film to Bangkok Dangerous…
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 9:22 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
Can’t. STAND. Nicolas. Cage.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 10:58 am ¶
napthia9 wrote:
A movie poster for this was on Photoshop disasters a little while ago. Sounds like it was a disaster in more ways than one. The only surprise is that it’s not Nicholas Cage’s fault (entirely) for once.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 11:44 am ¶
Arturo wrote:
Dan,
It was a pretty easy get for the creative team, actually; Cage is listed as a co-producer. My apologies for not mentioning that in the piece.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
“So, she’s pretty, spiritual, has a good job, “exotic” and doesn’t speak a lick. Does she have a sister?”
Does she have a…sister?
::raises eyebrow::
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
How long will the American people continue to subsidize Nicholas Cage’s midlife crisis?
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
In the original, the assassin was a deaf-mute. Not surprisingly (since he has the emotional range of a coma victim in film lately) the Nicholas Cage version of the lead character is not which IMO ruins the movie right off the bat, especially since so much of the movie revolves around this simple fact (and his relationship with the world around him in general). The original actor was absolutely fantastic and could tell a whole story with a few facial expressions. Nic Cage…not so much.
All of these things are reason enough not to even bother trying to watch it online for FREE; forget about paying 10 buck to see it at a theater!
Ugh.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
At least it’s nice to hear that Charlie Yeung is working again! I thought that “Lost Angels” was her last movie since she “retired” from the movie business after getting married.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶
Juan wrote:
Cannot stand these blasted Asian-movie-remade-with-white-people! What’s next Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon?
What is wrong with selling us the original in theaters as opposed to showing it on Sundance or IFC for however many of us have that channel?
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
lxy wrote:
“They really struck casting gold by getting Cage and all of his three facial expressions.”
LOL. Very true.
And I almost feel sorry for this guy Arturo García. First he has to review The Mummy Part 3, now he is reviewing this latest Hollywood remake/flop.
Is Garcia going to review every American McCrap movie that Hollywood churned out this summer?
This is analogous to being assigned to write restaurant reviews for Burger King, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶
Juan wrote:
“In the original, the assassin was a deaf-mute… so much of the movie revolves around this simple fact (and his relationship with the world around him in general). The original actor was absolutely fantastic and could tell a whole story with a few facial expressions. ”
*points* This. Right here. Not to mention the supporting cast too.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 3:18 pm ¶
Arturo wrote:
Lxy,
Don’t worry about me — I get a perverse sense of glee out of throwing tomatoes at this stuff.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 4:10 pm ¶
G.K. wrote:
I loved the original flick by the Pang Brothers, and the star, Pawalit Mongkolpisit (yeah, I had to look that up on the IMDB to even spell it correctly) was a real cute hottie–a shame he’s done so few films since. Honestly, I don’t even know why Hollywood bothered to remake it leaving out the one thing that made the original so unique—the fact that the main character was a deaf-mute–but since they did, it sounds like just another white-stranger-in-a-strange-exotic-land type of flick—in other words, it’s bringing nothing new to the table.
At least they could have him actually know some of the language–that would make the character a little more interesting, I thnk. I actually like Nic Cage with his weird ass, but this sounds like just another lame hitman flick. (I actually like hitman flicks, though—check out the Dutch flick MEMORY OF A KILLER, about a hitman who’s losing his memory, while being targeted for refusing to do a particular hit, and his race against time to get revenge for the victim).
@Juan
Yeah, why the hell can’t they remake these Asian pics (which I also love) with Asian-Americans actors for a change and give then some work, dang it! Hell, my fave hottie Sung Kang should have had the lead—he could’ve pulled it off just as well!
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶
cacy wrote:
I saw this last night. Online. For FREE. Sorry for those who paid. Question: A Westerner, a white Westener, teaches a man from Thailand, where’s theres like dozens of fighting styles and fighting schools, how to fight? Really? Not sayin all Thai people know how to fight and all but come on!!If Kong is a hustler then he would have learned something or two growing up poor. something like, I dunno, knowing how to fight. Anyway, like i said: I saw it free online. And I’m complainin…
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 4:45 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:
I read on Yahoo that this movie was the biggest flop in five years.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 7:03 pm ¶
JC wrote:
It’s pretty much clear that the Pangs has to butcher their own movie with a White Male Lead in order to “make it” in Hollywood. I’m fairly certain all these “changes” are made at the request of their Hollywood “producers”.
I’ve come to believe that an Asian movie is not a great movie unless there’s a disastrous Hollywood remake starring a White Male Lead follows it. It’s like a perverse badge of honor among real film people. Too bad all these great Asian directors can’t wait to become B-movie Hollywood hacks (John Woo, where have you been!). Ang Lee is one of the few who actually prevailed, since he made quality movies to fulfill his White Male Movie quota. How much more freckled pink skin and male pattern baldness can the world take? Sigh.
Posted 08 Sep 2008 at 7:03 pm ¶
Pheagan wrote:
@ Juan: Oh my God, I know. Didn’t the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, House of the Flying Daggers, and Hero teach ANYBODY ANYTHING? Not to mention that Ong Bak, with no press whatsoever, was a bit of a cult hit here, and The Host, also with no press whatsoever, was an even bigger cult hit?
I mean, obviously Americans are hungry for Asian movies (and the lack of success of remakes like Pulse and this pile of crap should also be teaching somebody something), and with a little bit of press companies wouldn’t even have to spend money, they could just get distribution rights and make a killing.
It literally causes me pain to see white guys teaching Asian characters martial arts. Not that I’ve seen this movie, because, yeah. Nicholas Cage grosses me out.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶
Juan wrote:
JC,
Not just white male but white female as well, e.g. the Grudge moves, the Ring movies, Shutter, One Missed Call, etc.
Posted 09 Sep 2008 at 5:58 pm ¶