Directed by: Michel Gondry (Be Kind Rewind)
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Tom Wilkinson, Christoph Waltz, David Harbour
I’d hoped for better, but expected worse, which means that Michel Gondry’s The Green Hornet is at best—or at worst—a mixed bag of a movie. There are good—or at least very clever—things in it, but it comes across as three movies trying to be one. It’s partly a quirky, slightly sweet, somewhat dark Michel Gondry movie, partly a subversion of the superhero comic-book movie and partly a star vehicle for Seth Rogen’s ego. The first two parts make a better blend than does the final third, making it tempting to blame the things that don’t work on Rogen. Yet, Rogen co-wrote and co-produced the film, so it’s unreasonable not to credit him with at least some of what’s good about The Green Hornet.
The source material is something of a curious choice, since The Green Hornet only seems like a comic-book character. The Hornet actually originated as a radio show in 1936, spawned a couple of serial films and several not exactly world-class comic-book attempts. Its greatest fame to modern audiences comes from the cult following of the one-season ABC-TV series that was made largely to cash in on the same network’s Batman show. The Green Hornet show was played straight—unlike Batman—and was not a huge hit. But the presence of Bruce Lee as the Hornet’s sidekick, Kato, eventually gained the show a following, and is the main reason it’s remembered today. (Quick—without recourse to reference material—who played the Hornet? Exactly.) The new film draws more from the TV show than anything else—including poking fun at the hero as really being subordinate to the sidekick.
The new Hornet has Seth Rogen as Britt Reid, spoiled, party-boy son of newspaper publisher James Reid (Tom Wilkinson). It’s only after his father’s death that Britt and his father’s mechanic/coffee-maker Kato (Jay Chou) decide to become crime fighters posing as criminals—and really for no very good reason except that they think it would be cool. They—especially Britt—don’t have a clue how to go about it, since their first bout is accidental. As a result, they end up relying on Britt’s secretary (and crime specialist) Lenore Case (Cameron Diaz) to unwittingly provide the trajectory of their plans by telling them the usual path taken by criminals. All this is good, and it works in broad strokes at least.
Also good is the relationship between Britt and Kato in all its gay (but non-erotic) subtext glory—and the fact that neither of them can get to first base with Lenore. The relationships—and the way that Gondry handles them—are remarkably similar to the ones involving Jack Black, Mos Def and Melonie Diaz in Be Kind Rewind (2008), and it’s surprising that Gondry was able to imprint so much of himself onto a project like this. For that matter, there’s more than a little of his trademark low-tech, handmade quality, and that’s equally surprising in a big-budget action picture. Similarly, the character of Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds)—a clearly insane arch-villain, whose major preoccupation is how scary he is—would fit right in with the world of Gondry’s films.
With so much that’s right with The Green Hornet, what’s the problem? Well, primarily it’s a combination of pandering to its star, who just isn’t as funny as he thinks he is, and the film’s necessity to fulfill its action-picture promises. There’s nothing wrong with the big climax, but it feels more like it was required than inspired. It doesn’t by any means sink the movie, but it doesn’t improve it, nor is the ending as good as the film’s quirkier aspects. In the end, it’s a movie that I’d recommend—especially to Gondry fans—but with some definite reservations. And the retrofitted 3-D? I didn’t mind it, but it is utterly pointless. Rated PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality and drug content.
