Cop Land - "You Blew It!"

This was covered by The Rewatchables podcast a couple weeks back because of Ray Liotta’s passing. I watched it then, but I’m just now getting around to writing my full article.

Cop Land is one of those movies that I thought I should love but always thought was okay. But I keep returning to it, thinking, “This will be the time that it clicks, and I love it.” But it never happens. Instead, it’s just a movie I like. I blame expectations.

Cop Land isn’t the first movie to be hyped for awards and then be a disappointment, but it is the first time I noticed this happening with a film. This came out when I was just starting to appreciate movies and pay attention to industry news and whatnot. So when this movie went into production with this insane cast (Stallone, Keitel, Liotta, De Niro, etc.), the Oscar buzz was immediate. Then the movie came out, was decently received but was shutout of the awards season (except, according to IMDb, for Stallone winning Best Actor at the Stockholm Film Festival, and the film being nominated [though not winning] Best Foreign Film at the Turkish Film Critics Association Awards [The Ice Storm won]). 

Despite my disappointment, I still like this movie. And once you adjust your expectations and stop thinking this is going to be Goodfellas 2, it ends up being even better. Stallone was, and still is, the standout in the film. It was like his last attempt to be a serious actor before retreating back into his franchises and mediocre action movies. He gives a great understated and unexpected performance. 

Aside from that, I’ve developed a love for angry corrupt cop movies lately. So I’m just happy seeing drunk and/or high guys with mustaches yelling and punching each other. 

Those were my complete thoughts about this film, but when I was looking it up on IMDb I realized that I had watched the theatrical cut on HBO Max, even though I owned the director’s cut on DVD. So being the idiot completionist that I am, I immediately watched it again to compare. Before I get into that, I just want to point out that I have to be the only dipshit to watch Cop Land twice in a 24 hour period since it was originally edited.

I’m not one to do an extensive comparison of theatrical and director’s cuts, especially since another website already does that. Instead, I like to focus on tonal shifts or specific scenes that change the movie in a meaningful way.

One of the things that always left me disappointed with Cop Land was the story. I found a lot of it hard to follow. Yes, almost every cop was corrupt, but what exactly was their corruption? The director’s cut (or maybe just watching it twice so close together) makes it a bit more clear that mob money helped Keitel set up the titular Cop Land in Jersey, and he keeps killing any cops that get into trouble with internal affairs out of fear that they will rat him out. 

Even not completely understanding the story the first time around, I still found one moment completely baffling. Stallone goes to Keitel and tells him that he knows Rappaport is alive, and he wants everyone to go into the city together to clear things up. Why the fuck would he tell Keitel this when Keitel has clearly made up his mind about he does things? In the director’s cut, this scene occurs after Stallone has found Rappaport rather than before. He also explains that he’s telling Keitel about this because he feels like he owes it to him. I still think that’s pretty stupid, but I can accept it since Keitel is responsible for Stallone having his job. In the theatrical cut, this scene ends abruptly, but in the director’s cut Stallone is given a hero moment when he stands up to Keitel and tells him that he doesn’t like what’s happened to their city. Keitel eventually agrees with him and agrees to go in, though the music makes it clear that he’s not going to honor this.

The changes in this scene make the movie quite a bit better, and it reinstates a moment that Stallone’s character desperately needed. It’s not that much longer than the original cut, so I don’t understand why it ever happened in the theatrical cut as it did. 

If the movie then ended exactly the way the theatrical cut did after this change, then this would be a truly great director’s cut. But for some reason, James Mangold (the writer and director I have failed to identify until now…oh well) decided to end the movie with the newscast footage rather than with Stallone back on the job. This baffled me. That ending is important for multiple reasons.

First, it solidifies that this is Stallone’s movie. It was about him waking up to the corruption around him and doing something about it. The ending moment shows him staring at New York City. He’s done this throughout the movie with sadness because he’s never been able to join the force because of his hearing. When he looks at the city at the end, it’s not with regret. Instead, he seems happy for the first time to be on this side of the river. To cut that out and end with newscast audio makes no sense. In the words of De Niro: “You blew it!”

The director’s cut is still a bit better, it’s just that losing the original ending is tough. Because of that, this isn’t one of those clear cut cases of recommending the director’s cut over the theatrical. Most people don’t have this on DVD, so you’ll probably end up watching this on a streaming service if you ever watch it again, and that’s fine because that last Stallone moment kind of makes up for any earlier confusion.

