Les mystères de l'Ouest

I like Will Smith and his movies. I enjoyed ENEMY OF THE STATE, INDEPENDENCE DAY and even MEN IN BLACK. So I watched WILD WILD WEST for tradition's sake, I guess you can say. It was 1999's July 4 Will Smith hit. I am positive that this is the worst I have ever seen Will Smith in. I tried to enjoy this movie, and at parts I did, but most of it was lame and not very enjoyable, I'm sorry to say.

Dr. Arliss Loveless, (Kenneth Branagh) a confederate rich bad guy is trying to sell parts of the USA to the highest bidding countries, using his giant machines of destruction (walking mechanicals spiders and stuff) to take hostage of President Ulysses S. Grant (Kevin Kline). The two best agents the U.S. Government has, James West (Will Smith) and Artemus Gordon (also Kevin Kline) are sent to stop Loveless and save the president, as well as the country. West also has a personal score to settle with Loveless, since he was responsible for the death of his parents. The beautiful Rita Escobar (Salma Hayek) tags along to try and save her father, who is also being held hostage by Loveless. She attracts the eye of Gordan and West.

The acting jobs in this are fair, but the writing spoils it. The gorgeous Salma Hayek is underplayed, and her character is pretty much pointless except to have a good-looking girl in the movie. Both Will Smith and Kevin Kline do fairly good jobs acting, but the characters are too boring to enjoy. I'm not sure if Kenneth Branagh or the writing is responsible for the incredible stupid and annoying Dr. Loveless.

This movie is very similar to Men in Black, only less modern and on a smaller scale. (save the country, not the planet) Another big difference between the two was that Men in Black was more fun, cooler, and had better characters, villains and gadgets (not to mention Tommy Lee Jones). If you are in the movie for a Will Smith movie, go rent ENEMY OF THE STATE. If you're in the movie for a lighter Will Smith movie, go rent MEN IN BLACK. I'd try to avoid WILD WILD WEST, but give it a try if you like.

I think this movie is, beyond anything, pure entertainment. I don't think for a moment that this is intended to be a historically-accurate archive of what happened during the life of President Truman. I think it was an idea based on something that could have happened, and then explored upon. It's meant to be entertaining with a smidge of accuracy. If I were grading this purely on accuracy or historic factor, I'd grade it lower but I'm grading it as entertainment. Sure there are some cheesy parts, but it's funny, it's silly, it's somewhat kind of historical, and that's good enough for me. It's entertaining.

According to all the bad reviews I had read on the Internet, I had to check this movie out for myself. Well, I have a sense of humor and I found this movie to be OK. Indeed, I agree with those Internet critics who gave this movie a favorable review.

Some Internet critics complained about the technological sophistication; but according to more in depth reviews of history I found the tech' portrayals in the movie to be thoroughly accurate. For example, our mechanical knowledge as a society has not dramatically improved since then, and the flying bicycle! Well, the plane "as we know it took form shortly there after. As well, there were no complaints about the gadgetry of the original 'Wild, Wild West'

On the other hand, I do believe some people may have gotten offended by some of the blunt language that people in America used publicly at that time, as well the portrayal of prostitution.

I do think Will Smith gave a more comedic and mature performance in this movie than in 'Men in Black' and 'Enemy of the State.'

`Wild Wild West' joins an increasingly long list of big bloated blockbusters, movies made for no possible reason beyond grabbing a quick summer buck yet which, ironically, by their very cynical and slapdash nature, utterly fail to connect with even the least demanding of audiences. The result is a multi-multi-million dollar debacle that leaves studios searching for answers and audiences shell-shocked into seeking out their entertainment along the more audacious pathway of off-Hollywood, independent filmmaking – the single positive outcome of these dull, empty enterprises.

`Wild Wild West,' like so many films before it, looks to the relics of television's bygone era for inspiration – as sad a comment as any on the dismal state of current movie creativity. As one not familiar with the original series, I cannot say what justice, or lack of justice, this homage does to its source. What is evident, judging from the results on screen, is that `Wild Wild West' is, as with most current blockbusters, top-heavy with special effects and as weak in the nether limbs as its legless villain. Straight Westerns being hopelessly out of fashion, especially for a special effects-driven summertime extravaganza, the filmmakers obviously felt that what was needed was a tongue-in-cheek approach to the material, resulting in a bizarre, but completely unfunny amalgam of fantasy and science-fiction gilded onto a Western format. The disparate styles simply fight against each other, leaving no one in the audience - neither Western nor science-fiction fans - satisfied.

The alleged plot involves the attempts by James West (Will Smith) and Artemis Gordon (Kevin Kline) to foil an evil Confederate inventor's plan to kidnap all the world's most brilliant scientists and, ultimately, terrorize the Union and President Grant into submission. This he attempts to do by creating a giant mechanized spider which is, obviously, a last ditch, desperate attempt on the part of the filmmakers to fulfill the seemingly insatiable demands of the modern audience to be dazzled by impressive special effects, no matter how inappropriate they appear in context. Here, though, the miscalculation is fatal because even the audience is wise enough to know when it is being had. Kline and Smith never achieve a palpable rapport despite the usual abundance of lame wise cracks and sarcastic asides designed to make them `hip' and `trendy' – two qualities incongruous to the setting, which again shows the lack of real commitment to the spirit of the project. There is exactly one clever moment in the film – an astonishingly creative homage to the old RCA logo – that hints at what might have been had the moviemakers been willing to really let loose their anarchic imaginations and aimed for something truly sophisticated rather than simply pasting together a series of confused, poorly written blackout sketches.

Incidentally, even some of the expensive special effects come across as surprisingly crude, especially many of the shots utilizing rear-screen projection. Hence, this film strikes out even in the one ballpark in which it might have stood a chance of emerging victorious.

So much potential and ALL of it wasted!

We have:

1) A good director, Barry Sonnenfeld, with two great comedies to his name ("The Addams Family" and "Addams Family Values");

2) An Oscar-winning actor, Kevin Kline, well-known for his comedic work ("A Fish Called Wanda", "Soapdish") as well as dramatic ("Sophie's Choice", "The Ice Storm");

3) Another Oscar nominee, Kenneth Branagh ("Hamlet", "Henry V"), famous for directing, as well as writing and acting

AND THIS IS THE BEST THEY COULD DO !?!?!?! What gives?

First and foremost, it should be noted that just because Will Smith is popular, that doesn't mean he's good. There's something about him when he acts that makes him appear as more of a "ham" than an actor, a scene-stealer who's insecure with being the star of a film so he overacts to conceal (albeit unsuccessfully) the limitations of his acting abilities.

And for Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh to play second fiddle to HIM? Absolutely criminal. What's next? Jack Nicholson playing a supporting role to Pauly Shore?

Then there's the storyline - are we really supposed to believe that James West (as played by Smith, a black man) is a hero of the Civil War? Of course, the casting of Smith serves primarily as a set-up for all the racial humor (which gets old fast). Logically, though, it's an asinine premise, a fact which audiences obviously picked up on given the tepid reaction to Smith's so-called "star power" in this weak take-off on a really good television series.

Who's responsible for this mess? Maybe it's the fault of all the writers (a total of 6) for writing it, or Sonnenfeld's mess for directing it, or Jon Peters' (and Sonnenfeld's) mess for producing it, or Warner Bros.' mess for distributing it? Whose ever it is, it should just be shelved and forgotten as an embarrassing mistake.