Movie Review: Bangkok Dangerous, a Nicholas Cage Remake of a Thai Classic

Remade by the Same Directors as the Original, the US Version of Bangkok Dangerous Really is Dreary

One thing I dislike about living in Bangkok, Thailand are the views of others about Bangkok - many of whom have never even been here. The sex trade, the pollution, the dirtiness of the city and the corruption, all seem to be stuck in people's minds, regardless that these are infinitesimal parts of Bangkok's reality. The opening lines of Nicholas Cage's latest movie, 'Bangkok Dangerous', served to seer these images into people's brains even more. " Bangkok is corrupt, dirty and dense". Bangkok is actually all of these and none of these. A true enigma that someone who doesn't live here would never understand. So, before I even really watched the movie, I was already annoyed. My annoyance, however, reached unmentionable heights upon viewing Nicholas Cage's performance.

In Bangkok Dangerous, a US remake of a Thai movie of the same name, Cage plays an American hit man who must travel to Bangkok, Thailand, for a new contract. Once in Bangkok, he has to kill four high-profile people but, once he does, he'll make so much money he'll be able to retire for life.

Now, I must admit, I'm not a huge Nicholas Cage fan. I think he's a one-trick actor, who drawls out his lines like a winding-down toy, and who always acts deadpan even when he's happy. This could have worked for Bangkok Dangerous, but he took this to such an extreme his character actually became a caricature of himself. The other annoying thing about the movie was, in the original Thai movie version, Joe the hit man was a deaf mute and his girlfriend was the 'rescuer', the able-bodied girl who felt sorry for the deaf guy. In the new US version, the roles are reversed and Cage becomes the supposed rescuer with his girlfriend as the deaf mute. She seems pathetic and he just comes off as being creepy and sex tourist-like. Thailand already has enough problems with Western sex tourists coming here. We certainly don't need one on film to aggravate the problem.