The Last Boy Scout - Arrow 4K

The Last Boy Scout is getting the 4K treatment from Arrow next week, so I got a chance to check it out, which is timely as the NFL season has begun. This and Any Given Sunday are two movies I enjoy revisiting every season because they expose the dark side of the game. Of course, there’s a lot more to love about The Last Boy Scout (like Kim Coates getting his nose punched into his brain by a hungover Bruce Willis), but the football stuff is exceptionally relevant today.

The master plan of the villain in The Last Boy Scout is to blackmail politicians into legalizing sports gambling. When he kills Damon Wayans’s girlfriend and Bruce Willis’s best friend, they team up to get justice. Along the way there is a lot of violence and wise cracks, along with some football (the opening football scene with Billy Blanks is probably the film’s most famous scene along with the Kim Coates moment). It’s one of those great ‘90s movies we just don’t get anymore that I only love more and more as the years pass. The gambling element hits differently today, though.

Throughout the film, people complain about free agency money ruining football because the players became too greedy. We’re so far beyond the implementation of free agency, and pro sports have become so much bigger since then that this is laughably quaint now. But the gambling plot is unfortunately relevant. Damon Wayans’s character was a superstar who got kicked out of the league for gambling (the physical toll of the game is addressed by his drug addiction, as well). This is just insane by today’s standards as players are allowed to make commercials for gambling, and the NFL in general has completely embraced it.

The only thing that the film is naive about is how gambling became implemented. It didn’t take car bombs, dead strippers, political assassinations and blackmail; simple greed and capitalism took care of it. It all happened thanks to Chris Christie and some Jersey fuckwads worried about the future of Atlantic City (so dead strippers probably were still a part of it). Their lawsuit paved the way for the rest of the states to legalize sports gambling, and that’s why something that used to be handled exclusively by the mob is now being advertised to you multiple times a day by Kevin Hart and LeBron James. Turns out gambling is okay when CEOs and governments can reap the benefits. 

Knowing all this puts a different spin on The Last Boy Scout. It’s just weird to see so much violence perpetuated for something so legal and commonplace in today’s world.

The football stuff is an interesting aspect of the film, but I keep coming back to it for Willis and Wayans. Despite reports of a troubled production in which Willis demanded changes and didn’t get along with Wayans, The Last Boy Scout came out just fine. Willis and Wayans’s characters don’t like each other for most of the film, so their real-life animosity probably helped their performances. I have a soft spot for ‘90s Wayans shit, but Willis is the main draw for me. 

My favorite type of Bruce Willis performance involves self-hatred, hangovers, and smoking, and god damn this movie has that going on. Willis begins the film passed out in his car. Before he drives off, he looks in the mirror and tells himself, “Nobody likes you. Everybody hates you. You’re going to lose. Smile, you fuck.” Writer Shane Black confirms in a new interview for this release that he was in a dark place when he wrote this, and it shows. Willis is at his most depressed in this role, but he’s still somehow likable. This film showcases that quality he had, primarily in the ‘90s, of playing someone you would probably hate in real life but would root for in a movie. The Last Boy Scout pushes that to its limits early on, but Willis grows on you, thanks to the constant shit-talking he gets to do with Wayans. And having a lot of dickhead goons around to kill helps, too. 

So smile, you fucks, and check out this great new release of The Last Boy Scout, and revisit a time when the idea of widespread sports gambling was so abhorrent it was only something an over-the-top villain in ‘90s action movie.

Transfer and Special Features 

Arrow always looks great, and if you check out the workprint footage, you’ll get to see how much better the transfer is compared to that untouched footage.

It’s awesome that they got Shane Black for an interview. It's more of a whole career thing, which is great. But he gets into how it all came together. 

He talks about being depressed while writing it. That tracks, because Willis’s character is so fucking depressing in this.

Originally he was supposed to save his wife, but Willis didn't want to do that again after Die Hard.

Danielle Harris talks about cussing, braces, and having fun filming with Taylor Negron, which sounds like a great time.

