New on DVD Dec 02 2008 @ 04:00 pm
REVIEW: Wanted
Directed By: Timur Bekmambetov
Written By: Michael Brandt & Derrick Haas and Chris Morgan
Starring: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Terence Stamp, Common
Running Time: 110 minutes
Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality
This review was originally published June 28th, 2008.
NOTE: Two of the screencaps within this review contain depictions of violence and strong language.
As a child, when Mark Millar was first introduced to comic books and superheroes, the question he immediately had was, “Where do they all live?” His older brother, never one to pass up a golden opportunity, told the little tot that all of the superheroes were dead because the super-villains had teamed up and wiped them out. While briefly traumatizing him, the prank would also become the basis for his hit 2003 comics mini-series, Wanted.
I picked up a copy of Wanted a few months ago in anticipation of the film. It was unequivocally one of the most sadistically violent, amoral, and thought provoking things I had ever read. The film, sadly, retains the first, waters down the second, and jettisons the third completely.
James McAvoy as Wesley Gibson.
Wesley Gibson (Hollywood It-boy James McAvoy) is a white collar worker trapped within a miserable existence of spreadsheets and TPS reports. Full of self-loathing, his porky boss abuses him, his girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend, and he takes copious amounts of anti-anxiety medicine just to function. As movies about depressed white collar workers are likely to progress (hello Matrix rip-off), another world hides beneath the surface, our hero awaiting only his Otherworldly Boatman (in this instance, Angelina Jolie) to ferry him across to the other side.
Wesley’s father, it appears, was a super-secret assassin in a super-secret society called The Fraternity that follows death orders given to them by a super-secret loom called the Loom of Fate (yup, you read that right). Dear old dad is dead, killed by a rogue agent, and Wesley, who has inherited his father’s superhuman abilities (including curving bullets and millisecond reaction times), is being brought into the fold to exact revenge. Seeing as his life sucks, he’s only too happy to oblige.
When asked whether or not there was ever pressure to tone down the violence found in the comics, Millar is on record as saying that “he would have walked” if that had ever been the case. And while around 70% of the source material is intact (per Millar’s estimation), the brazen tone of the original has been neutered into oblivion (which apparently doesn’t bother him). During the film’s training montage, Wesley is beaten to a bloody pulp, instructed in the art of the knife, and shown how to curve bullets. In the original comic those things happen, but he also has his conscience desensitized by slaughtering hundreds of live cattle, sniping random people on the street, and raping A-list celebrities (because all the heroes are dead, the super-villains can operate with complete impunity). In the movie, the Fraternity justifies its assassinations with the mantra, “Kill one, save a thousand” (Jolie provides a weepy backstory about a murderer who killed her parents because a Fraternity member had wussed out on assassinating him). In the comics, Wesley walks into a police station and executes every last cop with extreme prejudice. Why? He was bored.
A panel from the original comic showing you just how unpleasant existentialism really is.
Now, I’m not one to revel in sadistic excess and glorified amorality. I hated both Sin City and Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (whose protagonist lacked any semblance of a conscience). But what I found so fascinating about the original Wanted was its utter willingness to sacrifice any pretense of morality in pursuit of its violent guilty pleasures. The whole premise is revolting, but it takes guts of steel to follow amorality to its natural conclusion: Freudian existentialism (where rigid definitions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ do not exist and man is happiest when he is instinctively pursuing his own pleasure).
The film is unwilling to go to that extreme for obvious marketing and financial reasons. A truly amoral protagonist is unpalatable – no one wants to see their heroes raping innocent civilians just for the heck of it. So instead the film manufactures justifications for its on screen violence: the assassinations are in service to the ‘greater good’ and Wesley only kills the ‘really bad guys’. Ta-da! Now you can enjoy your gore-tastic violence without the burden of having to think about what that actually implies. It’s a calculated decision that will no doubt reap dividends at the box office (Perfume, budgeted at $60 million, made a little over 2 in the US), but it’s the same cop-out nearly every other action film employs, made all the more glaring in light of the uncompromising source material.
Timur Bekmambetov showing off his imagination.
It would be a disservice, however, not to mention Timur Bekmambetov’s genuine skill in crafting a thrilling action sequence. The Russian director behind Night Watch and Day Watch (the marketing insists on calling him a ‘visionary’ although I’m unwilling to go that far) brings his over-the-top aesthetic to Wanted with unrestrained enthusiasm. This is adrenaline fueled eye candy laced with crack that’s shoved straight through your retina and into your brain. Bullets mushroom against one another in midair, cars flip over one another in displays of Speed Racer-like acrobatics, and assassins leap between rooftops like trapeze artists on steroids. It’s all ludicrous, of course, but as long as you can forgive the flagrant abuses of things like gravity and physics you’ll enjoy the action-lover’s buffet that Bekmambetov is serving up.
Millar’s original work conducted a Funny Games-style experiment (albeit much more successful than Michael Haneke’s attempt) wherein you were confronted by the implications of your fascination with and enjoyment of violence: “Did you like the part where he flipped through the air and shot the bad guy in the face? Wasn’t that cool? Hey, what if he executes this innocent woman minding her own business? Still having fun?” Bekmambetov and his handlers at Universal have removed such moral quandaries because, quite frankly, they’re bad for business. Wanted is an acceptable thrill ride that many people will enjoy way more than they should, but it isn’t the uncomfortable examination of violence-obsession that it could have been. I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed a 100% faithful adaptation of the source material very much, but it would have been more interesting than what we’ve been given.
In the movie, Angelina just shoots the bad guys. In the comic, her character executes an entire coffee shop just to make a point.
on Jun 28 2008 @ 5:40 pm 1. Nathan said …
Wow, I had no idea about the backstory of the original comic. Great review!
I’m pretty sure this is one I’m still going to catch, b/c I’m such a sucker for things like spinning bullets and millisecond reflexes. Is it bad if I try not to like it too much so I don’t have to examine my motivations?
It’s an interesting scenario, though: if Hollywood makes the film that will provoke discussion, everyone will hate it and it will flop. If the film is made that will sell, it will only entertain.
However, as one who enjoys ridiculous action scenes, is that always a bad thing?
on Jun 28 2008 @ 7:27 pm 2. Phillip Johnston said …
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (who’s protagonist lacked any semblance of a conscience)
Probably because he never ever experienced what justice truly was.
But that’s a different subject. I still need to write my glowing review of that movie. You’d think I’d be able to do it after 6+ viewings, but I still can’t wrap my noggin ’round it.
on Jun 28 2008 @ 8:00 pm 3. Evan Derrick said …
Nathan, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a take-the-high-road kind of guy when it comes to my action flicks. I like a good explosion and a decent body count as much as the next guy. For example, I really enjoyed Shoot ‘Em Up, which wore its guilty pleasure violence on its sleeve like a badge of honor.
But when I write a review of an adaptation I’m often unable to fully divorce myself from the source material (see my review of I Am Legend for a particularly egregious example). On its own, this is an electrifying, kinetic action film that will have you giggling with glee. But in light of its source material it falls short.
Don’t get me wrong on this count either. I’m not a gore hound upset that the film wasn’t violent and/or as sadistic as the original comic (the film is violent enough, trust me). I just found the comic’s willingness to push the moral boundary all the way to the edge fascinating. In going that far, it made it glaringly obvious that such a post-modern existential worldview is both fundamentally obscene and terrifying in its implications. If there is not an objective definition of right and wrong, if we can just make up the rules as we please, anarchy and sadism are the result.
The film eliminates any possibility of having such a conversation because it’s primarily interested in killing people in the most creative ways imaginable. Again, as an action flick it’s top notch, but it could have been so much more.
And really, enjoying ridiculous action scenes isn’t a big deal at all. I think we should just stop and think every once in a while about why we enjoy them so much.
on Jun 28 2008 @ 8:53 pm 4. Cinexcellence said …
I’ll probably see this sometime this week.
on Jun 29 2008 @ 1:59 pm 5. Zach S. said …
Was it as hypocritical as Shoot Em Up, a movie that glorifies violence, whose main character is fighting for gun control?
Either way, great review…
on Jun 29 2008 @ 5:18 pm 6. Rick Olson said …
These films pose a great dilemma to those who try to follow the teachings of someone called the prince of peace, don’t they? I find myself less and less interested in the kind of over-the-top violence this film represents. I thought 300, Sin City, Shoot ‘em Up to be beautifully-made, even enjoyable, but morally abhorrent.
on Jun 29 2008 @ 7:20 pm 7. Phillip Johnston said …
I smell a blog post somewhere in there, Rick.
on Jun 29 2008 @ 9:30 pm 8. Mynock said …
Having just seen this film and being familiar with the comics from which it spawned, I felt a need to sound off.
I agree with the review almost 100%. Hollywood has its rules and Wanted pushes the envelope as far as a millions of dollars investment can.
I often find it to be unfair to lessen a film by weighing it against unconventional source material anyway.
