mwpm Review of King of the Hill

King of the Hill (1993)

The "Real" King of the Hill: Studio Intervention in 90s Independent Cinema

[6/10 · 14 January 2014]

King of the Hill is an impressive film, and I wanted to like it more than I did, but throughout the film I found myself asking: "Is this the same Soderbergh who made Sex, Lies, and Videotape? The same Soderbergh who would become one of the most innovative and versatile directors of 90s and 2000s American cinema?" The film, however, is encumbered by corny music, cheap sentimentality, and bad special effects. I don't know much about the production, but if I had to guess I'd say that these discrepancies are not the work of Soderbergh, but the studio behind him. Soderbergh was, after all, a fresh faced Independent director looking to find his footing, and landing in Universal Studios. It wouldn't be the first case of studio intervention in 90s Independent Cinema - specifically the early 90s, when Independent Cinema was still on the rise and didn't have the strength it had after the success of films like Clerks, Pulp Fiction, etc. (but before the late 90s and subsequent failure of various studio funded films by "Independent" directors). Universal Studios in particular is notorious for its "intervention". I'd like to refer readers to the case of Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Where the film succeeds, it triumphs. The performance of young Jesse Bradford (in the lead); supporting performances by Spalding Gray, Karen Allen, and a young Adrian Brody; masterful adaptation and direction by Steven Soderbergh... If only the quality was consistent.