Is the movie industry to blame for the popular idea that comics are not a form of art, but are silly and childish? I'm beginning to think so. I haven't read the comic Bulletproof Monk, but I have the feeling, due to its popularity, that it was actually good.

In Bulletproof Monk, Chow Yun-Fat plays a monk who is destined to guard a sacred, very powerful scroll. When he took on this duty, he was granted amazing abilities that would help him protect it. Every 60 years, however, someone new is appointed and this monk's time is almost up. Seann William Scott is the petty thief he meets by coincidence while being chased by people who want the power of the scroll. Here's the twist: Is it possible it is the destiny of this young man - unitiated in the ways of the Buddhist monk - to guard the scroll?

Chow Yun-Fat is normally an excellent actor, but his Buddhist monk character in this movie acts and talks like he was written by Hollywood writers who have never even seen a Hong Kong movie, much less actually had real experiences with other cultures (though I do realize that it's hard to point fingers in such a collaborative effort as a movie - films often go through a lot of rewrites and revisions between script and screen). Other characters don't fare much better: in a rather exciting turn, the filmmakers marry the anti-hero and the reluctant hero into a single character (Scott). It's an old theme, but, unfortunately, not handled in a fresh new way.

A lot of these old themes seem to crop up in this movie. The "sheep-in-wolf's-clothing" villainess (who heads up a human rights organization) is so transparent it's silly. A corny father-son relationship develops between the two main characters - at one point the father figure (the monk) even cuffs his surrogate son on the chin.

Plus, there's a wierd sci-fi torture gadget.

And the villain is a Nazi.

Now, granted, many of the elements in the movie likely came right out of the comic (which I haven't yet read), but even if these most formulaic elements came straight from the inked page, I'm sure they weren't handled this poorly. Now, if all these elements were handled with some creativity, Bulletproof Monk could be considered an interesting homage to various types of films, but these things come across as merely corny, overdone cliches.

Not only is the story lacking, but a number of technical elements drag this picture down as well. Accents are shoddy; and Nazis and Buddhist monks alike primarily speak English. Abilities similar to the monk's are handled much more creatively in the Matrix movies, and even in the WB television adaptation of the Superman mythos, Smallville. Direction and dialogue appear completely low-budget, and characters are a bit too shallow to really care about, even when tragedy erupts in their world. But even with all of these problems, I will have to admit that it was enjoyable enough to sit through once. But just barely.

Of course, in one of the featurettes packaged with the DVD, Michael Hanover (owner of the company that published the comic) reveals that the mission (which, I guess would be the main plot) is changed from the book to the film. Until I read it, then, I'll assume that, once again, the book is better than the movie.

			See it if you've got 90 minutes to watch some passable martial arts and wire work, or want to see how well they adapted the comic. Don't see it if you'd rather skip over the mediocre movies on the way to something better.

© 2003 Jim Manchester