She tells a Tarantino story. He's a noted Last Boy Scout fan and in Once Upon a Time… he was going to have her yell a cut line from this film at Brad Pitt. But she couldn't film the scene because she gave birth the day they were supposed to shoot the scene. The line was, “Take a bath in my ass!” She promises to try to get it on screen at some point.

There's a featurette with a French dude who literally wrote a book about Tony Scott, so I suppose he's a good choice to talk about Scott for half an hour.

There’s an Interview after a marathon screening of Shane Black films at the American Cinematheque from a couple years ago. It’s not focused on this film, but still, any fan will find it interesting for all the talk about his other work and Joel Silver.

There is some newly found workprint footage with deleted and alternate scenes. They make it very clear that this wasn’t some drastically different cut, just some editing for length and content. The big differences happened to the script before shooting began.

It's nice that each moment has the workprint version followed by the theatrical, and there are explanations of the differences before each scene.

It's all very minor, though some of the more violent edits would have been nice. But overall, this footage isn’t some bombshell discovery of a director’s cut or anything.

There's also an audio commentary with a couple critics that I'm not going to listen to.

And the original script is also included. Actually, the first two drafts are there. Look, I love this movie, but I also know it isn’t high art. I am not reading one script, much less two to see what changes they made, but it’s nice that it’s there for bigger fans than me.

Random Thoughts 

I’m ashamed to admit I kind of like that “Friday night’s a great night for football” song. And now that the NFL seems willing to play games any day of the week, they could legitimately use this at some point.

I love Tony Scott, but between this and The Fan, it's clear that he never watched professional sports. The football game here and the baseball game in The Fan are inexplicably dark. Even the announcers in this look like they're calling the game while hiding from a slasher in a closet. And no fucking way would the entire audience be allowed to have open umbrellas. 

Billy Blanks, you don't have to do this! Trust me, you'll have plenty of money in a few years from the Tae Bo videos.

“I think I fucked a squirrel to death and don't even remember it.”

This is my favorite kind of Bruce Willis performance: hungover and chain smoking.

Weird that Noble Willingham played an NFL team owner in this and Ace Ventura. I guess he does give off dickhead team owner vibes.

There is way too much banter going on with Wayans right after his girlfriend was killed in front of him. They tack on a little moment with him crying a single tear about it, but that doesn't excuse the constant joking around. I guess we all grieve in different ways.

He was cheating on her, though, so he wasn't exactly boyfriend of the year.

In less than 36 hours, Willis is at the scene of two car explosions and a massive shootout. At what point do they just lock him up as a precaution?

“Apparently there are too many bullets in this gun,” is a pretty fucking cool thing to say before shooting someone.

I mainly wanted to check this out just to see Willis punch Kim Coates's nose into his brain in 4K.

It's hilarious that Willis continues to chainsmoke even as he's held captive. The bad guys just keep giving him cigarettes.

Man, it seems like these guys get caught by the bad guys ten times. Lucky for them these bad guys have a “take them somewhere else and let them talk a lot of shit before you kill them” policy.

I don’t think free agency is hurting pro football as much as shootings happening two games in a row. But Taylor Negron getting shredded by a chopper, and Bruce Willis dancing brings the crowd back immediately, so it's fine.

Childhood Memories of the "Die Hard" Trilogy

SPOILERS throughout for the Die Hard series, mostly the first three movies.

 

The latest Die Hard wasn’t so bad that it killed the series, but it was enough to make me revisit the first three films and truly appreciate them.  I grew up with Die Hard and I believe that the first film set the standard for what a good action movie can be.  I continued to grow up with Die Hard 2 and realized what a sequel should not be.  And I watched Die Hard: With a Vengeance and realized that a series can change…and still be good. 

