Review: Elephant White
Djimon Hounsou stars as Church a stoic hired killer and former CIA
assassin, who is in Thailand on the job of mowing down a gang of human
traffickers who were responsible for the death of the daughter of a Thai
businessman. He is aided in this quest by somewhat unscrupulous arms dealer
Kevin Bacon. Church is also joined by drug-addicted teenage hooker Mae
(Jirantanin Pitakporntrakul), despite his best efforts to rid himself of her to
focus on his assignment.
Filmed in Bangkok, Thailand, this 2011 action flick from director Prachya
Pinkaew (an English-language debut for the director of the excellent “Ong-Bak”,
and the lesser “The Protector”) and writer Kevin Bernhardt is the kind
of thing that in terms of plot could’ve starred any has-been action star, and
in terms of location, could easily have passed for a Tony Jaa (“Ong-Bak”,
“The Protector”) movie. Instead, we get Djimon Hounsou, who has presence
and is good enough to suggest he deserves his own action movie. Just not this
one, which is well beneath his talents. It’s actually depressing to see such a
talented actor (if not the greatest English speaker in the world) in such
schlock, which if the setting were changed to Romania, would likely star Wesley
Snipes, Steven Seagal, and or Dolph Lundgren. Jaa could’ve saved it with his
fighting skills, but Hounsou, whilst convincing enough in the action scenes
(moreso than the dramatic ones, to be perfectly honest), is no Tony Jaa and
can’t really lift the material. Then again, Hounsou plays a sniper,
essentially, and I’m not sure if Jaa would take on such a character. I’m also
convinced that snipers don’t make for good action movie protagonists, because
the action is generally static and the character tends to be unemotional and
cool by design.
I also felt that the bizarre, mystical asides were tacked-on. The scene
where Hounsou gets drunk and then has obvious Aboriginal war paint on sat
awfully uncomfortably with me. It’s not the kind of juxtaposition that will
play well for Australian audiences, though hopefully the director wasn’t trying
to connect the two things in any derogatory manner. Mind you, at least Hounsou isn’t playing a noble savage for once,
and that’s something worth noting. He has broken that stereotype here.
Meanwhile, it’s an even odder sight to see Kevin Bacon play Joe Pesci in “Lethal
Weapon 2” with Mick Jagger’s accent. Well, I think he was trying for a cockney British accent. At times it
bordered on Seth Effriken, and some might even confuse it for Australian. It’s
not the worst accent I’ve heard (He’s a bit more convincing than Anthony
LaPaglia on “Frasier”), but it’s awfully inconsistent. Bacon doesn’t
always choose the wisest scripts, but he rarely steps a foot wrong in his
performances. I can’t say I’ve seen too many absolutely outstanding
performances from him (“JFK”, “The Woodsman”, and maybe “A Few
Good Men”), but have you ever seen him give less than 100% on screen? I
haven’t, and I’ve seen “Footloose”, “Wild Things”, and “Where
the Truth Lies”. This is far from his finest work (But it’s not exactly “Where
the Truth Lies”, either), and anyone could’ve really played the role (A
British actor, perhaps? Just a thought...), but it’s kinda amusing to hear
Kevin Bacon not sound like Kevin Bacon for a change. Hell, at least you can’t
detect a single trace of American in his accent. That said, like Hounsou, it’s
a bit depressing to see him in a subpar action film from Millennium Films (Who
have made such crap films as “88 Minutes”, “The Black Dahlia”,
the remake of “The Wicker Man”, and lots of crummy action flicks).
Lead actress Pitakporntrakul, meanwhile, is absolutely appalling. She can
speak English fluently, but she can’t act
speaking in English, which is a different skill altogether. Also worth
noting in this film is that it has almost as much of a gun fetish as “Lord
of War” and “Commando”. The weird thing is, Hounsou keeps making
weapon purchases from Bacon, and I swear to God, every time he goes back to
him, he still hasn’t used the weapon he had previously acquired! What the hell?
The film’s one real saving grace is its colourful look. The use of
scenery and local colour is outstanding here, even if filters and shaky-cam are
occasionally used. Why does the camera shake? I’ll keep asking that question
until someone gives me a real answer, because for me it just alerts me to the
camera’s presence in a scene. I also have to question once again if all
freeways are drowned in amber light? None that I’ve seen in Australia at least.
What I mean is, that I can’t think of any situation outside of a dark
room/photo lab, where there’s a source of light that covers every single
element in view. It just pisses me off, because like shaky-cam, it merely
alerts me to the camera’s presence, something I’m trying desperately hard not
to notice so that I can immerse myself in the story. Cinematographer Wade
Muller, for the most part, however, does his job. There’s especially fine work
in a slightly hazy-looking forest fight towards the end, that I really liked.
It’s an attractive film, save for some uber-cheap CGI flames which are really
kinda inexcusable, to be honest. Awful title, too, no wonder it was
direct-to-DVD.
This isn’t an awful film by any means, but it’s a cheap, formulaic, and
repetitive one unworthy of its two main stars.
Rating: C
Comments
Post a Comment