ArtsEtc.

Cage’s latest adventure film dangerously bad

Long ago, Nicholas Cage made some good movies. I’m sure of it. However, in Cage’s body of work, successes like “The Rock,” “Con Air” and “Adaptation” can only materialize as wisps amid the dense and obscuring fog of recent abominations “Ghost Rider,” “National Treasure” (and its sequel), “World Trade Center” and “The Wicker Man,” to name a few.

“Bangkok Dangerous” continues Cage’s litany of failures in the most spectacular way. From the story, to the acting, to the dialogue, to the cinematography and to Cage’s ill-conceived greaseball haircut, the movie drips with oily desperation and mediocrity.

The film’s problems begin with a story that lacks coherence, drive or any heightened sense of conflict. “Bangkok Dangerous” follows the exploits of hitman Joe (Cage) as he travels to Bangkok and murders his way across the city for the gangster Surat (Nirattisai Kaljaruek). Joe is a self-described callous loner — he “eats alone, sleeps alone and works alone.” However, not 20 minutes into the movie, Joe takes on a peppy sidekick Kong (Shahkrit Yamnarm) and a love interest who cannot speak or hear, Fon (Charlie Yeung). The contradiction is not the problem. The problem is that the writers, directors and actors cannot offer a plausible reason for Cage’s new friendships. One minute he says he doesn’t need anyone, the next he has a pupil and a girlfriend with no great change of attitude, plausible character quirk or desire that explains the dynamic shift. It’s entirely inexplicable.

The movie then lazily meanders through various montages of Joe teaching Kong the art of assassination and attempting a labored courtship with Fon. I don’t know why such a sullen man bothers to tutor Kong, and neither will you if you choose to see the movie. His relationship with Fon is awkward, as he tries to negotiate dating someone with whom he can’t communicate. The premise of a foreigner, socially inept and aging, finding love with a girl who cannot hear or speak in Bangkok is full of potential, but, in the hands of directors Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang, it borders on impotence as Joe’s attempts to communicate with Fon on any level are pathetic. Ultimately, you cannot believe any sort of connection exists between the two.

Of course, in the end, he is confronted with the choice of continuing to slay people for vast amounts of wealth or doing the “right thing,” and of course, Joe does exactly what you expect him to do.

The cinematography, often the saving grace of abysmal thrillers, is just as bad. The movie appears overly dark and murky, with green, grey or blue filters as the modus operandi. It can be difficult to make out the actions, facial expressions or indeed, the people themselves at various points throughout the film. The editing hops from night to day and event to event without any clear unity or focus, adding to the film the disjointed qualities of a schizophrenic nightmare.

The sparse action scenes provide none of the spectacle you’d want from a hitman flick. The assassinations are pretty standard — sniping from a bell tower, driving up to a parked car in a motorcycle — offering nothing visually new or dramatically exciting. The inevitable chase scenes are just as dull, with Cage performing some minor theatrics on the aforementioned motorcycle, or driving a boat really fast while barely noticing that people are shooting at him.  Without intriguing action, a movie about gun-toting maniacs is fairly pointless.

Lastly, whoever styled Nicholas Cage’s hair for the movie is either blind, has no arms or really, really hates Nicholas Cage. Method actors have been known to put on large amounts of weight for roles or let their bodies go to waste — some don’t bathe for weeks or months during a shoot — but no one ever looked as bad as Cage does in Bangkok Dangerous.

There is nothing redeemable about, and there is no excuse for, “Bangkok Dangerous.” With a slew of projects slated for release in the next few months and years, I can only hope that Nicholas Cage has returned to making more enjoyable movies, because as it stands, he’d have a very hard time making them worse.

0 stars out of 5