Overall, no cut of this film was going to make it the classic I wanted it to be. But watching it in today’s TV landscape made me realize something: this would have been an amazing TV show. The story could breathe a bit more, and there could have been a season or two of all the shit that happened before the events of this movie, which could have been the final season. Unfortunately, this movie was made right before TV became so much more respectable. This is one of those rare moments in which I truly wish this will get remade as a TV show.

Random Thoughts

After finishing We Own This City (the HBO series no one is watching but you’ve been told is amazing), I still had a hankering for corrupt cop drama. Thankfully, The Rewatchables decided to cover Cop Land because of Ray Liotta’s passing. 

Fucking mustaches, drinking, yelling, throwing punches, everybody pissed off, cheating. I don’t know why, but sometimes I like watching these movies about complete trainwrecks at the end of their ropes.

With a cast like this at this time, it was impossible for this movie to meet expectations. It’s a good movie, but people were expecting a classic.

Nice touch to have the pinball machine tell Stallone he has “no authority.”

Robert Patrick is the most corrupt looking cop I have ever seen.

Peter Berg definitely looks like a dude who would cheat on his wife.

Oh shit, I forgot I own the director’s cut of this. Now I have to watch this twice.

“It’s like you’re the sheriff of Cop Land.” 

(Pitch Meeting executive guy voice): “That’s the name of the movie!”

Damn, Superboy, I know you're hiding out, but you can eat something other than canned soup. There were about two dozen cans in that hideout!

Why is Liotta always wearing an oversized untucked shirt in this? Is that just how cokeheads dressed in the '90s?

"Cobra": When a psycho could just be a psycho.

*As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you've seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

The first few months are typically slow movie months, but for me movies seem to grind to a halt entirely. This year, it’s due to a combination of things. First, there’s the usual post-awards season blues. After watching multiple movies a day for a month and a half, then voting, then writing about the Oscars, I just get a bit burnt out. Secondly, we have a toddler at the house, so movie-going is rare all the time, and there’s the added bonus of a pregnant wife too. Finally, I’ve had a busy month with concerts and stuff. Any spare time I’ve had has been more devoted to that. But I still love movies, and I wanted to spend a few weeks writing about some of the less thought-provoking movies in my collection. So after taking a look around my collection, I settled on Cobra, the Sylvester Stallone movie that was originally supposed to be Beverly Hills Cop (the filmmakers parted ways with Stallone when he wanted to change the script to be darker and more action-oriented, so he took his ideas and made this!). I loved this movie as a kid (and as an adult until very recently), and it had been a while since I had watched it, so here we go.

I want to see the director’s cut for all the wrong reasons.

I decided early on to not write too much about the Beverly Hills Cop aspect since that’s been covered before. I didn’t realize there was a lot of crazy shit going on with this movie until I checked out the trivia section of IMDb. The whole list is worth checking out, but what stuck out to me were the Stallone diva claims (no one was allowed to talk to him, he watched a basketball game rather than film scenes with Brian Thompson, etc.) and that the film was edited from a two hour X-rated gore-fest to an 87 minute R-rated mostly-bloodless-death fest.

When I first read that, I really wanted to check out that director’s cut to see if there was a lot added that fleshed out the story. As it is, the film’s villains, a cult who wants to bring about a “New World” by killing the weak, have very little backstory or motivation. They are simply psychos created by our weak-ass world of rules and laws. I wanted to know more. How did they get people to join? It’s mentioned that some of the members have no criminal record (that might have been from a deleted scene...more on that in a bit). How did the sweaty, psycho, roided-out Matt Damon leader get people to join his axe-clanging cause?

Some devotee (psycho?) of the film compiled footage from the lengthened TV edit and behind-the-scenes documentary to describe the excised footage. I watched it, but it seems like most of the stuff cut was either for time or for gore, and nothing too important was axed (get it?). So some continuity errors were created from the edit, and a lot of the violence occurs off-screen. But not much about the cult is gone, aside from a few scenes showing them at their day jobs and some ritual in which they destroy a mirror.

At first I was disappointed by this, but then I realized this movie is better without explaining the cult anymore than it already does. I loved this movie because it was a product of the ‘80s, which meant villains were sometimes psychos simply because they were psychos. They existed just to be killed by Stallone. Why bring logic or backstory into that? I’m serious. This is why I still enjoy Cobra. I see these crazy cult members holding up grocery stores, cutting themselves, getting killed by the dozen by Stallone trying to kill a witness that only saw their leader and I laugh because in most big-budget movies today, the filmmakers would feel obligated to provide at least one scene explaining why someone would be devoted to this group. The ‘80s were a simpler time. A time when a man could just be a sweaty psycho and not have to explain himself to anyone.

One thing that I do miss upon rewatching it is the gore I expected to find. I remember this movie as a brutal action movie featuring a knife and axe-wielding murderer as the villain. Watching it today, I see all the editing that takes place to basically only show dead bodies. The action overall is heavily edited and not very enjoyable (aside from that scene of the security guard getting hit by the van). I still like this movie, but now it’s as an ‘80s oddity rather than a brutal action classic.

So I’ll watch this again. But now when I rewatch it, it’ll be for the cheesy soundtrack and all the stupid stuff with Stallone meant to make him look like a cool rebel (cutting pizza with scissors, constantly wearing gloves and sunglasses, etc.). And I still think Brian Thompson makes for an excellent, sweaty psycho. Maybe one day I’ll get to see footage of his gruesome handiwork.

Why do I own this?

First off, it was very cheap when I bought it years ago. And I do still enjoy it for nostalgic reasons, but it isn’t as good as I remembered. I would like to see a director’s cut in the future, but that seems very unlikely since a new “Collector’s Edition” just came out, and it only featured some new interviews.

Random Thoughts

I tried listening to the commentary, but Cosmatos gives little insight into the movie overall. He just gives tidbits about locations and the mood he was going for. He narrates a lot of it, even saying the lines of some of the characters.

Do yourself a favor and check out the IMDb trivia section. My personal favorite claim: Stallone wanted the book it's based on to be reprinted with him as the author.

Could you imagine what Beverly Hills Cop would've been like if it started with Axel Foley talking about how many rapes a day there are?

As far as movie cults go, my favorite will always be the snake cult from Conan. But the dudes in suits clanging axes together cult from Cobra is a close second.

I miss the days when bad guys were just sweaty psychos with no clear motive aside from wanting to kill innocent people and cops.

Cobra: brought to you by Coors Original, the banquet beer!

That reporter was a dick! “Hey Cobra, did you really have to kill the sweaty psycho who just killed someone and was threatening to blow up a grocery store? You couldn't bring him in peacefully?!”

That said, this movie seems to be anti-journalist and anti-rules-for-police? Timely…

Oh, and anti-Hispanic. What was wrong with those dudes parked near Cobra's house? They had his favorite spot? Too bad, Cobra, go park somewhere else, you jerk.

Also, that guy was clearly mic'd up yet they kept cutting back to him. Sloppy.

Why does Cobra keep his sunglasses on while he cleans his gun, but takes them off to see the TV?

Okay, cutting the pizza with scissors is only one part of the randomness. First, why does he keep leftover pizza in the freezer? Why does he keep gun cleaning kit in an egg carton...in the freezer? Why not just eat the single slice of pizza as is? Why cut the tip of it off to eat? What the fuck is happening?

This movie takes place around Christmas, by the way. It never factors into the story at all.

My God, I love the soundtrack. All the songs are inspirational and/or about working hard.

One of my favorite montages of all time. It has so many ‘80s stalwarts: urban decay, serial killers, big boobs, robots, etc.

Man, that photographer is using every angle to sleep with her: don't do it for me, do it for your career; hey, I'm just trying to bang you for your happiness, there's nothing in it for me!

That security guard getting killed by the van is so fucking brutal.

That police sketch of roided out Matt Damon is hilarious, but it is a good likeness.

Of course Cobra wears leather gloves while doing research.

The whole hospital attack and the aftermath is so confusing, location-wise. Cobra talks to his superiors and leaves the room, and then it cuts back to the hospital so abruptly it seems as if they are in the same building.

Also, why is there a giant Pepsi neon sign outside his apartment? I get the product placement, but that's some serious Kenny Roger's Roasters outside of Kramer's apartment shit.

The forced humor stuff is pretty lame: the constant food jokes with Gonzales, Cobra playing with a bobblehead, too much ketchup on the fries, etc. I wish they would have just stuck with a deadly serious tone.

What's with the “The” with the Crossroads Motel? Is another Crossroads Motel, and this one is pointing out that they are the original, kind of like a Famous and Original Famous Ray's or something?

Aside from a van driving someone into a wall, the violence is actually pretty tame. The majority of it consists of shots of Stallone firing a gun followed by shots of people falling off motorcycles.

As someone who works in a factory, I find it hilarious that when action movies end up in factories, there is usually almost no one there. It's not like it's an abandoned factory. It's the middle of the day, and there was a security guard! Where is everyone?

As a kid, I just remember this as that one Stallone movie with the bitchin' knife and how much the villain said, “Pig!”

So the cult was just about the strong killing the weak? Why did so many people buy into that, exactly? Are we supposed to believe it's because society with all its laws created this murderous subgroup? It just seems like there should have been a bit more incentive for people to join this cult. There were guys in suits at the beginning! So one day it just occurred to some business dudes that they should join a cult whose only goal was to murder “weak” people? There's no drug or financial aspect to it?

That ending music is way too upbeat. Is no one else worried that a cult of dozens of murderers existed with almost no detection for weeks?

"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. 

"Demolition Man": Product Placement Done Right

I have been eagerly anticipating Morgan Spurlock’s latest documentary about product placement in movies. I live in what is politely known as a small market (or no market at all if I’m honest) so I have not had a chance to see the film yet. But the discussion about product placement has always intrigued me. Is it inherently bad for film? Is there a time and place for it in film? For the record, I’m cool with product placement. I fall into the category of people that actually like it because it makes a movie seem more realistic because, let’s face it, we are surrounded by ads in our everyday lives. I didn’t think I had anything to write about the situation since I was so blasé. But then I revisited Demolition Man and realized that there was definitely something to say about all of this.

First off, let’s get into the mindless fun that is Demolition Man. I feel the need to admit that I first watched the 1993 movie when I was nine years old. In other words, I’m a lifelong fan because this movie left a stamp on me that no thoughtful criticism can erase. Anyway, I want to write about the ridiculous awesomeness of the film before I delve into the product placement issue.

Demolition Man is awesomely stupid. (There will be SPOILERS throughout for this film, by the way.) The whole setup of the film, that violent criminals are sent to a “cryo-prison” to be frozen until the future is a delightfully idiotic plot point. Let’s take the worst of our society and freeze them so they can terrorize future generations. Who really thought this was a good idea? Also, who cares? It happened.

Whatever. So John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) is wrongfully frozen along with the hammy villain Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) after an explosion in a violence ridden 1996 Los Angeles. They are both “thawed out” in 2032 San Angeles, a society in which violence (and all physical contact for that matter) has been outlawed, along with meat, alcohol, salt, cussing, and anything else that is “bad” for you. This fascist setup is completely implausible, but let’s go with it. It’s okay to accept the setup of this film because it’s one of the last classic action films of recent years. Demolition Man came out at a time when an action movie could be over the top without blatantly letting the audience in on the joke.

Stallone gets to spout off one-liners and Snipes to gets to guffaw at the very idea of being evil. These elements could only work today if the filmmakers made the movie so over the top that the film could only be a joke or if they acknowledged the audience multiple times. But 90s action movies were great in that they could be over the top without feeling guilty about it. Maybe this is nostalgia speaking, but I really wish action movies were still that simple.

Demolition Man is definitely one of those “future” movies, though. There are plenty of comedic elements that still make me laugh. The machine that tracks cussing is great. The new terminology everyone uses is hilarious. The use of “boggle” for “problem”; “tick tocks” for “minutes”; “joy joy” for “happy.” The air high-fives were a nice touch, and who can forget the three seashells? I still have to sit and contemplate that infernal riddle after every viewing.

Then there are the really dumb elements. Why does a museum keep a full armory of guns, let alone copious amounts of ammo? Did they not see the possible security problems? For God’s sake, they have a functional Civil War-era cannon in that museum! And how about the “scraps,” the underground starving ruffians? Yeah, they are so hungry, which is why they have food stands that sell “rat burgers” and beer. They even have enough surplus food to have beer nuts on the pub tables down there! Watch it again if you don’t believe me. You can even see that freedom fighter Edgar Friendly (Denis Leary) snatch a handful at one point.

Okay, okay, my love is obvious and I could honestly go on for at least another thousand words, but I’ll get to the point. “Demolition Man” actually has a lot to say about product placement if you give it a lot more thought than it deserves. First off, the future is almost completely devoid of advertising. There are no logos on clothing. The cars are all kind of plain and were not cars that you could actually buy in the present. (Unlike Steve Buscemi’s truck in The Island, for example, which was available to purchase when that film was released.) All of the video screens are provided by the fake company “FiberOps.” There is not a billboard in sight. In short, advertising is not necessary in this utopian future.

At this point those of you who have seen the film are shaking your heads and yelling, “Taco Bell!” I know, the fast food chain Taco Bell is actually part of the plot of Demolition Man. That is definitely product placement. But it’s product placement that says something. Taco Bell is not just a restaurant in the future…it is “the” restaurant in the future. As 1990s loving Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock) states, “Taco Bell won the franchise wars.” Hmm, franchise wars or the bidding war? Either way, in the world of the film, Taco Bell does not advertise. Sure, we the audience have to suffer through a strange Taco Bell commercial in which 1990s MTV dude Dan Cortes inexplicably cameos as a jingle singing pianist, but the characters never see a commercial.

Speaking of jingle singing, Demolition Man has more up its sleeve than just a clever excuse to have the characters eat at Taco Bell. It turns out that in the future popular music (as well as musical attention spans, apparently) has gone extinct. Everyone just listens to old commercial jingles. Brilliant! It fits the bland future’s simplistic nature while also giving the film an excuse to promote some products.

Which brings me to the actual advertisements in the film. Just because there are no current ads in the future does not mean they are nonexistent. Huxley loves the past, which means she loves ads. Some of the first ads we see are in her retro office and home. Those jingles are all from the past. Demolition Man represents a world that is above advertising to the point that it is only used for entertainment. The signs in Huxley’s office and home aren’t selling anything. Who would be the audience for that (ignoring the actual audience watching the film, obviously). And the jingles? Some of the products would actually be outlawed. I know some people would question the meat value of Armour hot dogs, but the company claims they are meat and meat has been banned in San Angeles. What good are ads for an illegal product? When was the last time you saw an ad promoting heroin in the present?

There are more ads in the film, but they are underground with the scraps, literally beneath the rest of humanity. The scraps are a poor group, but they still have enough electricity to power up their Bud Light neon sign. They have also painstakingly kept a 1970 Oldsmobile in tiptop condition and Pennzoil helped out a bit since a sign for the company is featured in the background. Strangely enough, it’s the Olds that melds the advertising of both worlds. When Huxley and Spartan burst above ground in the car to give chase to Phoenix they find themselves in the middle of a…you guessed it: Oldsmobile dealership. A dealership may not be an ad but it does prove that there are still competitive car companies and competition means advertising. We don’t see it, but it has to be there.

I’m not claiming that Demolition Man is without its corporate influence. It obviously is. But it is the rare movie that understands the necessity of product placement and plays around with that fact. What’s most impressive is that the film doesn’t get meta about it. The filmmakers didn’t have the opportunity to be meta back then since that new subgenre of film didn’t exist yet. Instead, they had to find a way to use product placement in an interesting way. That deserves a bit of credit. Just compare this film to other futuristic films. Minority Report is great but that film is swarming with product placement. Hell, at one point Tom Cruise goes to a mall to hide out. And how about the holy grail of futuristic films: Blade Runner? Coca-cola, anyone?

Looking back, Demolition Man may not be a classic example of an action sci-fi film. It may not even be a “good” movie. But when it comes to product placement, the filmmakers made it work in efficient and amusing ways. Nostalgia makes the film a classic in my eyes, but the film’s treatment of product placement deserves some attention no matter your opinion of the film itself. But give it a try anyway, because it’s a very fun movie…even if you hate Taco Bell.


Random Thoughts…because I just have more to comment on.

Jack Black is in this in one of his “blink or you’ll miss it” 90s roles.

Aren’t the names great? Spartan, Phoenix, Friendly. Do they mean anything? Maybe, but who cares?

Another product placement: As soon as Spartan thaws out, one of the first things he asks for is a “Marlboro.” Not a cigarette, but a specific brand. What a Neanderthal.

The film itself isn’t meta by today’s standards, but it is interesting how Huxley serves as the audience. I still laugh every time when it gets to the scene in which she exclaims how great it was when Spartan paused to make a “glib remark” before he killed a scrap.

I loved how Benjamin Bratt, the quintessential future man, was so easily turned to the dark side of advertising and decadence. In one scene he’s disgusted. In the next, you can’t tell him apart from a side performer like Jesse “The Body” Ventura.

And finally, Friendly, that future man with a past sensibility, gives a rant in which he mentions Jell-O and Playboy. How fitting than outcast should mention brand names.

"The Expendables"

The Expendables - Directed by Sylvester Stallone, written by Dave Callaham and Sylvester Stallone, starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, and Terry Crews - Rated R

It's no masterpiece, but it's still a pretty damn good action movie.

The Expendables has been on my radar for well over a year now. My friends and I have been gushing about the manliest cast ever assembled and expectations were at an all time high. Did this end up as the best action movie ever made? No, of course not, that is a ridiculous expectation. It did turn out to be a brutal callback to the heyday of action movies. It’s a flawed, but very fun movie.

This movie has been about the cast from the very beginning. It’s a who’s who of old and new action stars. Sylvester Stallone (who also writes and directs) and Jason Statham are the two leads, with the rest of the good and bad guys taking on much smaller roles. Everyone has their little moments, though, and fans of any of the actors should come away pleased.

I loved the cast, but a good cast doesn’t guarantee a good movie. The story has to be somewhat compelling. The Expendables has a story that fits into the same world as Stallone’s last Rambo film (a movie I loved, by the way). Some small underdeveloped nation is being abused by a dictator backed by a rogue CIA man. The team is asked to intervene in what looks to be a suicide mission. At first they turn it down, but eventually it becomes more about Stallone saving his soul than making money, so he takes the job. The difference between this and Rambo is that instead of one man against an army, there’s a small team of Rambo-types, and they’re all bulletproof marksmen.

The plot is serviceable in that it sets the stage for plenty of outrageous action. The final twenty minutes are flat out awesome. And let’s face it, the only reason to see this movie is the action. For the most part, it’s handled well. I thought Stallone employed the shaky-cam, quick cut method a bit too much, though. At times, it felt as if Stallone just threw the camera right in the middle of the action. I know that sounds like a compliment, but it most certainly is not. It doesn’t ruin the movie, however, and the last act makes up for it, anyway.

I don’t want to ruin any of the action set pieces, but I do have to mention some of my favorite elements from the cast. First off, Stallone and Statham work well together. It was cool to see the two generations of action stars working together. Terry Crews (President Camacho in Idiocracy) doesn’t have much screentime, but he gets the greatest moment in the film involving a fully automatic shotgun. Dolph Lundgren gets to crazy things up like he did in Universal Soldier. It was fun seeing him in an actual movie again. The rest of the cast is okay, their moments and characteristics just aren’t very interesting. But I didn’t care for Randy Couture. I have yet to see a UFC fighter who can deliver convincing dialogue in a film. The only thing missing from this cast is Jean-Claude Van Damme. For whatever reason, he turned down a role in this film. Hopefully, he comes to his senses for the sequel, which Stallone is already talking about.

The over the top action of the film is what keeps it interesting and entertaining, though. I called this a callback to older action films earlier. First, it’s a callback in the brutality of its action. Heads and other body parts are cut or blown completely off and the body count is astronomical. (I found it amusing that to save a small country; half of its population had to be decimated.) Second, the characters are not very developed. The good guys have issues, sure, but they are definitely good. The bad guy (an enjoyably sleazy Eric Roberts) is absolutely evil. Who needs complicated characters in a movie like this? And finally, it’s unapologetic. This movie claims to be an action movie and it delivers on that claim.

The only downside of this being a callback to the old action movies is the annoying camerawork at times (no one shot action in the 80’s like people do today, and that’s just unfortunate) and the CG. You kind of lose that nostalgic feeling when you see a spray of CG blood. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind those two decisions. But as I said, they are forgivable.

The Expendables isn’t a masterpiece and it doesn’t pretend to be. This film was supposed to be in the same vein as action classics like Predator and Commando, and aside from some practical deviations, it is. It’s not better than the classics, but it’s certainly refreshing to see a hardcore R-rated action movie in the theatres again. I hope Stallone keeps it up, because, in the spirit of the excess of the 80’s, I want more, more, more.