 

But back to the most recent two films first.  If you want to know what I thought was wrong with A Good Day to Die Hard, just click here.  As for the fourth installment, Live Free or Die Hard, I really enjoyed that film, and still hold it in higher regard than the second film.  I’m leaving it out of this because it came out just a few years ago and I had already established my taste in movies at that point.  For the record, I acknowledge how insane that film is, and I know some of the action goes against what makes a Die Hard film, but it was fun enough to forgive the change to the series.  Now on to the real Die Hard films.

 

Die Hard

I was allowed, as a child, to watch movies like Die Hard.  The first film came out when I was four years old, so I didn’t see it in the theatre or anything, but I do remember watching it on VHS very early on.  Not to get into a whole parents/FCC thing, but violent films (within reason) were not prohibited in my home.  But if any nudity showed up, then I was made to cover my eyes lest my fragile boyish mind be warped.  I blame the Puritans…  Anyway, I was allowed to watch the movie and I loved it…and I’m not messed up, at least, not because of that film.

 

Bruce Willis made that film work.  He introduced this everyman hero that was believable even though he was engaged in ridiculous action set pieces.  I know the latest movies have turned the craziness up well past 11, but let’s face it: the original Die Hard is no documentary.  Willis personified a man out of place going through a very bad day to perfection.  To this day I can’t think of an actor who can yell angrily quite like Willis.  When he’s yelling at the cops to pay attention to him or cussing out a bad guy as he kills him, I can’t help but smile.  (Okay, maybe these movies did mess me up a little…)

 

As a child, I just liked the film for the great action, the humor, and the more original elements.  Moments like McClane pulling shards of glass out of his feet.  Or the sight of a dead thug with “Now I have a machine gun ho ho ho” written on his shirt in blood.  (I nearly ordered a shirt that said that a while back before I thought better of it.)  And you have one of the all time great villains in Hans Gruber, who was really only great because of Alan Rickman’s awesome performance. 

 

Die Hard was just a fun movie for me for years.  Then I went to college.  I had a class called “After Vietnam” that dealt with politics and the changing culture of America from the end of the war to the late 90s.  I can’t remember exactly why, but watching Die Hard was part of an assignment.  It was something about the end of the 80s, the fear of Japan taking over, gender roles, etc.  It really opened my eyes, but sometimes I wish I could get them shut again.  I can still enjoy the film for what it is, but now when I watch it I can’t help but think about what statements the film is making or what McClane represents.  It’s nice to have an added layer to the film, though.

 

Die Hard 2

I’ll be honest; I have no distinct memory of watching Die Hard 2 for the first time.  I remember watching it later on DVD and hating it, but I don’t know what my initial response to this film was.  I guess the fact that I forgot about it says enough.  Revisiting it lately, I stand by my disdain for this film.  I have decided, however, that the latest Die Hard is much worse than this. 

 

I suppose I forgot about this one because it’s such a carbon copy of the first film.  You could just see the meeting that took place for this one:

 

“We need to make another Die Hard. Fast.  Any ideas?”

 

“How about Die Hard in an airport?”

 

“Brilliant!  Now hire some hack director.”

 

I know, I know.  The sequel is actually based on a novel and it was altered to be a Die Hard movie.  Fine, but they must have really altered that novel because this is so similar to the first movie that it’s boring.  Watching it again, I was just baffled by some of the film’s oddities.  Why is the bad guy doing naked aerobics at the beginning?  Why did McClane think he could just leave his car in front of the airport to pick up his wife?  (This isn’t Airplane!)  And why do all the Washington, D.C. police officers seem to be from New York? 

 

This film just had the same problem so many sequels have: new location, same story.  It even seemed to try to continue this “end of the 80s” theme that the first film had since a cocaine drug lord was the villain and the war on drugs was mentioned.  Honestly, the film was only interesting to me because of how different things were back then.  McClane smokes inside the airport.  There’s a shootout inside the airport and it’s pretty much just brushed aside.  McClane has a beeper.  Stuff like that. 

 

Overall, not as bad as I remember, but Die Hard 2 is still a boring sequel that attempted nothing new.

