Spike Lee usually signs his films "A Spike Lee Joint".
Pretentious maybe, but in keeping with the fact that he has long been one of America's most unique directors. Oldboy is merely "A Spike Lee Film" and this immediate distinction speaks volumes. A palely disappointing remake of Korean Park Chan-wook's baroque, mysterious and violent thriller, this could have been made by anyone.
The premise, transposed faithfully to the United States, centres on advertising executive and boorish drunk Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin). In the middle of a career-destroying binge, Joe is abducted, awaking in a cell where he will remain - without explanation or any human contact - for the next 20 years.
He does have a TV, from which he learns that his wife has been murdered and that he is the chief suspect. The only thing that keeps him sane in the years that follow are thoughts of his daughter, and of escape. Then one day he wakes up in a field, armed with a mobile phone, sunglasses and a haircut. Joe sets out to find his tormentor - but doesn't stop to think why this unknown enemy decided to free him.
It's a brilliant idea. However, there is nothing here that merits another interpretation, other than the new audiences that an English-language film will attract. Where Park went for everything with gusto, including having his star eat a live octopus for real, Lee holds back (Brolin rather laughably gags on a dumpling). And where Park created an air of elegant mystery, Lee's determination to spell out every twist and turn becomes tiresome. Even in its own right this feels lacklustre.
Brolin is a stolid, one-note lead. In contrast, as his nemesis the South African Sharlto Copley is so affected that you want to give him a good slap.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article