Wild Wild West Review
by Brian Takeshita (brianlt AT aloha DOT net)July 2nd, 1999
WILD WILD WEST
A Film Review by Brian Takeshita
Rating: ** out of ****
Back in 1965, a show titled "The Wild, Wild West" appeared on the nation's television sets. The show centered around Robert Conrad as James West, and Ross Martin as Artemus Gordon, two Secret Service agents answering directly to President Grant and sent about the country to save civilization from conniving criminal elements. Part period western and part sci-fi, "The Wild, Wild West" has been described by many as having been years ahead of its time.
The 1999 film version also seems to be ahead of its time, but in a different way. WILD WILD WEST is an immature movie that simply wasn't thought out as well as it should have been. In that respect, it was released ahead of time. Like that little twist?
The film presents us with Will Smith as West, and Kevin Kline as Gordon, two mismatched government agents sent to hunt down former Confederate General "Bloodbath" McGrath (Ted Levine), who is rumored to be gathering men and weapons to start the Civil War all over again. However, when McGrath narrowly slips through their fingers, and President Grant receives a demand to sign over control of the United States under the threat of the release of an ultimate weapon, the duo is assigned to find an even bigger fish, Dr. Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh). Thought to have been killed fighting for the South during the war, Loveless has been kidnapping the nation's top scientists, no doubt for the purpose of building the means to back up his threat.
Without a doubt, Will Smith is the best thing going for this film. He's likable, handsome, funny, and though a little scrawny, still a believable action hero. His comedic timing is better than most actors out there today, and his ability to win over an audience by playing it free and easy is quite notable. This ability is evidenced in several places in the film, but especially in a scene where he's trying to talk a group of former southern slave owners out of hanging him. Reactions of the mob cue the audience into a few extra laughs, but if the camera never moved off of Smith's face, it would still be a riot.
Kevin Kline makes a valiant attempt at this movie, but just doesn't have enough good material to keep his character interesting. Gordon's banter with West follows the buddy movie line, playing upon the differences between West's no-nonsense, shoot first and ask questions later approach, with Gordon's aversion to violence and reliance on trickery, gadgetry, and costume. Unfortunately, the conflicts between the two characters are mostly contrived and therefore are not conducive to producing much original dialog.
Branagh actually plays a pretty good over-the-top villain, a departure from what we're used to seeing from the Shakespearean actor. Unfortunately, his character is in the movie only about half of the amount he should be, and therefore there isn't enough screentime for Loveless to really walk around and develop. You just kind of take it for granted that he's evil.
As I said earlier, this film could have stood further development before being put on film and released to theaters. The overarching story is fairly complete, but the logic in transitioning from one scene to the next is sometimes lost and the explanations for certain actions are fuzzy at best. For example, it wasn't clear as to why West and Gordon were looking for McGrath even after they were tasked with looking for Loveless, and the reason Loveless betrays one of his allies is never really given (and it's a major plot point). Later in the film, Loveless's henchmen (and henchwomen) get knocked off one by one, but it's not always clear how, and I think at least a couple are left unaccounted for - they just disappear.
Then there's Rita Escobar (Salma Hayek), whom West and Gordon rescue from Loveless's lackeys, and then, of course, take along with them for the rest of the movie. The character serves no, I repeat, no purpose in the film whatsoever. She had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. Loveless didn't have any kind of vendetta because of her, she didn't unwittingly lead Loveless to them, didn't even make one of those contrived dumb-girl mistakes that gets our boys into trouble. Now, I might be the last person in the world who would complain about Salma Hayek being in a movie I'm going to see, but the character is just so superfluous, it's inexcusable. Either give her something to do or cut her out altogether.
Director Barry Sonnenfeld, who previously directed Will Smith in MEN IN BLACK, apparently doesn't know how to shoot fight scenes (and there are a few in WILD WILD WEST), because you simply can't see what's going on. A fist flying here, a kick there is all you can see, then it's over. In a more serious picture, this might have merit in adding to the confusion of the situation, but in an action/comedy, the fights are supposed to impress. Hard to do if the action isn't visible.
Too often, the screenplay, apparently written in committee by Brent Maddock, Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman, and S.S. Wilson, goes for jokes which are just too obvious. There's a part, for example, when a train conductor (M. Emmet Walsh) overhears a conversation between West and Gordon in the wrong context, and it's supposed to be funny. Like I didn't get enough of that from so many years of watching "Three's Company."
This lack of originality even extends into some of the action sequences, such as an instance where West is attempting to stop a runaway horse-drawn wagon by jumping onto the horses themselves. They abruptly stop just short of a cliff and send West over the front end, leaving him dangling over the edge, holding onto the reigns. Yeah, I liked it the first time I saw it done with Arnold Schwarzeneggar in TRUE LIES.
Okay, you know me, I gotta pick out the little things, too. Loveless refers to an armored battle wagon as a tank. History lesson for today: The term "tank" did not originate until World War I, when "tank" was used as a code word to conceal what was at the time a secret weapon to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Loveless might have thought up the concept in the 1860's, but would almost definitely not have used the word. You can roll your eyes, now.
WILD WILD WEST has its moments, but they are too few and far between, and each depends heavily on Will Smith. It doesn't help, either, that the end sets us up for a sequel. Let's hope that if there is another installment, it'll have a little more kick in the saddle. Now excuse me while I go ride off into the sunset.
Review posted July 2, 1999
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