 

Die Hard: With a Vengeance

Die Hard went on hiatus for a few years and returned when I was eleven years old with Die Hard: With a Vengeance.  Actually, I’m just going to refer to it as Die Hard 3.  Let’s face it, fans and non-fans alike wish this series never went down the path of non-numbered sequels.  This film brought me back into the fold.  Watching it again recently, I still consider this the second best of the series.  This film stuck out to me back when it first came out not just because it was a funny action film, but because it dealt with social issues in an upfront way that actually made my eleven-year-old self think a bit. 

 

The film contains this subplot about racism, actually reverse racism, that I had not seen before.  That said, if I was to watch this for the first time today, I’d probably be groaning at the heavy-handedness of it all.  For example, Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Zeus, asks his nephews, “Who do we not want to help us?”  They respond in unison, “White people!”  Zeus laughs and says, “That’s right!”  I’m not saying that his character can’t think like that, it just seems like there could have been a more subtle way of conveying that character trait.  I suppose the choice to make McClane wear a sign proclaiming “I hate n*****s” in Harlem wasn’t subtle, either.

 

The film handles the racism in a realistic way.  In many ways, this was a post-racial film, even though a post-racial world is pretty far away.  Instead of McClane and company treading lightly with Zeus, they roll their eyes and dismiss most of his claims of racism.  At one point, McClane finally breaks and calls Zeus a racist.  That was certainly the first time I had seen a white man call a black man a racist, in film or in life in general.  Now, whether or not any of this is a proper way to address race relations is up for debate.  The point is that it made me think about real issues at a young age.  Can’t fault a movie for that.

 

The race stuff has led some viewers to complain that Zeus is an annoying character.  I can see that, but I loved the dynamic of Willis and Zeus.  Their insults and back and forth just seemed natural.  Yeah, it’s pretty much Sam Jackson yelling for two hours, but I like it when Jackson yells at people.  And Bruce Willis as a hungover McClane reacts perfectly to it all.

 

This film works mainly because they changed the formula, which is something that has irked some fans ever since.  This is the movie that turned Die Hard from a “wrong guy in the wrong place” series to a “kill all the bad guys” series.  I agree that the first scenario is the better one, but I want to see more adventures of John McClane.  To do that, he needed to become a bit more than an unlucky guy.  To be fair, he’s still thrust into these events against his will.  It just seems like he’s a little more invincible this time around and he has begun to treat these outlandish events as just another day on the job. 

 

Die Hard 3 marked the beginning of McClane’s transformation into the kill-crazy sociopath he becomes in Die Hard 5.  Let’s look at this realistically (ha!) for a moment.  What else could this character turn into?  He either accepts that he is the unluckiest guy on the planet and sinks into a deep depression, or he embraces the hero that the world has turned him into, going so far as to actively search for bad situations he can insert himself into.  (Disclaimer: This does not mean that I am backing down from my Die Hard 5 criticism.  I still dislike that movie very much.)

 

The videogame

The completion of the trilogy was culminated with a Playstation game called, appropriately, Die Hard Trilogy.  I bring it up because it’s definitely part of my childhood and I have to comment on the videogames based on all three of these films.  It was one of those games that I remembered loving, but when I replayed this game a few years ago, I realized that it had not aged as well as the movies.  I will say that it was ridiculously difficult (or I just sucked at it), and I remember gaining most of my enjoyment by running down pedestrians in the Die Hard 3 section just so I could see the blood wiped off the windshield followed by McClane yelling, “Sorry!”  Random, I know, but it stuck with me.  Back to the films.

 

Final thoughts

The journey of John McClane throughout the Die Hard trilogy was a very important part of establishing my film knowledge.   It showed me that a great action movie has to be slightly plausible, well acted, quite violent, and fun.  It showed that a character needs to change or things can get pretty boring.  And it showed me that an action series can address actual issues. 

 

John McClane, for better or worse, is a character from my childhood.  Because of two of those first three movies, he’s a character that will never grow too old to enjoy.  The new films may never be able to create that experience I had as a child, but what childhood favorites entirely survive into adulthood?  I’ll always have Die Hard and Die Hard 3.  No matter how much I change, I know I can always go back to those films and be a kid again.  And isn’t that the feeling all action movies are trying to evoke?

Yippee Ki Y- Oh, Who Cares Anymore?

Directed by John Moore, written by Skip Woods, starring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Cole Hauser - Rated R

 

The Die Hard franchise has been ripe for parody since the first sequel.  After Bruce Willis, as Detective John McClane, wondered in Die Hard 2, “How can the same [thing] happen to the same guy twice?” it was obvious that the audience should accept the ridiculousness of the franchise and just go with it.  I’m okay with that, but I have a couple issues.  First, you shouldn’t necessarily take any advice that comes from the script of Die Hard 2.  Second, and most important, John McClane needs to continue to be that “same guy.”  Also, how unfortunate is it that the sketch from “The Ben Stiller Show” called “Die Hard 12” is starting to seem like a possibility?  (Haven’t seen that sketch?  Watch it now.)

 

Yes, Bruce Willis is still cast as John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard (I would prefer something less stupid for a title, by the way, like Die the Most Hardest or something), but he is a mere shadow of himself.  Willis’s portrayal of McClane is what makes these films great.  His exasperated tone, his quick wit, and his laughter as he takes a beating.  That stuff sort of exists in this film, but it seems so forced that it doesn’t matter.  Not to mention McClane has changed over the years.  He went from a reluctant hero forced into a situation he wants to avoid into a kill-crazy vigilante who rushes into violent situations for little or no reason. 

 

Perhaps it’s the setting.  Moving John McClane to Russia just seems wrong.  For starters, this isn’t 1985 and McClane isn’t Rocky.  This plotline about Chernobyl and nuclear weapons would have felt lazy in the first Die Hard film, much less the fifth one.  The story felt more at home in a direct-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.  Wait…is this the plot to one of the Universal Soldier DTV sequels?  (Sadly, I’m not joking.  Check out Universal Soldier: Regeneration if you don’t believe me.) 

 

So the setting sucks.  There’s still a slightly interesting bad guy for McClane to banter with, right?  Nope.  The villain is vague to the point that I couldn’t tell which plain, middle-aged Russian man was “good” and which was “bad.”  Maybe that’s the point, but it made for a lame story.  McClane does cross paths with a dancing bad guy at one point, but their banter is more head-scratching than knee-slapping. 

 

But there must be a sidekick along for the ride, right?  Die Hard With a Vengeance set the bar high with the tumultuous team-up with Samuel L. Jackson, and Live Free or Die Hard gave us the timely and surprisingly amusing duo of Willis and Justin Long.  Good Day introduces the barely talked about son of John McClane played by Jai Courtney.  Courtney previously played a thug in Jack Reacher, and that’s pretty much all he’s good for at the moment.  There is just nothing interesting about this guy, whether that’s a character or acting fault is irrelevant.  I didn’t want to see these two teaming up for anything, especially since the new character is barely established and we’re given almost no explanation for their hatred for one another aside from the fact that it must be hard to be the kid of an action hero. 

 

The upset kid dynamic just makes no sense for a film like this.  The audience has almost no knowledge of this son character, so we’re with McClane all the way.  We’ve been through four movies with this character, so if we’re taking a side, guess which one we’re going with?  On top of that, we don’t know specifically what McClane did to upset the kid, so the son comes off as an ungrateful jerk.  Who thought it was a good idea to try to get the audience to hate the main character for being a dead beat dad?  I hope this duo isn’t the future of the franchise.  Actually, after this, I’m not sure I want a future for this franchise.

 

All of these major elements aside, this is still Die Hard, and that name has become synonymous with crazy action (whether or not that’s a good thing is beside the point now).  If the action holds up, then this film could be barely worth a watch.  The action is…crazy, sure, but it doesn’t save the film.  So much of it seemed like it was pointlessly trying to be insane.  Did you hate the sight of McClane on a fighter jet during the last film?  Then you won’t care for this one at all.  As for the style of it, I didn’t know what to think once it was over.  There were so many strange, extreme slo-mo moments.  Slow motion explosions?  How is that impressive?  And who wants to see two people falling in slow motion for what seems like five minutes?  Upon research, I found that director John Moore had also made the abysmal Max Payne, and then it all made sense. 

 

After all of this bashing, though, I can’t tell the die hard (pun totally intended) fans to skip this one.  It’s still Bruce Willis and he’s still John McClane, kind of.  Some fans are bound to like it.  I really wanted to, but I can’t ignore the utter disappoint I felt walking out of the theater.  If you’re on the fence, maybe this will help you: I am now going to re-watch Die Hard 2 because I think I might like that sequel more than this.  If you’re the same type of fan as I am, then that should tell you how much I disliked this movie.  Watch at your own risk.

"Looper"

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, and Jeff Daniels - Rated R

 

"This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg..."





Time travel movies are fascinating…and can be mind-blowing.  Wait, did I write, “mind-blowing”?  I meant irritating.  The concept can lead to fun, interesting, exciting, and gloriously complicated films, but it also makes your head hurt if you try to wrap your brain around every minute detail.  (Don’t worry.  I am not going to write a lengthy thesis about the ins and outs of time travel.  Go to the message boards if you want to read theories written by the time travel “experts” that populate IMDb.)  The films that use time travel to great success, like 12 Monkeys, The Terminator, or Back to the Future (to name a few), rarely waste much time with complicated plot points about time travel.  Those films feature a lot of explanation, 12 Monkeys being the closest film that could be complicated.  On the other end of the spectrum, you have films like Triangle, Timecrimes, and Primer.  These films, while great and thought provoking, can almost feel like homework assignments when you stop and think about them.  They become complicated because of all the alternate universes and timelines they create.  You almost need to take notes to keep track of it all.  (Sorry to the fans that find those films easy to follow.  They just feel more like work than play to me.)

 

Looper, the latest from writer/director Rian Johnson, thankfully falls in the former group.  It is an interesting, entertaining sci-fi movie that doesn’t get bogged down with the rules of time travel.  That is not to say that this is a simple film.  It is still about time travel and it still contains a paradox or two.  But if we’re willing to forgive The Terminator its paradox (sorry, I don’t buy any theories about how it is possible for John Connor to send his own father back in time to become his father) because of its awesomeness, then we should do the same for Looper. 

 

Looper is a great movie for many reasons, Rian Johnson being number one.  He has crafted such an interesting story.  In the relatively near future, time travel has yet to be invented, but it will be thirty years later.  Since it is impossible to get away with murder in the future, crime lords will use time travel to send undesirables into the past to be taken care of by hit men, or loopers.  Eventually, since time travel is so illegal in the future (and to protect the criminals’ own interests), a looper must close his own loop.  This means he must eventually kill his own older self.  All of their marks show up hooded, so a looper doesn’t know he has essentially killed himself until after the job is done. 

 

Enter Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an addict (he's addicted to some future drug taken in the form of eye drops) who quietly goes about his business in the hopes of saving up plenty and eventually having a happy retirement.  Things go awry when Joe has to close his own loop.  His older self, or Old Joe, shows up without his hood on.  Being face to face with his older self (Bruce Willis) startles Joe, giving Old Joe enough time to distract Joe and get away.  Someone from the future being loose in the past is a huge problem for the mob, so young Joe must stop Old Joe no matter what.

 

What makes the plot of Looper more interesting is that Old Joe doesn't run simply because he wants to live longer.  He's there to kill the child version of the future's evil overlord.  I think it makes the film more interesting because it takes the common time travel scenario of going back in time to kill someone like, oh, let's go with the mainstay, Hitler, but adding the problem of said Hitler-type being a child.  You start to rethink things once you see a gun pointed at a child who has done nothing wrong...yet.  The moral implications of Old Joe's plan fascinated me and Willis did a fine job of showing steely reserve as he contemplated murder. 

 

Bruce Willis is right at home in a sci-fi film (he's even done the time travel thing a time or two, as well), and his scenes with Young Joe discussing time travel are great.  At one point it's almost as if he's predicting the internet message board arguments by yelling at Joe and telling him to forget about the time travel crap.  I'm with him on that; just enjoy the show. 

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes it very easy to enjoy this film.  The first thing you notice is how different he looks in this film because they put makeup and prosthetics on his face to make look more like a young Bruce Willis.  The true joy of his performance, though, comes through his mannerisms.  His constant squint, that bark of a laugh; it's a great performance and it makes the film a lot of fun.  I only wish they shared more screen time. 

 

The rest of the cast is well-rounded.  Jeff Daniels plays a somewhat disinterested future immigrant in an interesting way.  Paul Dano is in his wheelhouse playing a nervous, stuttering looper.  Emily Blunt is does okay as a single mom on a farm.  Garrett Dillahunt has a great, tense scene.  And Pierce Gagnon is admirable if for no other reason than he is a child actor in a sci-fi film and he isn't annoying at all.  Kudos to the marketing team behind this film completely leaving the child out of the previews even though it is a vital part of the film.  I'm serious, this film probably did better because people were unaware that a child factored into the plot.

 

Speaking of marketing, this film is being touted as one of the “best action films” of the year.  But it's not really an action movie.  The few action scenes are great, though.  Willis's big action scene might go down as one of the best of his career, and that is certainly saying something.   

 

But Looper is not an action movie.  It's a sci-fi/time travel movie.  There's a great future world created with very few answers to any questions that might arise (and that's the way it should be, most of the time, in sci-fi).  There is a multiple time line aspect to the film, but it is handled in a very clear and stylish way.  In fact, the film is flat out stylish and it works on nearly every level.  I was left with only one issue with Rian Johnson's great film: I wanted more.  I wanted to see more of the world, I wanted more of the future world Bruce Willis came from, I wanted more one-on-one scenes with Gordon-Levitt and Willis, etc.  If the only issue you have with a film is that you wish there was more of it, then that is a good problem to have.  Check out Looper.  It might not be one of the best “action” movies of the year, but it is one of the best movies of the year.

"The Expendables 2"

Directed by Simon West, written by Richard Wenk, Sylvester Stallone, Ken Kaufman, and David Agosto, starring Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, and Jean-Claude Van Damme - Rated R

Of course this gets a Kurgan, until they finally put the Kurgan in one of these movies, then it will get a Vader...

 

 

 

I was as pumped as everyone else when I heard about The Expendables a few years ago.  When it came out I walked away pleased, but not blown away.  As an old school action fan, just seeing the likes of Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Jason Statham, and Jet Li (among others and some newer stars) was enough to consider the film a success.  It helped that it included ridiculous action and a plot straight out of a Rambo movie.  But something was missing.  Before I continue, I must confess that I have an unnatural (and some might say “irrational”) love of Jean-Claude Van Damme films.  (Yes, “films.”  Not movies, but films.) 

 

Van Damme was not in the first Expendables, much to my chagrin.  How could such a fixture of 80s and early 90s action not make it into this cast?  I was even more upset when I heard rumors that he had been offered a part, but had turned it down, due to lack of character development.  Maybe he didn’t want to be relegated to one-note status as one of the main cast as Lundgren (the crazy one) or Randy Couture (the guy with the messed-up ears) are.  If that’s the case, then he was wise to hold out because Van Damme is the best part of The Expendables 2.  (Of course, some might claim my opinion is biased…and they’d probably be correct.)

 

The Expendables 2 sticks with what made the first film a fan favorite: multiple aging action stars cause mass destruction.  This time, though, more stars are thrown into the mix and cameos from Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are upgraded to supporting roles.  Aside from Van Damme, Scott Adkins, Liam Hemsworth, and Chuck Norris are added to the cast.  Norris is the biggest, and cheesiest, addition, as his appearance is so tongue in cheek it’s almost not enjoyable…almost.  

