Bulletproof Monk Recap

Jamie

There are a lot, lot, lot of things to talk about with Bulletproof Monk. I’ll let Patrick take control of talking about the film itself, while I talk about my true passion: settings. Remember when we watched The Tuxedo a couple weeks back and I was all like, “wait, why does this movie go out of its way to specifically not be set in NYC?” I even created a whole new game, BMysTeries, asking the question of why films occasionally are not set anywhere in particular. Who would have thought that just weeks later, Bulletproof Monk would also seemingly go out of its way to not be set in NYC? And who would have thought that it would provide information that (partially) solves the mystery? Here’s what I learned. Both were filmed in Toronto in 2001 (in fact several locations in the films were filmed in the same buildings). In the writers’ commentary for Bulletproof Monk (which Patrick and I try to listen to now) they mentioned how the film was originally set in NYC, but they decided to scrub out all the references to New York. Why? September 11th! Of course! Basically it was deemed unnecessarily dicey to set a film in NYC, especially one where there may be a shootout or threat of an attack. So in post they CGI’d all the NYC references out. So those “Great State” license plates? More than likely CGI, used to replace the NYC plates with the generic plates that are typically used in films without a setting. So the specific Tuxedo BMysTery was solved! And not only that, solved by our crazy decision to start listening to DVD commentaries while we run. Already paying dividends.

While Bulletproof Monk was not based on a book, it was based on a three-part graphic novel series! And guess who used the fantastic public library system in his local community to obtain said graphic novel series? That’s right, this guy. The series was pretty good. Nice mix of action and Far East philosophy. Really took that part seriously. Reminded me a little of Wanted though. Like I hated the characters. They kinda sucked. But otherwise a good story. So how was the adaptation?… well “adaptation” may be a strong word. The writers and producers were pretty open about just wanting to use the title. It started out with just the words “Bulletproof Monk.” Chow-yun Fat liked that idea and wanted to play that character, so they bought the rights and made a film where he was a character. Everything you see in the film is only loosely based on anything in the comic. Which in some ways is a good thing, since the comic ends after the third issue and doesn’t actually finish the story. The creator just stopped making them for reasons that we can only speculate on. Probably the most troubling thing is that the entire cast of the graphic novel is Asian. The film? Not so much. Kar and Jade are both whitewashed. This would have been huge news if this happened today (see: Gods of Egypt) and may have even stopped production for recasting, but at the time no one thought twice about it. The final note, generally when Patrick and I are looking to see if a film is based on other material we look to writers credits on IMDb. Oddly, the writers of Bulletproof Monk did not get credits on the film. In fact, only the creator of the comic got credit as a producer. I tried to figure out why this is and it would seem the creator is just kind of an asshole. It seemed like he may have created the comic in order to sell it to Hollywood, because once he accomplished that feat he closed up shop, never continued the series (which was written as more of a prequel to a larger story), and became a talent agent in Hollywood. He claimed he couldn’t get credit for everyone because they would have pulled the adaptation, but everyone involved in the comic seems to think that’s bullshit and he just kind of threw everyone under the bus. Fantastic.

Told you there was a lot to talk about.

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Bulletproof Monk? More like Man This Goof Stunk! Watch out everyone, we tried something new, but more on that later, let’s get into it:

  • The Good – Chow Yun-Fat and Seann William Scott were pretty solid, funny and clearly into the project. Uh ….. Um …. I laughed during the movie.
  • The Bad – Ooof. The longer I think about it the more it seems like a surreal dream. The movie is a complete mess, hacked together into a loose storyline that really doesn’t make sense. The fight scenes were bad. The Nazi centric storyline was bonkers. And sorry, but Jamie King was simply awful. The movie is very dark and grimy as well, but I think that was a comic book thing.
  • The BMT – Again, the more I think on it the more I think this is a solid 50 in BMeTric terms. But the first two thirds are so boring I tend towards a 40. I’ll have to watch it again obviously.

This movie was really rather crazy. Hacked to shit is putting it kindly. And that new thing I mentioned? I listened to the commentary from the writers! (My life! This is my life! What hath our mere human minds created!?) Here is a quick takeaway. I loved listening to it, it was basically them telling stories about production for two hours. It actually operates perfectly as a podcast. And the writers … yeah, they sounded kind of like sellouts. The entire time they were talking about how everything changed due to producer or director pressure and seemed quite cheery about it all. Just like “Oh yeah, the director told us he wanted someone to die, so we said ‘bye Mako’”. They killed off a top ten billed character because the director felt like the Nazis had to kill someone at some point … the scene doesn’t even make sense! Whatever. Really fun. I look forward to Audio Sklog-entaries becoming a new thing in my life.

Quick game I’ll call WTF Did I Just Hear … That Can’t Be Right. Here I’ll highlight a line from the movie that just boggles the mind. This exchange was between Seann William Scott (SWS) and Jaime King (JK):

SWS: “Coming with me takes some gut. Guts and insanity. An interesting mix.”

