When I was doing the background work for this review I came to the realization that there's no real reason for Bangkok Dangerous to exist. It's a remake of an obscure Thai movie of the same name, only this time with our boy Nicolas Cage. Danny and Oxide Pang made the original Bangkok Dangerous in 1999, winning the international critics' award at the 2000 Toronto International Film Festival. I haven't seen the original, but I think it's safe to assume that it's more than passable if it garnered such praise.
So why this remake? I'm not saying that the Pang brothers have anything on Da Vinci, but what if ol' Leo decided he was going to remake the Mona Lisa... only this time with bigger tits?
Just as a busty Da Vinci painting would feel uncomfortably out of place at the Louvre, Nic Cage's presence in Bangkok Dangerous struck me as abrasively unnatural. First of all, what happened with the hair? I find it hard to believe that they made it through the initial screen tests without somebody muttering the words “date rapist.”
In Bangkok Dangerous, Cage plays a hitman named Joe who has lived a life of discipline and solitude. However, as the story unfolds he starts to break his own rules, taking on a pick-pocketing apprentice, Kong, and becoming romantically involved with a deaf pharmacist. Unsurprisingly, Joe's principles existed for a reason, and, without them, his life starts to unravel.
We learn a few interesting things in this movie: one, that 80 percent of what you need to know to be an effective hitman can be learned within in a week of playing patty cake with a mentor; two, that the Thai police force alternates between non-existent and occupying-force levels; and three, that a human body can effectively shield you from a grenade explosion occurring one foot away.
Unfortunately, we also learn that the Pang brothers don't have any original ideas. While watching I asked myself why it is that every hitman protagonist in the history of film gets sloppy and starts feeling feelings. I suppose that these stories would be pretty dull otherwise, but we've already seen this narrative played out with greater effect in movies such as Léon: The Professional.
In the Pang brothers' original film it was the protagonist who was deaf, adding a somewhat interesting dynamic to the premise. In the Americanization of their film, however, it seems like Danny and Oxide were compelled to strip away anything that made their work unique. In this version of Bangkok Dangerous the brothers Pang have adhered to almost every tired action flick convention imaginable, and if you can't see where the movie is heading after 10 minutes you're either lying or you're an idiot.
While it pains me to say it, Nicolas Cage's performance in this movie falls as flat as his horrible dye job. As an actor with a such an extensive filmography, Cage is unique because he has just as many good or great movies as awful ones. Whether or not his wiry antics work within the context of a film is largely contingent on the source material, but his trademark enthusiasm is generally what stays consistent. Even Cage's sub-par work usually possesses a certain camp charm because of the man's zaniness.
Bangkok Dangerous just feels different from his other movies, not in the sense that it's bad (many of his movies are bad), but because it's depressingly lifeless. Cage usually displays a signature brand of reckless abandon regardless of whether or not a movie has any Oscar potential, but this is not the case in Bangkok Dangerous, making the whole affair feel pointless.
It almost seems like Nic's presence in Bangkok Dangerous is some sort of strange punishment for past indiscretions, like acting in this movie is one of his personal circles of hell. I'm not big on celebrity gossip, but I've been told that Cage started taking on more work because he lost most of his money in bad investments. I wouldn't be surprised if, at the end of Nic's life, he points to Bangkok Dangerous as the point where he hit bottom.
