Review: Ong-Bak 3


Um…here it goes then. Tony Jaa is back as Tien, in this direct follow-up to “Ong-Bak 2”. This time out, Tien goes up against a tyrannical…er…tyrant Lord Rajasena (Sarunyoo Wongkrachang), who has pretty much given him the “Spartacus” treatment and left Tien for dead. Lord Rajasena has his own problems to deal with anyway, as he is haunted by a ghostly figure known as Ghost Crow, who ends up possessing Lord Rajasena’s body, making him even more evil, I guess. Tien finds himself brought back to full mental, spiritual and physical health by a Buddhist healer (Nirut Sirichanya) and his daughter. Then it’s off to face Ghost Crow/Lord Rajasena and his army in epic battle, with Tien’s spiritual enlightenment and inner peace perhaps giving him an advantage.

 

This is the one that apparently sent star Tony Jaa running away to a monastery to become a monk, the experience of this film was so frustrating for him. Thankfully for martial arts fans, that vocation didn’t stick and he’s back making films now. So is the film really that bad? No, but it’s pretty damn close to being a bad film. This 2010 flick co-written and co-directed by Jaa and Panna Rittikrai is quite clearly a freaking mess, and even worse than “Ong-Bak 2”, not to mention a long way from the excellent original. Apparently this film and “Ong-Bak 2” (also from the same writer-director combo) were originally meant to be one long-arse movie. That would’ve been a torturous experience, so at least there’s that small mercy bestowed upon us.

 

Things start well-enough, with ridiculous but pretty fantastic action, though glowering silent movie-esque villain Sarunyoo Wongkrachang is just absurdly over-the-top even before he starts being haunted by the Thai version of Eric Draven. He’s no real source of menace or threat whatsoever. Soon, though, the film becomes tediously self-indulgent with all the “Spartacus” (or perhaps “The Passion of the Christ”) religious pretension laid on way too thick for far too long. The key to the first film was its simplicity. It was just an arse-kicker. At first, this film’s weirdness helped keep me awake at least, but after a while even that loses its attraction for me. It’s a great-looking movie, the action is cool, I just couldn’t make heads or tails of any of it, and after a while I gave up trying.

 

It’s so damn slow and drawn out, and doesn’t make a damn bit of sense (I think it probably would’ve made more sense had I watched the previous film a day or two prior to seeing this one. It’s been a long while since I saw “Ong-Bak 2”). It’s a mess...and a lot of scenes of Tony Jaa doing what looks like a variant of Tai Chi. The thumping, thunderous music score and action scenes are really all that held my interest here. The epic climactic action is particularly standout, no movie with Jaa swinging from elephant tusks to kick someone can be all bad, I guess.

 

A massive letdown and a giant, incoherent mess. This is “The Crow” meets “Apocalypto” by way of “Spartacus” as if directed by the guy who made “El Topo”. Someone might find it fun, but I didn’t, outside of the action.

 

Rating: C

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade