The Expendables

The Expendables – 2010, Sylvester Stallone



That The Expendables is one of the most anticipated films of the year is a reminder of why we go to the cinema; to have fun. Stallone’s latest offering benefits from being released so soon after Inception and Toy Story 3 as it’s a film to be enjoyed on one level. No need for interpretation here, how refreshing.

Much has been made of ‘The Greatest Action Ensemble Ever’, and rightly so, they’re all here; Machine Gun Joe, Rocky, Rambo, Cobra, Tango and John Spartan have made a new action film. That’s enough to get anyone exited.

Other than Jason Statham, the rest of the cast don’t get a lot of time on screen, and of the entire ensemble, it’s Stone Cold Steve Austin who surprises the most. He’s not a great actor, but he has an amazing presence on screen due to his size (he reminds us just how small Stallone actually is) and the fact we can tell that in real life he’s probably not someone you’d want to upset. There’s a scene where he hits a woman in the face, and we shouldn’t laugh, but he has been arrested for spousal abuse.

Mickey Rourke is also good, almost too good. I get the feeling he may have improvised many of his lines, and in his big emotional scene he shows every one else up. Terry Crews is underused, although he gets the best line of the film, and has the biggest muscles.

The Expendables is of course about the action. There’s plenty of it and the standard is high, although personally I prefer my fight sequences to have longer shots that involve more than three strikes between cuts. Stallone isn’t interested in stunningly choreographed martial arts, he likes large men hitting each other very hard and he knows how to shoot it. The final action set piece is reminiscent of both Rambo III and Commando (no bad thing) as it is confined to the bad guys’ compound which must be infiltrated and destroyed in a large explosion.

This is Stallone’s eighth as director, and his attempt to make a contemporary film are clear to see. If there isn’t any action taking place, the majority of shots are composed with a shallow depth of field. It looks like a TV cop show in some scenes (has Sly been watching NCIS?). Even though it’s clearly a big budget film, it doesn’t really look like it cost the reported $80m, maybe they blew it all on cars and bikes?

Stallone has almost been cynical with a lot of the aspects of the film; it was clear to him that a large proportion of the domestic target audience would be UFC-watching, Affliction-wearing, tattooed bikers (or those who aspire to be such things). This may be the reason Stallone’s character hangs out in a tattoo parlour filled with fancy choppers, drives a custom vintage pick-up and is mates with MMA legend Randy Couture.

Will the expendables prompt a resurgence of manly action films being released at the cinema? I don’t think so, but it will do the straight-to-DVD market a world of good. Even though they both turned down roles, Seagal and Van Damme will both benefit from the increased number of action B-Movies that will be made thanks to the popularity of The Expendables.

The Good, The Bad, The Weird

The Good, The Bad, The Weird – 2008, Kim Ji-woon


After seeing so many good South Korean films over the last few years I was disappointed with The Good, The Bad, The Weird. The films from the far east that are given international releases are normally very good (why bother releasing bad ones?) and since the turn of the century the South Korean film industry has caught up with the quality, if not the quantity, of Japanese and Chinese films being released in The West. The reason films from these countries are so popular internationally is because they are so different; ‘Oldboy’ and ‘Spring. Summer, Autumn, Winter...and Spring’ are like nothing else made in America or Europe.

Originality is their strongest asset, and this is why TGTBTW fails. As the title suggests, it’s basically a mash-up (or homage, or whatever) of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns. Set in the Wild East, specifically Manchuria circa 1930, it’s a story about bandits running around robbing trains, riding horses and having shootouts. The film itself is good and bad and weird in equal measure, it plays out thusly:

opening dialogue, train robbery, dialogue, shootout, dialogue, horse riding sequence, dialogue, shootout, dialogue, massive horse riding shootout, dialogue, final shoot out, end.

It’s relentless. This film is a victim of its own ambition. though it crosses genres, above all it’s a big budget action comedy, the South Korean equivalent of a Brett Ratner film perhaps, only with characters who are even more one-dimensional. To begin, the tone of the film suggests that all the characters are intentionally under written so they don’t get in the way of the fun and high jinks, but then after the frantic first hour , a couple of character defining scenes occur which only serve to remind the audience how little we care about them. The Good and The Bad are really The Wooden, no matter how stern their glances. This film really belongs to The Weird played by a dude called Song Kang-ho (who along with the guy who played Oldboy must be South Korea’s finest thespian). It’s clear his capability as a comic actor is far greater that anything this film provides.

So, avoid Korean comedy, but consume Korean horror and drama as though it were finest kimchi.