Nevermind that asking any big-budget popcorn flick why it doesn’t leave you thinking about or discussing moral and sociological issues, no matter its inspiration, is a bit demanding.
I would understand if the film tried to present itself in any other way than a summer blockbuster, but it surely doesn’t.
In my opinion, Wanted knows its audience and delivers on their expectations. As to when we, the overall film going public, will expect more from our films is up to further debate.
on Jun 30 2008 @ 10:08 am 9. Luke Harrington said …
Sorry Evan, but I have to call your bluff on this one: What is “Freudian existentialism”? It seems to me that in order to accept the basic premise of Freudianism (that human consciousness can be studied scientifcially), you have to reject the basic premise of existentialism (that existence is the only thing that can be truly known).
Other than that, great review. Maybe if I read the comic, I’ll appreciate the movie more. Or less. You never know.
on Jun 30 2008 @ 5:54 pm 10. Cinexcellence said …
Just got back from watching Wanted. I thin overall I’m going to settle with a 2.5/5 rating.
on Jul 01 2008 @ 4:14 pm 11. Evan Derrick said …
Rick, I slip every closer to that conclusion myself. The justifications become more and more emptier the older I get.
Mynock, you make great points. It is, perhaps, unfair to judge the film by its source material, especially since 1) the film isn’t striving to become anything other than what it is and 2) the author himself endorses the adaptation, loves it to pieces, actually. However, when I approached this review, I realized I could tackle it one of two ways. The first would be to review it as you suggested – on its own merits as a guilty pleasure summer popcorn flick. Approaching it from that angle I would have given it 3 1/2 stars, but the review, I think, would have been fairly boring and typical of all the other reviews out there. The second method was the one I actually chose, to evaluate it in light of it’s source material and what it could have been versus what it actually became. I dropped a half star, which in the long run doesn’t matter, but the review I came up with is, I think, much more interesting to read and a conversation starter to boot. For example, you commented on the post, and I’m guessing if I had reviewed it the more typical way you suggested, you wouldn’t have been moved to enter the conversation.
Is this fair of me to dock the film points in the pursuit of a more ‘interesting’ critical piece of writing? I don’t know, maybe not.
Regardless, you make great points, and I really can’t disagree with you. I tried to compliment the film on its strengths (the action sequences) while calling it to task for its failures, even if I was unreasonably demanding.
And Luke, I was wondering if anyone would call my bluff on that one.
Essentially, I just made it up and have no proof that it’s a defensible concept or theory. I will say that Freud did hold to the tenet that man is most happy when he is instinctively seeking out his pleasures, and existentialism does posit that there is no concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, only the ‘truth’ of our experiences, and since the comic does embody both of those philosophies, there might be some precedent for labeling it “Freudian Existentialism,” although my ability to argue for it essentially stops there.
on Jul 02 2008 @ 1:33 pm 12. Richard J said …
You might have wanted to say that it brought ‘Freudian existentialism’ (pretending that such a thing exists) to its logical end: actual amorality. If you put it as you did, it implies that amorality is a good thing in moderation, whereas Freudianism and existentialism both inevitably result in unrestrained rape and murder, rather than inconsequential semantic debates in musty dorm rooms. In reality you’ll find the reverse: the intellectual theories don’t result in rape and murder unless put into extremely disciplined and inhumanly logical practice, for which they were not intended.
A good example of this sort of principle is Che Guevara, who represented the logic of revolution so scrupulously (that is, ruthlessly) that, after his death, Communist revolutionaries worldwide heaved a sigh of relief, because, although they believed what he believed, they didn’t want to practice it as he practiced it.
What bothered me about the film was that, once they decided to get rid of the original’s Brechtianism, they didn’t stick to it as consistently as they should have. The final direct address fits the film as poorly as it fit the comic perfectly, and the only time the choice between and entertainment hero’s code and the amorality implied by being able to kill with impunity is presented, Angelina Jolie immediately makes the ‘correct’ choice. It would have been better to simply have committed to doing the film more straightforwardly and delivering a full-on action film, since most of its set pieces are truly excellent.
on Jul 02 2008 @ 2:36 pm 13. Evan Derrick said …
Richard, piercing observations. I wish I had had you over my shoulder when I was writing the original piece. You’ve pinpointed the central flaw in my reasoning and successfully highlighted the point I was attempting to make in the first place.
Your perspective on the final shot of the film is completely accurate. It functioned as a half-hearted peace offering to the source material, as if the film recognized it had neutered the intent of the original and was trying to ‘make up for it’ in the final minutes.
Thanks for offering your 2 cents, Richard. I hope you return in the future and offer further critical thoughts.