All three of these films use a large canvas, with massive worlds and complex characters to set up, and interestingly all three also feature Smith as a more dour and less charismatic version of himself than we otherwise see. And all three start out just great. But by the end, I'm left feeling that twenty or thirty minutes are missing, and that a more satisfying ending most have existed at some time in the process, replaced for wider audience appeal one can only assume. All three feel somehow compromised.
Now these three films also faced rumours of being 'troubled' productions, with last minute reshoots in response to test screenings and possibly studio interference. But reshoots are not at all uncommon, and are certainly not always a harbinger of doom (some directors, like Academy Award winner Steven Soderbergh [Traffic, Ocean's Eleven-Twelve-Thirteen] schedule reshoots into their production schedule from the start). Further, this is one of the most bankable actors on the planet, a man whose eight previous films have all grossed more than $100 M (with the film before these, Ali, a major artistic success that garnered him an Oscar nomination), and who often is a producer on the films in which he stars - I have trouble believing that anyone would discount his opinion if he didn't want these films released as they were.
So, one must assume that this is, at least partially, Smith's doing. And it's a shame. I very much enjoyed I, Robot, I Am Legend, and Hancock, but I also have my fingers crossed for longer 'director's cuts' that will restore a more consistent tone and vision to these stories. None should've been less than two hours long, yet they all clock in at around 90 minutes. I want to see that half hour.
Posts
2 comments:
This is certainly a Hollywood thing, too. (Which isn't to say Will Smith isn't buying into the idea.) I've noticed this with a number of movies, where they kick in the random unrelated action at the end of the movie. Of course, I've also found I've liked the earlier part of the movies better than most people seem to.
I think it's a case of the last part of the movie giving people what they thought they came for; I think people looked at all of those and expected action movies. However much a person might otherwise like a movie, most people will be really turned off if it's not what they went in expecting.
I felt that way about Ang Lee's Hulk, too. It was a wonderfully introspective exploration of the psychology of a monster, and there was plenty of smashing but it certainly wasn't the focus... then the villain gets these random superpowers that are unrelated to anything, and there's a big fight with a kludged win.
Hmmm... Out of curiosity, I don't suppose I, Robot, I Am Legend, Hancock, and Ang Lee's Hulk all came from the same studio, do they? (I don't have time to check right now.)
-Rob.
True, definitely a Hollywood thing. I don't necessarily agree about Hulk, though, maybe because I'm one of the six big fans of that movie - I think Nolte's 'power-up' in the final act was thematically and emotionally consistent with the rest of the movie, even if it was kind of abrupt. Throughout the film, Banner is wrestling with the specter of his father in his mind, and despite his super strength his father's shortcomings have control over him - so it makes sense for Banner to literally wrestle with an all-powerful version of Dad as the climax of the movie. Seemed rather comic-bookie in my estimation.
Post a Comment