 

Believe it or not, there is a plot to this film and it’s 80s-tastic.  Van Damme plays Vilain (yes, his name is one letter away from literally being “villain”), a cult leader who wants to sell mass amounts of plutonium to the highest bidder.  At one point, Vilain ponders how “interesting” it is that plutonium can change the world, but later he simply proclaims that he wants a lot of money.  It’s simple, it’s right out of the Cold War, and it’s great. 

 

Of course Stallone and his group of mercenaries are out to stop Vilain, especially after he kills one of their own (I won’t spoil who that is).  This leads to some truly great moments as Van Damme revels in his villainous role, toying with Stallone every chance he gets.  It’s a slightly strange performance, but it is by far the most interesting aspect of the film.  Van Damme has always been best when he gets to play nefarious roles (a serial killer in Replicant and a law breaking criminal in Double Impact), but this time he doesn’t also portray a goodie-two-shoes duplicate to even it out.  Here’s hoping that Van Damme latches onto this performance and gets more big screen work, because I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing his new movies pop up on Wal-Mart shelves at discount prices.  I’ll take what I can get, however.  And even though Van Damme’s scenes are few, they stick out as the film’s best moments.  I don’t want to spoil anything, but a kick from Van Damme has never been used in such a brutal, awesome way.  I just wish the filmmakers had made him a more prominent villain (or should I say, “Vilain”?).    

 

Most people aren’t watching this film just for Jean-Claude Van Damme, though.  This is a movie for action junkies.  Everyone should walk away pleased with this film.  It doesn’t hold up to the truly great action films of its stars’ past (it’s hard to top films like Predator, Die Hard, and Cobra, though), but it’s certainly awesome to see some action that doesn’t involve comic book superheroes for a change.  There’s plenty of gunfire and explosions and random bad guys getting blown to pieces to keep everyone happy.  And most of the comedic action beats work.  The CG blood was a bit disappointing at times, though, and too often the action consisted of shots of the good guys firing en masse followed by shots of bad guys getting riddled with bullets.  Director Simon West (Con Air) handles most of the film well, but he is not the most adept action director.  The Expendables 2 is still one of the most satisfying action movies in years, however.

 

This is a film after my own heart and I absolutely embraced it.  If you just need an action fix, you’ll probably like it.  If you’re a fan of the stars, you’ll dig all the cheesy in-jokes.  If you’re a Van Damme fan like me, you’ll love it, but you will leave the theater saying, “Man, I wish Van Damme would have been in it more.”  I’ll take what I can get, though.

Random Throughts (SPOILERS)

Seriously, Van Damme was great, but my God, what an underdeveloped villain.  If it was a no-name actor, it would be completely forgettable.  Van Damme breathed so much life into the role, taunting Stallone every chance he got and doing some amusing physical acting.  I wanted at least ten more behind the scenes villain stuff.  Maybe explain the cult stuff a bit more.  Seriously, all we get is that they are a cult known as the "pet of Satan"?  How do you not expand on that?!  But at least there were some round house kicks and how awesome was that knife-kick scene? 

What I really hoped to see was a Van Damme/Jet Li showdown (due to a long running feud between myself and a Li-loving buddy of mine).  But Li literally jumps out of the movie fifteen minutes in, just after a pretty damn awesome sequence involving pots and pans.  I'm assuming it had something to do with scheduling.  If Li wanted out, though, they could have had him get killed by Van Damme, though.  That would have given me the edge in my feud for life. 

Aside from all the Van Damme stuff, my favorite moment of the film had to be when there was one dude left in the village and Stallone yelled, "One more!" and everybody unloaded on him.  The "Rest in pieces" line was cheesy, but the scene itself was hilarious.  It was like the scene from Predator, except they actually hit something this time.  Oh, and they fired for five seconds instead of fifteen minutes. 

Schwarzenegger ripping the door off of that smart car (or whatever that thing was) cracked me up.  And it was just great to see him shooting a machine gun again.