Wild Wild West Review
by Chad Polenz (ChadPolenz AT aol DOT com)July 14th, 1999
Wild Wild West
Chad'z rating: ** (out of 4 = fair/below average)
1999, PG-13, 107 minutes [1 hour, 47 minutes]
[adventure/comedy/western]
Starring: Will Smith (Jim West), Kevin Kline (Artemus Gordon), Kenneth Branagh (Dr. Arliss Loveless), Selma Hayek (Rita Escobar); written by Jim Thomas, John Thomas, S.S. Wilson, Brent Maddock, Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman; produced by Jon Peters, Barry Sonnenfeld; based on the television series “The Wild Wild West” created by Michael Garrison.
Seen July 7, 1999 at 8:20 p.m. at the Crossgates Cinema 18 (Guilderland, NY), theater #3, with Shawn O’Shea, for free using my Hoyts season pass [theater rating: ****: excellent sound, picture and seats].
Have you ever stayed up really late on a week night and then when you went to work or school the next day the whole experience was like a haze? Or, have you ever taken an antihistamine and tried to concentrate on anything despite the drowsiness? That’s exactly the feeling “Wild Wild West” gives off - a film that feels like the result of a collaboration of a bunch of people too doped up on allergy and cold medicine to care about what they’re doing. Every summer we are bombarded with elaborate, big-budget, super-star flicks whose sole purpose is to fill up the cineplexes, sell a lot of t-shirts, fast food and other merchandise (here in New York there is even a scratch-off lottery game based on this movie!). Both critics and audiences have grown accustomed to seeing these works that tend to blend together after a while, so we try to keep our expectations low.
And with with “Wild Wild West” it’s no different consider what it has going for it: international superstar Will Smith in the lead role; director Barry Sonnenfeld who has always made good movies; the fact it’s based on a popular old television series (that’ll bring in the Baby Boomers); a marketing strategy promising action, comedy and special effects (that’ll bring in the GenXers); and an overall feeling that anyone could like the movie, so what goes wrong?
Actually, the real question should be, what goes right?
The first example of the film erroneous ways can be found in the opening credits alone which show Andy Warhol-style pictures of the stars’ faces and names over a generic Hollywood western theme. Not having seen the show the film was based on, I can’t say if it’s the same as the show’s original opening, but what I do know is that in 1999 this sort of lead-in doesn’t give one the feeling he or she is about to watch something exciting. Even the music is boring and vaguely familiar so in the back of your mind you’re thinking “rip-off!”
The story starts out with a scene of a scientist being killed by some kind of mysterious device and a typical old, ugly, redneck stands over him and says ignoranamous and stupid (you know, something they only say in bad westerns). We then cut to our hero, Jim West (Smith), who is messing around with a woman in a water tower, which of course proceeds to fall over and a scene of West single-handedly fighting off a bunch of generic bad-guy cowboys while still in the buff ensues. But this scene doesn’t deliver much because it is so completely and fully predictable. Smith isn’t outrageous here because he’s doing his same old schtick, which at least works in other movies because he had smart dialogue and a good script to work with, here it just seems lame.
It turns out West is some kind of important federal government guy, like a military intelligence officer or something (shows you how much importance is paid to details by the screenplay). Now, this is pretty amazing considering the fact the story takes places in the 1860s, just after the U.S. Civil War - would a black man really be in such an important position? But this factor is at least plausible compared to many of the other details and plot points to come.
West is on the trail of General McGrath (Ted Levine), the evil ogre-like guy from the first scene, who has been kidnapping scientists all over the country. Also on McGrath’s trail is Artemus Gordon (Kline), a U.S. Marshall who’s somewhat of a mad scientist and inventor and likes to go undercover in drag (always a guarantee for comedy). The two come together early on in a saloon riot scene which tips us off to who the real villain is, and of course allows for some wild action and explosions, the introduction of the femme fatale (Hayek as Rita Escobar - a saloon dancer) and the main details of the plot.
After West and Gordon meet with President Ulysses S. Grant, they find themselves in a forced partnership on a cross-country road trip to hunt down both McGrath and the really vile Dr. Arliss Loveless (Branagh - whose performance is so excellent it completely outshines everyone and everything else in the film). Loveless is behind the kidnapping of the scientists for a plot that’s obviously sinister (aren’t they all sinister? Villains don’t usually have schemes meant to just annoy someone - they’re always all or nothing). In fact, it’s so sinister it involves taking over the entire United States, or at least getting Grant to surrender the country.
You can pretty much tell where the story is going from here and I
won’t waste time by elaborating further since anyone who’s seen the trailer or just the movie poster for knows what Loveless’s big concoction is and that it’s something our heroes will have to beat without any wizardry of their own. The problem with the film is how it carries out this plot through a screenplay so trite, so lame and so full of plot holes and missing details that it’s difficult to understand how this could have been given the green light in the first place.
Most of the scenes, and the film as a whole for that matter, play
like something that would work in an animated feature, but not in this supposed “serious” live-action adventure story (serious in that it’s not a straight comedy). Would West really be able to simply talk his way out of being hanged by a redneck mob? Are the inventions Gordon comes up with for comic relief or practical use? Would a nasty villain like Loveless pass up the opportunity for total victory just for a quick sexual stimulation? Why have a sexy female supporting character if she doesn’t do anything else besides sit around and watch the men?
Oh, we could answer these questions easily, which are all ideas the filmmakers don’t want us to think about. Yet, even if we’re to take everything that happens on the big screen just for its entertainment value, it’s still nearly impossible to find much to enjoy. The action isn’t exciting, the heroes aren’t heroic, the villain is beyond cliche, the jokes are rarely funny and the ending is predictable.
I’d like to believe that at some point “Wild Wild West” was and could’ve been exactly what it sets out to be. There’s really nothing wrong with zany action, wild comedy and special effects within the context of a good story and a well-directed ensemble. Unfortunately, this film seems to a collection of mistakes meant to correct even worse mistakes.
---------------------------------
Please visit <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz/index.html">Chad'z Movie Page
</A> - over 220 new and old movies reviewed in-depth, not just blind ratings and blather capsules.
Member of <A HREF="http://www.ofcs.org/">The O.F.C.S.</A> (Online Film Critics Society)
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.