JK: “Not making it out alive. That would really suck. Under the circumstances.”

SWS: “Yeah, definitely.”

Seriously …. What did I just hear?

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Critters 2: The Main Course Recap

 

Patrick

Bonjour tous le monde! Critters 2 more like Shitty Too! That’s right, I’m in grande Paris, and (sadly) I did watch Critters 2 in the bits and pieces of spare time I’ve had while killing it in the city of love. Lucky for you, this means this one will be short (yes, sadly, no BMT:CSI:SVU today). Let’s do it:

  • Let’s start with the first movie. So cheap. The shittiest of all shitty effects. Bad acting up and down (although the kid was actually rather decent). Essentially it is Leprechaun. A director who is either young or passionate about the horror genre getting his shot at making a feature length film. In this one it was actually impressive because this movie was probably made for like a thousand dollars. And the guy ended up being pretty famous (Bill and Ted, The Mighty Ducks, etc.). Anyways, the movie wasn’t the worst thing I’ve ever seen, plus I got a little Billy Zane time (which as you all should know, I’m always happy about).
  • The second one …. was kind of the epitome of why I hate horror-comedy. By taking nothing seriously it takes a movie that already has horrible acting and effects (because of budget), and adds in intentionally bad writing to the mix.
  • That being said: up until the end I didn’t actually mind watching the movie, it had entertaining bits. I do wish they hadn’t recast the sheriff. There were three major characters who returned from the first film, they got two (the aforementioned kid and his friend Charlie). Just cut the sheriff character, right? But that is a minor gripe.
  • A more major gripe: The first ending wasn’t bad. The issue is that there was a second one. Essentially the critters are being hunted by shapeshifting bountyhunters. And it turns out one of them secretly transformed into a critter in order to lead them to their ultimate destruction. I didn’t see it coming at all and I thought it was pretty clever. But then, after destroying them, the critters somehow form a giant critterball and roll around eating people they run over. Besides being dumb, it also managed to replace the kind of nice trick ending with the perfectly predictable one.
  • An impression of me watching the finale of the movie. “Oh Charlie is running away, I bet he’s going to get the spaceship.” “Oh there is a critterball, I bet Charlie is going to destroy it with the spaceship.” “Oh Charlie destroyed the critterball with the spaceship and ‘died’, I bet he ejected at the last minute and is totally alive”. All three easily predicted while only half paying attention to this movie.

I’ll leave it there and will close with this: Was it a good BMT? Nope. Low budget sequel to a low budget horror-comedy … 99 times out of 100 that’s bad news. But I didn’t mind watching the two films. Like Leprechaun there is a kind of cult mystique surrounding the film based on really loving the classic horror genre. I wouldn’t touch the direct-to-video sequels if you paid me though.

Jamie

Alright, so last week was Critters 2. I enjoyed the original Critters quite a bit. It was kind of like a more interesting and better made version of Leprechaun (also on the map for North Dakota) since it was an oddball horror with some comedy elements (albeit with a lot more Billy Zane). Also oddly reminded me a bit of The Thing in the sense that it was set up as a horror film but had some really hardcore SciFi elements to it. Something about the 70s and 80s where horror and SciFi mixed heavily (see: everything that Stephen King wrote). Critters 2? I’d rather not talk about it. Given that the first film was a modest success you would think that the film (at the very least) would look a bit better than the first one. Since the series was now a known quantity you need to step up your game and try to build a Mark Sanchize. Instead, they seemed to go the opposite direction. Now that they had a known quantity, they decided to wring every penny out of it till it was dead and they no longer had to deal with it (franchises are hard, no?). I’m not sure what else to say beyond that. I was surprised by how much worse than the first one it actually was as the film kept going it just kept on getting more and more embarrassing. The culmination was an ending that was so ridiculous and silly that I almost had to turn off the film.

I don’t remember if me and Patrick discussed the Critters-Leprechaun similarity in the past. If not, twins! I disagree about it not being a good BMT. I think this was an OK one. Not nearly the worst BMT we’ve ever had and comes with some interesting bad movie lore. I guarantee it’s better than both What Goes Up and this week’s September Dawn. That is quite the shit sandwich to be caught in. Also, how can you honestly say that you won’t be touching the direct-to-video sequels? This from a man who has watched all of the Leprechaun films.

Anyway, just going to have a quick game this week. Mostly it’s to highlight my least favorite part of Critters 2. It’s called WTF, mate? and it’s something that me and Patrick used to do way, way, way back before we even wrote an email. We used to ask each other what the WTF moment of the film was where you just couldn’t handle how bad the film was anymore. Not every film had one, but Critters 2 certainly did. While I would love to say that the ending was the WTF moment cause it was horrific, I have to go with this diner scene:

which is a travesty in a very Gremlins 2 on Key & Peele kind of way:

I have to admit though, that Critter’s new bald hairdo was indeed quite bitchin’.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs