Blu-ray Review: The Karate Kid (2010)

As far as remakes go, Karate Kid is a more appealing proposition than many. The original is a childhood favourite of many, sure, but few would claim that it is truly classic. The story is pure archetype: the sports movie where the underdog comes good. It’s Rocky with a kid (and a different ending). It may be formula, but it works, managing to be, at its best, quite rousing. That’s thanks in no small part to the lead actors, Jaden ‘son of Will’ Smith (who made quite a name for himself co-starring with his dad in The Pursuit of Happyness) and Jackie Chan, who make an appealing pair. The story is transplanted from America to China, adding an extra level of alienation and isolation to Jaden’s Dre Parker, upping the emotional stakes when he starts getting picked on by bullies whose language he can’t even understand.

Director Harald Zwart certainly takes his time in laying the groundwork. The film itself is a lengthy 140 minutes. Dre’s mentoring by Chan’s Mr Han only begins properly about an hour into the film, with a new variation on “wax on, wax off”. Even once that begins, though, there’s little emphasis on the martial arts stuff, barring a couple of picture-postcard montages. Zwart instead focuses on the relationship between the two, Mr Han coming to take the place of Dre’s absent father, alongside Dre’s school and language barrier troubles. It’s involving with a nicely judged tone – just serious enough, without neglecting some moments of humour (especially where Chan is involved). However, it does feel like it takes rather too long to get to where it’s going; this is the sort of film that really should have a 2-hour maximum length. There’s some depth and character development, but not enough plot complexity to justify anything longer, especially a story as predictable as this.

At times it just feels padded, often with touristy shots of China that look like they’re paid for by the national tourist board. China is mostly shown in a ridiculously idyllic light, which slightly robs the film of a certain realism and grittiness that it may have benefited from. And yes, it’s yet another one of those Hollywood films set in China that absolutely must feature the Great Wall, despite its inclusion being inexplicable. As an advert for the country, though, it’s certainly a pretty effective one: it looks stunning, and the setting really works for the story. Unfortunately, it renders the title nonsensical: karate is a Japanese martial art; Dre is actually taught kung fu in the film (and he even admonishes his mother in the film for calling it karate). Would The Kung Fu Kid have been such a bad title?



Release Information
Country: UK / Region: Free / Version: N/A / Discs: 1 / Distributor: Sony

Presentation
Karate Kid has the ultra-saturated, high-contrast look of some modern movies, which doesn't make for a particularly natural looking image but it is certainly striking, giving your TV a workout. Sharpness and detail are both at the very high end. Sony, as you would expect, know how to give an effective HD presentation. Not a whole lot to say on the sound side of the equation - as good as you would expect from Blu-ray audio.

Extras
A functional if unexceptional array of extras includes a few featurettes, a production diary, an alternate ending (Jackie Chan gets a bit of an action scene, which is fun, but it is superfluous so was rightly cut), and an interactive map of China, from which you can watch behind the scenes footage at each principal location. The Wu Dang Mountains are particularly stunning.



Summary
An enjoyable, well-made but wholly predictable and overlong underdog tale, The Karate Kid - dodgy title and all – is worth a watch, mainly for Jackie Chan in a fairly low-key role and Jaden Smith moving further along the road to stardom.

Cinema Review: Anonymous (2011)

Shakespeare directed by Roland Emmerich: it sounds like a punchline to a joke, or one of those fake comedy trailers in films like Tropic Thunder. But this one is actually real. Yes, Roland Emmerich, the demigod of destruction, the lord of loud, the man who strikes fear into national monuments the world over, has made a film about William Shakespeare, set in Elizabethan London. Ironically it’s the (undeserved) success of his previous thudding movie apocalypse, 2012, that granted the German director the freedom to make a smaller passion project. Anonymous is the unexpected result, but, typically, it’s no shy, retiring period drama. It has made some waves – though not in the usual Emmerichian tsunami sense of the word – due to its subject matter (amongst the critical community at least; its box office performance has so far been meagre). Anonymous feeds off the faintly ludicrous conspiracy theory that Shakespeare did not write his famous work. According to the film, Shakespeare was in fact a jobbing, mediocre actor who had never even put pen to paper; the real writer of the plays was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who could not claim authorship of the works due to the fact that plays were deemed beneath the station of a nobleman and also potentially seditious.

Emmerich realises that the notion does not in itself constitute a story for a film, so he embeds his thesis within a framework of political skulduggery involving Queen Elizabeth I and her many courtiers and officials. There are accordingly many scenes in darkly lit rooms featuring (mostly bearded) men plotting or arguing, but all the intrigue gets confusing as names and titles fly about with reckless abandon. Further complicating matters is the non-linear structure, jumping about rather haphazardly between four time periods (if you include the pretentious modern day bookends with a preachy Derek Jacobi). Such convolution never seems strictly necessary, just managing to further muddy a narrative that lacks a clear dramatic through-line. Nevertheless, the time jumps do keep things interesting and the brain engaged, even if the questions that arise are sometimes of the ‘who’s this guy again?’ variety, rather than due to any seductive mysteries thrown up by the screenplay.

Fortunately there are numerous redeeming qualities that elevate this well above the director’s last two misfires (10,000 BC and 2012). There are some standouts in the cast. Top of the list is Rhys Ifans, who is nigh-unrecognisable (give his previous roles) as the ‘real’ Shakespeare, Edward. Whether it’s striding through the dark hallways of London or fencing in his hedge maze, he looks perfectly at home and really captures the gravitas and authority of a powerful man in Tudor times. Rafe Spall is entertainingly buffoonish as the semi-illiterate Will Shakespeare, while Sebastian Armesto as playwright Ben Johnson – arguably the film’s protagonist – is likeable, but sports a rather broad accent that sounds odd. A bit of novelty casting in having mother and daughter Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson play Elizabeth I at different ages pays off superbly – in fact the Queen is one of the few characters whose facial features plausibly age according to the time period, given the actors’ obvious resemblance. Another is David Thewlis, who plays middle and old age with equal command, succumbing to not a bit of overacting or implausible make-up to add the years onto him. This only scratches the surface of the film’s lengthy dramatis personae, indicating some of the difficulties in remembering names and motivations.

The visual recreation of Elizabethan London is outstanding in its detail and apparent authenticity, handily surpassing the likes of Shakespeare in Love in realism and Elizabeth in terms of scope – Emmerich has clearly been rewarded with a healthy budget for his efforts and the expenditure is plain to see in the intricate sets and impressive CG vistas. The recreation of Shakespeare’s plays is also exemplary – indeed, the glimpses of performances are undoubtedly the highlights of the whole film, so much so you sometimes wish Emmerich had just made Henry V (seriously). The experience of being in the Globe Theatre with all its noise and liveliness, and people crammed in so close they can smell the actors’ feet, is captured brilliantly, as is the power these plays must have had over the populace. It brings Shakespeare to life in a way that no soporific English Literature lesson ever could.



Summary
Roland Emmerich never quite wrestles control of his unruly narrative structure, but Anonymous offers enough intrigue and spice to keep you engaged. Just take it all with a pinch of salt.