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
The film was on the hook bad. It annoyed me to no end. Rogan cannot write, the two leads had no chemistry, Diaz was unnecessary and there was not enough of Gondry’s touches to make it interesting. The best part was the end credits. They were cool plus they told me that the movie was over. I’ll watch the two Gondry music video compilations again to purge my memory. |
 Jan 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM |
|
The film was on the hook bad. Oh, my, no. Rogan cannot write, the two leads had no chemistry, Diaz was unnecessary and there was not enough of Gondry’s touches to make it interesting. There are many things Rogen cannot do, so you might as well add writing. The chemistry was better than I expected. It didn’t need to be Diaz, but the character is pretty necessary for the plot. There was a lot more Gondry than I expected. I think it would be nearer the mark to say it didn’t have enough of the things you like about Gondry. |
Jan 19, 2011 |
|
A couple of the fight scenes had that “Gondry touch,” but honestly I didn’t see much else. It was definitely a Rogen vehicle so I don’t know much influence Gondry had on the picture. Christoph Waltz was good but I first thought that he was Tim Roth. This film has actually been in development for a long time. Apparently George Clooney and Stephen Chow (KUNG FU HUSTLE) were attached to it. Imagine the film THAT could have been!!! |
Jan 19, 2011 at 7:23 PM |
|
Since I saw it on Friday, my opinion has been oscillating between your two opinions. |
Jan 20, 2011 |
|
Since I saw it on Friday, my opinion has been oscillating between your two opinions. I think it depends on how you feel about Be Kind Rewind. Since that’s the Gondry picture it most resembles, I expected Marc to hate it. But since that’s probably my favorite Gondry film (I only know his features), I am more sympathetic to Hornet. |
Jan 20, 2011 |
|
Mark Kermode said he would’ve preferred the Sweded version. |
 Jan 20, 2011 at 5:09 PM |
|
I expected Marc to hate it. Oh yeah? I expected you to expect me to hate it! I wanted to like it. I went to like it, but those small creative flourishes were just too few and far apart for me. I’ll lend you the two Gondry music video dvds Ken if you want to see them. I expect you to like them. |
Jan 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM |
|
Mark Kermode said he would’ve preferred the Sweded version Mr. Kermode and I are oft not on quite the same page. |
Jan 21, 2011 |
|
Oh yeah? I expected you to expect me to hate it!</b? I expected that. <b>I’ll lend you the two Gondry music video dvds Ken if you want to see them. I expect you to like them. I expect you’re right. The only thing of his I’ve seen that I didn’t like was Human Nature—and I seriously didn’t like it. |
Jan 21, 2011 |
|
“The only thing of his I’ve seen that I didn’t like was Human Nature—and I seriously didn’t like it.” What’s your take on Human Nature? I enjoy that film a great deal. |
Jan 21, 2011 |
|
What’s your take on Human Nature? I only watched it once, and am disinclined to repeat the experience, so the best I can give you is my reaction, which was profoundly negative. I found it forced, phoney, unfunny and rather unpleasant. I like thinking about all the parallels between The Green Hornet and Be Kind Rewind. It’s strange though that Be Kind Rewind is such a sweet film and The Green Hornet is just all out destructive. Hornet also lacks the chemistry of the three leads in Rewind, but the approach—including the subtext—is almost identical. As for the destructive aspect, I think that kinda goes with the genre. |
Jan 21, 2011 |
|
Would you have liked this better with Jack Black as The Green Hornet and Mos Def as Kato? |
Jan 21, 2011 at 2:32 PM |
|
Would you have liked this better with Jack Black as The Green Hornet and Mos Def as Kato? Probably. |
Jan 21, 2011 |
|
There wasn’t much to this movie. By the time I reached the theater door I wasn’t even thinking about it. I didn’t like or hate it. But why the 3D? There was nothing in the movie that benefits from it. I hate wearing those damn glasses, especially for no reason. |
Jan 22, 2011 |
|
But why the 3D? There was nothing in the movie that benefits from it. I hate wearing those damn glasses, especially for no reason. Why the 3D? Simple—they can charge you more to go see it. The reason it added nothing is due to the fact that the movie wasn’t shot in 3D. This was an after the fact decision by the studio, and retrofitted 3D almost never does anything for a movie. |
Jan 22, 2011 |
|
I’ll give Gondry credit for doing a few interesting things with the 3D as after effects, even if it was just a split-screen montage and a credits sequence. |
Jan 22, 2011 |
|
When ever Seth Rogan opens his mouth I get an urge to kick him in the balls. |
 Jan 25, 2011 at 11:55 AM |
|
can we say balls on here? |
Jan 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM |
|
I liked the Asian guy, he was awesome. I did not like Seth Rogen. Ugh. Plus we went to the wrong movie. Thought we were seeing “The Green Lantern”. ha ha! |
golden sin Jan 25, 2011 |
|
can we say balls on here? Apparently. |
Jan 25, 2011 |
|
Just saw it. Thought Edward James Olmos was pretty much wasted. And why cast a Hispanic in a role that calls out for an Irishman? If you’re going to change his role (Axford was a reporter, not an editor) why not change his name, too. Cameron Diaz didn’t have much to do but I liked what she did. If there’s a sequel it would be cool to see her as the mastermind, giving orders to GH and Kato. |
Feb 12, 2011 |
|
Well, she’s already the brains of the outfit. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a sequel. I don’t know what the international take is, but if indeed it cost $130 million to make, as has been claimed, it needs to gross about $260 million to break even. Stateside, it’s not even to $100 million yet. |
Feb 13, 2011 |
|
I went wanting to like it. I certainly like many moment, but I often found myself laughing at how ridiculous it all was. Somehow, I didn’t see it coming: Pineapple Express meets Batman starring Seth Rogan. I keep wondering, was this better than Salt? |
Mar 12, 2011 |
