Firstly, I should probably point out that up until recently the high-kicking 1989 cult classic has eluded me - or maybe it was me eluding it. Who knows? Anyway, seeing that Doug Liman and Jake Gyllenhaal have taken it upon themselves to remake Road House and put a 21st century spin on solving every problem by kicking, I figured; 'why not make it a double feature?' View the two movies for the first time one after the other and see how they measure up.
Naturally I took the chronological approach, starting with the original movie and then moving on to the remake.
Watching this cult classic for the first time, I was struck by how much it feels like a feature length episode of The A-Team. Typical 80's good guy arrives in town, where he comes to blows with the rich guy/your typical A-Team bad guy who thinks he owns the place. Seriously, stick that famous opening monologue on the beginning and have Patrick Swayze's 'Dalton' build some weird weapon from parts acquired from Red (Red West)'s store and that "crack commando unit" would have a fifth member! Which of course makes it a fun watch, for the most part, but not exactly genre-bending - even for an 80's movie. Swayze looks good in the lead role. He exudes cool and can hold his own in the fight scenes. While Ben Gazzara and Marshall R. Teague are perfect 80's movie villains. The fights - of which there are plenty - are well choreographed, but can be a little chaotic, which does actually add to the entertainment value.
However, the real selling point of Road House is Sam Elliott's 'Wade Garrett'! A man so cool he effortlessly steals every scene he's in, especially when he decides to share a little wisdom in that silky yet gruff southern drawl. He elevates this movie in ways that seem impossible. It's so much better than it deserves to be, simply because he's in it. So much so, there are times that even Swayze looks like a supporting character when standing next to him.
In contrast, Liman's Road House doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Rowdy Herrington's Road House may be silly but at least it plays into that. Whereas this remake comes across like a bad knock-off of Jack Reacher. With Gyllenhaal's 'Dalton' not really wanting to get involved until the bad guys give him a reason to, and sticking around just long enough to take care of business. Although that's where the similarities end. While the villains prove to be rather cartoonish, the story wants to play it straight, and Gyllenhaal is kind of caught in the middle. At least he manages to make our reluctant hero likeable. Which is impressive given that he has little to work with, and the filmmakers' approach seems to have been - when it comes to Dalton, anyway - to do the complete opposite of the original. Swayze's Dalton, for example, had a good reputation and was sought after, so this new version is a down and out, disgraced UFC fighter. Although down and out heroes seem to be a popular trend in Hollywood, these days.
It would be better if the remake embraced the ridiculousness of a bouncer taking on crime syndicates and their plans for gentrification - no doubt Hollywood's 21st century replacement for world domination - that way it would have been more fun. To his credit, there are times when Gyllenhaal tries to make this happen. But he doesn't even get his own 'Wade Garrett' to help him out with a few punches and a little drawled wisdom. The way he interacts with certain villains is certainly amusing, however, and Billy Magnussen's 'Brandt' is hilariously out of his depth, even if he only gets to play the stereotypical rich kid trying to fill Daddy's shoes. And then of course there's Conor McGregor's 'Knox'. The UFC fighter's incredibly hammy performance could be the most entertaining part of the movie. He definitely gets a few laughs, and is unsurprisingly excellent in the fight scenes. However, both villains feel like they're in the wrong movie.
One of the few things the two movies do have in common is the problem with the supporting cast. In both cases they're given so little to do they're easily forgotten. Ok, Red does get a good scene or two. And the less said about the romances, the better. Although I will say that at least Kelly Lynch's character had some effect on Dalton's trajectory, whereas Daniela Melchior is completely wasted. In fact, she might as well have not been in the movie. The same goes for Joaquim de Almeida, and the brotherhood of bouncers (Lukas Gage and Dominique Columbus).
Fair to say then, the only thing the 2024 version has over 1989 is the fight choreography. The fights look amazing, and Liman puts you right in the middle of it all - quite literally when we follow Gyllenhaal's Dalton through full on bar brawls. Which is why I find it odd they've tried to enhance or augment (not sure if these are the right words) the fights with some crappy CGI. It completely draws you out of the movie and detracts from the authenticity they've clearly strived to achieve.
Honestly, I don't really understand why Peter Griffin gets so excited about Road House. Well I guess I do, in a way. Don't get me wrong, these movies are a fun watch. I wouldn't say I had a blast, but they are fun enough as turn your brain off entertainment. If I had to choose I'd say Road House (1989) is the better of the two movies. There's some good fight scenes, and Sam Elliott is awesome as Wade Garrett - even without the moustache. But beyond that it's more than a little silly and not exciting enough to counter said silliness. And the 2024 version doesn't even benefit from a Wade Garrett character. Which may or may not be a good thing because how does someone fill Sam Elliott's moustachioed shoes? However it does leave a void that even Conor McGregor's OTT cartoon villain can't fill. Making Road House (2024) just another remake that didn't need to happen - and far from Doug Liman's best work.
What are your thoughts on Road House (1989) and Road House (2024)? Leave a comment below or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Threads. You can also email us ay moviemoustache@gmail.com.
Comments
Post a Comment