Skip to main content

An Impressive Technique Isn't Enough to Save a Sterile Action Flick


Gemini Man is such a bizarre movie to come from director Ang Lee. Not that Lee has any one style or genre he works in, having made movies as disparate as Sense and Sensibility, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain, and Life of Pi -all fantastically; but that he rarely makes a movie as dull as Gemini Man, as vacant and emotionless. The concept’s been in development since the late 90’s and very much feels like it, a remnant of the era that produced Face/Off, but without any of the passion or flourish. And it’s an idea that nobody’s really interested in anymore, at least not since Rian Johnson’s Looper.
Enter Ang Lee though and the reason I saw Gemini Man. Any movie from him should at least be interesting on some level -and this one is, albeit not for everyone, and certainly not to the degree it can sustain itself or overcome one of the most banal narratives Lee’s ever been involved with. Lee perhaps knew this, which is why his interest in the film is purely technical. I don’t believe for a second he’s invested at all in the characters or the plot, only the ways in which he can experiment visually.
The story follows an extremely skilled assassin on the verge of retirement, played by Will Smith who is hunted by a clone some twenty years younger -and there’s the rub. Where some movies might try to mask the imperfections of rapidly advancing digital make-up technology, Gemini Man leans in, emphasizing the Fresh Prince era Will Smith wandering around and interacting with his elder counterpart. And there’s reason to, it’s a good rendering, Gemini Man (like Captain Marvel) benefiting from casting an actor whose appearance has undergone only marginal change in twenty years. It’s not stunning though, not as impressive as it might have been even a few years ago despite the execution being undoubtedly superior to some of those early Marvel experiments. It worries me a tad that we’re this desensitized to de-aging technology in movies, and that between the visual wizardry and modulated voice (to better replicate Smith’s voice from back then), it’s hard to tell how much acting Smith is actually putting in-at times the impression is merely that of that Star Trek episode with the twin Kirks.
It could be too though that this is merely drowned out by the greater (and more publicized) technical gambit -though one that not everyone will have access to. Lee shot Gemini Man at 120 fps, which to those unaware is an unusually high frame rate (24 being the average for most films). What this means is that the movie, or at least the version Lee wants you to see, has bolder images, unconventionally fluid movement, and a faster, more vivid pace to every scene. Generally it’s not something you want from a film (as it can often delineate a movies’ purpose and aesthetics, and usually looks pretty ugly), but Lee specifically made the film this way for reasons that become clear with the first action scene. This technique, in allowing everything in the frame a sharp spontaneity and graceful motion, results in action scenes that are more kinetic and hard-hitting than any average action-blockbuster can provide. Set and choreographed the way they are too by the man who revolutionized the martial arts film, they can be a kind of visual poetry, albeit one where you feel the impact of every hit. It’s quite remarkable, which is a shame it’s so distracting and superfluous in the rest of the movie.
Because the plot really wants to be dramatic and meaningful, but this frame rate, despite its opposite effect on action set pieces, keeps rendering serious sequences woefully artificial. When everything in a shot is so visually heightened, your focus is less drawn to where it should be. In fairness though, the story does little to hold your investment on its own; most characters don’t get the chance to evolve past their types, important narrative or emotional moments have a bungled delivery -which isn’t too surprising from a script co-written by David Benioff. It squanders some of the most compelling ideas the premise presents (such as the nature of Gemini and the clone’s sense of self), disassociates itself from its sci-fi implications, and undercuts one essential moment of personal growth in the climax for the sake of a cheap kill-shot. Smith honestly put more effort into his performance as the Genie this summer, playing this part (at least the older version) largely as an impression of himself, while a dour Clive Owen drearily gaslights the young clone. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is confused as the pseudo-love interest, Ralph Brown is terribly wasted as a bureaucrat, and Benedict Wong seems to be the only actor enjoying himself as the goofy sidekick –despite clearly coming from a version of Gemini Man that didn’t take itself so seriously.
Gemini Man is a generic action movie with occasional aspirations to richer storytelling and significant themes of family, guilt, and personal freedom that it never reaches. It’s tedious and forgettable. But a part of me can’t be too depressed that Ang Lee’s name is attached to it, because the only parts he cared about are realized well. The CG is well done and the 120 fps makes for some of the most thrilling action scenes in recent years; but sadly though, this isn’t a movie worth seeing if you can’t do so in the way Lee intended –and given how sparse those particular showings generally are, you might be better off marvelling at Life of Pi again instead of catching a watered down version of a movie that’s not all that good to begin with.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
1 comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
14 comments
Read more