Gattaca

Gattaca – 1997, Andrew Niccol



Andrew Noccol makes lovely films. It sounds a little condescending to say it like that but its the best way to describe them. He’s not made many, and his two best films (this and S1m0ne) have been his least successful, and may have contributed to the fact that he has made so few. Niccol’s first three films; Gattaca, The Truman Show (which he wrote but didn’t direct) and S1m0ne are all ‘lightweight’ sci-fi films set firmly in our world, but just outside our reality. They are all well written and have a good cast, but never really performed financially, maybe because they were so hard to market. It’s difficult to promote an intelligent non-indie film (hence the existence of ‘independent’ film studio like Fox Searchlight and Sony Pictures Classics).

Gattaca is set in a future where newborns have their blood tested to determine their genetic predispositions and therefore their lot in life. The rich can pay for their offspring to be genetically enhanced. The practice of liberal eugenics creates a society of unofficial genetic discrimination. Ethan Hawke’s character is born on the wrong side of the line, a genetic reject, so to achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut he pretends to be the genetically perfect Jude Law. A murder within the astronaut training facility puts his plan in jeopardy but luckily Ethan can rely on the help of a young Uma Thurman.

Niccol’s great achievement is to create a believable future on a small scale. Though set in the future, Gattaca has a 1930s noir look. The method of creating a world of the future by recreating the look of a past period has been done before and since; if you want to make a film set in the future, make it look like another time, even one from the past. Gattaca achieves the balance of future / retro just right. The limits of the budget are well hidden, the plot revolves around Hawke’s character trying to go into space, but there are no spaceships or anything far fetched and space aged to be seen. The best sci-fi films are often the ones with minimal props and special effects, as a result they age very well.

One possible criticism of Gattaca would be that it is slow and perhaps even boring in parts, but Mr Niccol is a man with a clear vision which he is very capable of bringing to life on screen, and if he wants to take his time that’s fine with me. If only the Studio Moneymen felt that way... but what’s this? Three new Niccol films on the horizon, ‘Im.Immortal’ sounds interesting, and typically Niccolian.

Midnight Express

Midnight Express – 1978, Alan Parker



One of those films that never quite lives up to the description; based on the true story of Billy Hayes who in 1970 was arrested attempting to smuggle two kilos of hash from Turkey to America. He was eventually sentenced to life in prison, Turkish prison that is, so you can imagine what things were like.

Billy escaped in 1975, had his book published in 1977, and the film adaptation written by Oliver Stone was released the following year. It seems as though they were in a hurry to make ‘The Movie of the True Story’ and Oliver Stone has apparently expresses some regret over how the adaptation turned out. Particularly the way that every Turkish character (and there are a lot of them) is depicted very negatively; they’re all either corrupt, sadistic, imbecilic or at the very least really greasy.

The lead is played by Brad Davis who you won’t recognise from anywhere. He isn’t very good in this film but the supporting cast of John Hurt, Randy Quaid and Paul L Smith are all much better. The biggest problem with Midnight Express is that from the very beginning it’s hard for the audience to have any sympathy for Billy. He’s trying to smuggle drugs (a bad start for any protagonist) and he’s doing a very bad job of it. Billy Hayes is depicted as an incredibly incompetent smuggler, which he was, but no audience is going to root for someone doing a bad thing badly. Soon after he is caught, Billy is given the chance to make up for his crime and get back to America, but in a poorly realised scene he panics, runs and is recaptured, booking himself a trip to Turkish prison hell.

Perhaps the reason I didn’t like Midnight Express is because I’ve been spoilt by much better prison films, most notably the Brazilian film Carandiru. The source material probably deserved better.

In case you ever wondered where this came from.

Dead Calm

Dead Calm – 1989, Phillip Noyce

Drama. Pure nautical drama. Based on a book but you’d believe it was based on a play given that the whole film basically has a cast of three and takes place in two locations. This was the second time an adaptation had been attempted; the first was never finished, probably because it was made by Orson Welles, who had a habit of not finishing what he started.

Sam Neil (42 at the time) and his young wife Nicole Kidman (22) are out on their yacht in the middle of the Ocean when homicidal maniac Billy Zane (only 23 but looking a lot older the way Mediterranean fellows do) turns up to rock the boat. A simple premise that results in high drama, the dramatic accomplishments of the film are probably due more to the cast, story and screenplay than the direction. The film is tense and gripping while remaining realistic, right up until the slightly goofy ending which was re-shot as a reaction to early screenings. It’s not enough to spoil a good film though.

Each of the cast has made at least one film every year since appearing in Dead Calm, but Billy Zane’s career has been the least impressive. If you were to think about it you could name at least three good films starring Sam Neil, probably more, and of course we all know what Kidman went on to do. Poor Billy, he deserved better. I suppose he’ll always have Titanic.

It was quite timely that Love Film sent me this one as Phillip Noyce’s latest film, the Angelena Jolie vehicle Salt is soon to be released in Cinemas. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’re probably as disinterested in Salt as I am. I do quite like the fact that Noyce is keen to direct different types of films though. In fact it’s hilarious that the guy who directed Blind Fury also directed Rabbit Proof Fence. Excellent diversity Noyce.

Ten Short Film Reviews 5

The Unborn – 2009, David S. Goyer
Now I’m not normally the type of dude who when talking about a film will say ‘You gotta check out the babe in this film man’. But I make an exception for Odette Yustman. Seriously guys, she is hot. So hot in fact that the whole plot of the film is put in jeopardy. The Unborn is about Odette’s unborn male twin that died in the womb coming back to haunt her and ultimately either kill or posses her (it’s not really made clear which). If I were an evil ghost, I wouldn’t want to kill Odette, I’d want to posses her and make her touch herself.
Anyway, The Unborn isn’t bad considering it’s made by Platinum Dunes who tend to deal exclusively in remakes of established franchises. It’s not as good as [REC], but it is scary in parts, although I should qualify that statement by mentioning that I am the biggest fraidy-cat ever when watching horror films and I jump at even the most predictable ‘boo’ moments.

Tropic Thunder – 2008, Ben Stiller
I had no idea Ben Stiller was in Empire Of The Sun. It was on the set of that film apparently that he first had the idea for a film about pretentious actors getting lost in their characters while making a war movie. Famously, a young Christian Bale stars in ‘Empire’ and we all know how he turned out (is that ironic? I always hesitate to say that something is ironic given that if someone says something is ironic, it almost certainly isn’t).
I can’t decide if this film is underrated of overrated. Everything about it is good... I suppose that the performances by Tom Cruise and Robert Downey Jr are overrated. Come to think of it, how many action comedies are as original as this? Not many. Kudos Stiller, kudos.

Max Payne – 2008, John Moore
Jacob’s Ladder meets Sin City blah blah blah...
I wonder if Mark Walberg is just as confused and disillusioned in real life as the characters he plays most of his films. Max Payne is a confused, disillusioned cop who is obsessively hunting down the man who murdered his family. So far so what. The whole point of this film should have been to exploit the main attraction of the video game it was based on; bullet time. i.e. bullets flying through the air in slow motion a-la The Matrix.
The Max Payne game was effectively the game of The Matrix, so to make a film of Max Payne seems like a bad idea as it will inevitably end up as some kind of Matrix rip off a few years too late. But the other side of that coin is that Max Payne could have been the film that the Matrix sequels failed to be. Almost ten years after The Matrix was released, maybe the world was ready for the next one.
It’s almost a shame this film isn’t better. The heavily stylised look of the film is nothing new, but it’s done well. After all the uninspired supernatural thriller stuff we reach the predictable third act; there is a great scene where it all ties together, ready for the big climax. And the big climax is a big disappointment. Moore should have tried to out-Matrix The Matrix, but he didn’t have the balls. Though he was restricted to making a film with a PG-13 rating.

The Road to Perdition – 2002, Sam Mandes
Like most films starring Tom Hanks, this is generally good. Hanks’ accent is all over the place but on the whole the cast is excellent: Daniel Craig, Paul Newman, Jude Law. Based on a graphic novel, the film has a lovely painted look to it with a palet of dark greens that makes it very atmospheric. I did find Sam’s direction a little off-putting though; in a handful of sequences the camera will zoom in or out, pause and then track. Zoom. Pause. Track. It’s a literal translation of comic book panel to screen, and it was brave to try it, but I’m not too keen.
But the story is good, and there is a refreshing portrayal of Al Capone as a level headed mob boss, not the crazy Italian stereotype presented in every other film.

Passenger 57 – 1992, Kevin Hooks
If Under Siege is the best of the Die Hard clones, then Passenger 57 is a close second.
Passenger 57 has the best opening theme music of them all.

Millennium – 1989, Michael Anderson
Sometimes I worry about growing old. Then I think about Kris Kristofferson and I remember my best years are still ahead of me. Basically a science fiction B movie, it has a definite straight-to-video feel about it, but I really like it. The premise is what makes it so compelling and makes up for the limited but still passable production values.

The Escapist - 2008, Rupert Wyatt
Brian Cox in his most typical Brian Cox role, but he’s as good as he ever is as an Irish convict serving life in a romanticised hard ass British prison. It was filmed in Kilmainham Gaol which is why it looks so familiar. The film has a strong ensemble cast and it’s well written, but they’ve managed to squeeze in just about every prison movie cliché. As a debut film for the director it’s good, but I’m not crazy about it, the ending certainly isn’t worth all the jizz that’s been spilt over it. Wyatt is apparently going to direct the Birdsong adaptation and the next Planet of The Apes instalment.

The Red Desert – 1964, Michelangelo Antonioni
Yes it’s a masterpiece of cinematography, but it’s fucking boring.

Punisher Warzone – 2008, Lexi Alexander
Everything is bad, particularly Dominic West as the villain Jigsaw, which is a shame. More than any other comic book character Punisher deserves a decent film, screw The Green Lantern, I want to see the Punisher. As Harry Knowles points out, the final Rambo film is closer to the Punisher film that everyone wants to see than any of the actual adaptations. The previous punisher film starring Thomas Jane was also bad. I’ve not seen the 1989 Dolph Lundgred version.

Three Kings – 1999, David O’Russell
George Cloony, Mark Walhbergh, Ice Cube. A combination that may put most people off but it’s actually very good. Jarhead is generally accepted as the best film about the Gulf War, but Three Kings covered a lot of the same ground six years earlier.

Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3, 2010 - Lee Unkrich

So which is better, Inception or Toy Story 3?

It seems like a strange comparison to make just because both films were released within a couple of weeks of each other, and TS3 is a kid’s film...or is it.

Pixar films have always been kids’ films with enough subtle humour and references to entertain the parents. Since setting a new benchmark for animated films with the original Toy Story (way back in 1995, yikes!) each film Pixar make is better than the last one, to the point where, with TS3, they’ve reached a bit of a predicament; how far can you go to make a children’s film incredible and yet still make a film that is suitable for children?

When they wrote Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase ‘To infinity, and beyond’, it was just something corny for him to say as part of his deluded space-hero character. This simple line has been over-interpreted over the years, even as far as being the basis of humanist interpretations of the plot of Toy Story. The people behind the TS series would, I’m sure, tell the world that the films are just stories about toys. Simple as that, although the toys have well defined and developed characters. Without worrying about including a deep message or statement (they used the animated short ‘Day & Night’ for that) Pixar have resorted to a simple method of making TS3 better than its predecessors; Peril.

Raising the steaks and putting the characters in jeopardy is how almost all films are structured, and the best films make the audience care about the characters so they are emotionally effected by the peril the characters go though. The Toy story films do this brilliantly, and the advantage of a successful franchise means that by the end of a third film, the audience are so attached to Woody and Buzz and the gang that when that final peril comes, the audience are deeply moved.

This is clearly where TS3 betters Inception. The big criticism of Nolan’s film is that the characters are not as important as the story. DiCaprio and the rest of the cast go through four layers of peril at the same time, but all the characterisation that has taken place in the first half of the film seems secondary to the plot itself. But Inception is original and ambitious and plays with the conventions of moviemaking itself, so I think it is the better film. Toy Story 3 doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done before, it just does it better than it’s been done before (with the aforementioned advantage of being part of a series).

The quality of the TS series comes partially from the fact that no film has been made with a sequel in mind. They never set themselves up for the next chapter, each of the films reaches its own complete conclusion, although TS3 has a very clear sense of being the final chapter, and therein lies my only slight annoyance with the film.

* SPOILERS * START * HERE

You may have heard about how good TS3 is and how engaged the audience becomes, grown men have cried at TS3, and they can be forgiven. This film has a ‘moment’ in it. Almost every film aspires to create a third act climax that will move the audience, and in TS3 the peril is so great and the characters so beloved that you’ll need a heart of stone not to be upset by the sight of Wood et all finally accepting the fate that they have tried to avoid throughout the whole film. They have been thrown away, old toys that are not wanted anymore, and are stuck together in a huge pile of rubbish that is slowly being dragged into a huge furnace. There’s no escape and the characters all know it. They realise they are doomed and stop struggling. They solemnly hold hands and wait for death. This must be the saddest most traumatic scene ever in a children’s film. It’s ok to cry because the toys can’t shed a tear, it’s the final reminder that they are just toys after all, not people. I imagine some kids in the audience must be incredibly stressed out by this, it was a brave move by the writers and director and one that makes sense, it’s the only place left to go after three incredible films; ultimate peril followed by heart wrenching acceptance that, despite all their efforts, the end has finally come, followed by...miraculous rescue at the hands of the comic relief claw-machine aliens.

Of course they could never have killed all the toys, but I wish they had. It’s not that I’m evil and twisted or a sadist, but because TS3 takes the audience to the edge, like no kids film has before, and I so wanted to be pushed off. Making us care so much for these toys and then tearing them away for ever would have been incredible, it would have given a deeper meaning to the film; that sometimes the things that you love are taken away, no matter how hard you try. The villainous toy of the film could have still suffered a similar fate or worse in order to emphasise that evil never triumphs, but sometimes good doesn’t triumph either. That would have been a brave and refreshing message to the kids.

But that’s not what Toy Story is about. It’s about simple cinematic pleasures performed very well so children around the world can enjoy it. Oh yes...and merchandising.

Also, I wonder how they’ll handle ‘Spanish Buzz’ in the Spanish dub of the film.