Skip to main content

Street Fighter Looks the Part and Little More

I'll say this as someone with a passing awareness of the Street Fighter game franchise and its characters: this movie appears to be a fairly accurate representation of its source, for whatever that is worth. Aesthetically, it does indeed look like Street Fighter -as flashy and colourful and as ludicrous as ever. Its characters are an eclectic mix of styles and erratic fashion statements, its world is appropriately broad and silly. Yet none of that makes the movie itself good, points though it does at least earn for some visual effort.
The first theatrically released film under the Capcom brand since the last Street Fighter adaptation in 1994, the movie comes from of all people director Kitao Sakurai -best known for his work on The Eric Andre Show. Andre himself appears in the movie naturally as one of a few comic relief roles, and the particular chaotic comedy energy his work is known for can be found pervasive throughout the movie -though it is not a particularly good look. Street Fighter might demand a certain level of hyperbole, but there is a point where an abundance of overzealous actions, pacing, and dialogue become quite grating. And this is a movie that reaches that point very early on. 
It is set in a highly exaggerated mystical and magical alternate universe version of 1993 (purely for some unimportant aesthetic reasons) in the vaguely Japanese-coded country of Shadaloo, under the oppressive dictatorship of M. Bison (David Dastmalchian). Much of the world derives its entertainment from elaborate and violent fighting tournaments, which Bison organizes in an effort to lure out of hiding a particularly powerful martial arts warrior Ryu (Andrew Koji). Fighting in the tournament is Ryu’s adoptive brother Ken Masters (Noah Centineo), resentful of Ryu’s disappearance following the traumatic death of their master some years before; and also Chun-Li (Callina Liang) seeking revenge on Bison for the murder of her father. Fighting each other and several other opponents, these warriors must ultimately work together in an effort to defeat the heinous potentate.
As would be expected, it is a pretty convoluted set-up to get to the basic premise of wild characters fighting each other in arenas (or otherwise) in bombastic ways. A credit to Sakurai, he is aware that the details don’t matter and isn’t afraid to play stylistically with the movie’s reality. This is most apparent in the flashback scenes of Ryu and Ken with their master Gouken (Don Lee), which are depicted explicitly in anime form. No explanation is given, it’s just a purely stylistic choice that feels in keeping with the contours of this world. In fact the aesthetic of anime with its broadness of energy and expression, arguably fits this material better than live-action -Sakurai perhaps is conscious of this too, almost mimicking anime in some corners of the movie.
And I wonder if this doesn’t extend to the script, which often feels like it has been poorly translated from another language in the manner of many an anime dub. Because of the campy nature of the world overall, there is an inclination to take as intentional the over-dramatic overtones of the dialogue, the repetitious nature of the exposition, and just the general bland construction, but there is a limit to both how much that can be believed and accepted. The comic relief especially, emanating often from Ken and his manager Dan Hibiki (Andrew Schulz) is incredibly lame most of the time -frequently forced for the sake itself, incongruously crude or nonsensical. Some of it is down as well to technical shortcomings -bad editing and worse ADR that saps any kind of charisma that might emanate from a beat- and also the performances. Centineo is a mess of overcompensation and has no chemistry with Koji, his apparent brother. And Schulz delivers everything through that filter of mindless obnoxious machismo that is his personal brand and which proves an awkward fit for this kind of movie. Dastmalchian and Liang are both comparatively better but playing on two vastly different wavelengths -he incredibly hammy and over-the-top, she serious and severe to the point of passion but also dullness. Meanwhile Koji plays to a hollow stoic archetype and the other visually unique fighters -several of whom are played by non-actor wrestlers and martial artists- are empty vessels outside of their looks, like Cody Rhodes's Guile and Vidyut Jammwal's Dhalsim.
Feeble plot points such as the estrangement of Ryu and Ken, their mutual inferiority complexes about each other, and Chun-Li's traumatic backstory come into the film with no tangible dramatic weight -the anime interludes distracting from the former's ability to convey its themes seriously and the script just not being up to the task of characterizing the latter with any degree of authenticity without disrupting the heightened cheesy tone -communicating Chun-Li's real tragedy and rage is less important than allowing that context to facilitate a call-back to one of the more memorable goofy lines of the 1994 film.
And yet that is essentially what Street Fighter as a concept is. Obviously it matters less in a game that a character is an empty vessel but the purpose of the game can certainly be adapted. And on that front this movie is reasonably successful. The fights, though perhaps not as bombastic as in the games, are still appropriately eccentric, propulsive, even a little inventive -if not always entirely coherent in their editing. There is a lot of flourish to the movie which doesn't count for nothing. And the general visual aesthetic is certainly engaging, far more vibrant and colourful than the last Street Fighter movie, yet also distinct enough from the games in a way that is actually complimentary. If only the script and performances could be as much so.
A Street Fighter game fan looking for the bare minimum of a loyal movie adaptation will find that in this movie. It has the right aesthetics, the right costumes, and the characters were likely cast for resemblance more than skill. But to appreciate that you must endure a dreadful script peppered with immature jokes and references, mediocre performances, and a cascade of painfully deployed obvious needle-drops right up through to an underwhelming ending primarily designed to set up a sequel.  Not an even trade-off.

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

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

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