Author Archives: Daniel Lewis

The Expendables 2 Film Review

Posted on by

Much fuss was made over The Expendables – a balls-out, high-octane, no-nonsense shoot ‘em up that Sylvester Stallone nurtured to the big screen. It was a lot of fun, and pulled together three Goliath’s of the action world (Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis) along with a handful of other action giants, both past and present.  Its success meant that The Expendables 2 was inevitable.

 

Along with the original ‘Expendables’ (Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture and Terry Crews) Stallone has more hired guns in the mix for the second outing. Liam Hemsworth joins the Expendables crew, Jean-Claude Van Damme is on villain duty, and a seventy-something Chuck Norris is thrown in for good measure.

 

Unfortunately, it would seem less can indeed sometimes be more.  Whilst the first film seemed like a genuine hark back to something lost; an old-skool actioner with some old-skool actioniers, The Expendables 2 reeks of ‘for-the-hell-of-it’ laziness. The first treated the teaming up of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis as a momentous occasion and played it cool. Their fleeting on-screen trio – the first EVER – was played with a serious hand (as serious as one can expect) with only a slight nod to the audience. Action took the front seat in that film (action and ultra violence, which fans of the 2008 Rambo will attest to).

 

For this reviewer however, The Expendables 2 has lost its trump card and gone for the cobbled-together, self reverential name dropping road and left all the good, old-skool action behind. Don’t get me wrong, there is action. The opening 20 minutes is as good as it gets. But with only a few more exceptions the action is not only not as plentiful as I would have liked but also not as brutal and ridiculously OTT as the first. Jet Li (an undeniable legend) gives a bunch of goons a cooking lesson they won’t forget, but quickly disappears off-screen for the remainder of the film! Statham, it cannot be denied, is a remarkable martial artist and his action sequences are crisp, violent and precise. In fact Statham is also by far the best actor among the Expendable crowd and were it not for him they would be left following Stallone who unfortunately just looks waaaaaaay to old for this sh*t. Schwarzenegger and Willis (the latter of which can also act, but seems to have forgotten) is laughable (not in a good way) and at points cringe worthy.  Every scene with them oozes self parody, with trademark lines being cheapened, hung, drawn and quartered like never before. Oh, and Chuck Norris pops up for no apparent reason and shoots a load of nameless henchmen. Then does the same again later. Fortunately his beard covers the fact that he is also, unfortunately too old for this sh*t. There is also a Chinese woman who is involved in some way, but her acting is so unforgivably bad at times that I wondered if she may have been on work experience. I can’t actually remember what she did in the film except that she was somehow ‘important’ to the story, my brain must have attempted to eradicate her memory from my head.

 

This leaves us with Van Damme. It may come as a surprise to some – although not those who witnessed his performance in JCVD (2008) – but the muscles from Brussels can act. His performance is – along with ‘The Stath’s’ – the best in the film by a country mile. He delivers his lines with natural menace and adds a real villain to an otherwise empty shell of a film. It is thanks to him and Jason Statham that the film is watchable beyond the first 20 minutes. Sure he breaks out the spin-kicks in the show-down but c’mon, there would be uproar were he not to.

 

The Director Simon West (most notable for Con Air in 1997) does his best with the poor script and ludicrous amount of characters to crowbar into the 100+ minutes run time, but it ends up feeling like words, scenes and characters have been shoved into the Lotto’s Lancealot Machine with set of balls number 2 and given a good going over, only to be poured onto the screen like the contents of an un-drained washing machine.

 

Word on the street (the internet street) has it that number 3 has been given a greenlight, with additional names like Harrison Ford and Nicholas Cage being bandied around by publicity types. Whether this will add more gravitas (try not to laugh) to The Expendables 3 or whether or not they are simply yet more names to try to cram inside a 90 minute window with integrity-destroying consequences is yet to be seen.  Thank God the true, un-paralleled master Bruce Lee isn’t alive to be dragged dragon-kicking and screaming into what unfortunately seems to this reviewer to be a sad misfire of an action film-wannabe.

 

P.S – Jackie Chan, please don’t take any calls from Stallone’s agent. I beg you.

Total Recall Film Review

Posted on by

Remake? Reboot? Re-Imagining? Whatever the adjective, this Colin Farrell lead ‘re-doing’ of a Philip K. Dick short story (We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, first published in 1966) has been done before in 1990 with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead and Paul Verhoeven lensing. That film acclaimed cult status. And for good reason.

 

In this Len Wiseman (Die Hard 4.0, Underworld) outing Colin Farrell plays the lead character Douglas Quaid who discovers he may or may not be something other than an ordinary, working class Joe in a late 21st century, post chemical-warfare world of multi-stacked urban levels, Minority-Report-esque (also a Dick adaptation) mag-cars and plush, ‘United Federation of Britain’ megalopolises. No expense spared on the visuals, that’s for sure.

 

However. Yes, there was bound to be a however, and for this reviewer it was a big one. The story of Total Recall, We Can Remember It For You….whatever version you are ingesting into your brain-box from whichever medium, benefits from the unknown. The trump card is that you never quite know what is real and what isn’t. At its core the story is about the nature of self. What makes us, us. Our memories? Well what if our memories can be cooked up in a lab, or on a computer with software (or, as the Matrix (1999) showed us, with hard wiring into the brain in a sticky amniotic sack filled with pink lube – more on The Matrix later). Would falsified memories make us still us, or would we be someone else? Unfortunately, if you have seen Paul Verhoeven’s film, you may well know most of these answers already. And that is a real shame. Every ounce of suspense, every scene that hinges on the is-he, isn’t-he dynamic, is redundant. We’ve been here before, and quite frankly the gritty charm of Verhoeven’s outing was far more seductive for this reviewer. Everything seems way too familiar…only, not. I heard tell during hype-time that this outing was ‘closer to the source material’. Not a remake, but another go at the short story. Where I heard that I cannot say and whether it was from ‘official’ sources I do not know. Fact is, it isn’t. It’s Arnie’s story all over again with some superficial and aesthetic changes to give the impression (to the impressionable) that this is something new and shiny. There’s no Mars. No mutants. And if I’m painfully honest, no heart. Even the bits that weren’t in the 1990 film were obvious in their outcome from the get-go.

 

What Arnie lacks in acting ability he makes up for in brawn, screen presence and raw charisma. Farrell might not have the brawn (though an action man he can still be) but he has the acting chops. Unfortunately he left them at home for this one. The phrase ‘a phoned-in performance’ doesn’t quite cut it. I think he emailed this one direct to Wiseman. Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale give it their all. This reviewer got the distinct impression that whilst they were doing their best in a BIG, big-screen performance, Farrell – who let’s be honest is an established, A-List actor at the top of his game – didn’t have much investment in the character and was probably paid a bottomless pit of cold, hard cash for the role.

 

The familiarity with this film didn’t stop at the story either. There were scenes which far too closely resembled Blade Runner, Minority Report (both possibly forgiven as the source material for both was also Philip K. Dick) Star Wars: Episode 2, Escape From New York, The Matrix….to name a few. Even the (few) scenes exploring the philosophy of self which came so effortlessly to Verhoeven’s 1990 film seemed lifted straight from Morpheus’ mouth from The Matrix.

It was a spectacle for sure, but that’s a given in this day and age. Worth a watch? Perhaps. It’s difficult not to draw parallels to the original film, I wish it were. I had hoped this would be a fresh take on the story which stood alone as a worthy interpretation of Dick’s 1966 short. The visuals certainly gave that impression, but that really is where the differences end. Similarities must be drawn, because quite frankly it seemed to be a rehash of the same story. Which begs the question, why make it at all?? (Oh yeah, vast box office takings……silly me).