Coming off the heels of the Oscar winning No Country For Old Men, the Coens shot the relatively low key movie A Serious Man. So where to next? In a surprise move, they announced that their next movie would be an update of the Charles Portis novel TRUE GRIT. Filmed once before, it was an Oscar winning role for the legendary John Wayne, and is rightly revered as a classic. So the Coens have a lot to live up to.
The first trailer was released in the last few days, and it looks gorgeous. If you want a modern day actor who is big enough to fill 'The Duke's' boots, then you need to look no further than 'The Dude' Jeff Bridges. And when you round out your cast with Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, you know you're onto a winner. Check it out. Looking forward to Oscar season this year......
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Friday, 24 September 2010
SUPERMAN REBOOT - Who's your choice to direct?
It's no great secret that Warner Bros. are forever trying to get another Superman movie going. Buoyed by the success of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, and the all round general explosion of comic book movies, they seem determined to get the 'Original Superhero'(tm) to the front and centre. Superman Returns (2006) was supposed to be the triumphant return. But die hard fans were left disappointed by a lack of action, a jealous and soul searching hero as well as the idea to give Superman and Lois Lane a son.
Now I'm no Superman expert. In fact, I've read very few of the comics due to the fact I'm much more of a Batman fan. Batman is somewhat based on reality. The idea of a dark avenger, with limitless resources and uber-smarts, has always seemed more plausible to me than an alien landing from outer space proving to be the saviour of humanity. But I quite enjoyed Superman Returns. It was not the bomb that was widely reported. In fact, it made in excess of $300 million dollars worldwide. Warner Bros. though were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings type numbers and it was back to the drawing board.
Fast forward a few years and one exceptionally awesome Dark Knight movie later, and suddenly its all go again. Warner Bros. officially announced that they have turned to Christopher Nolan to 'godfather' (a term Nolan himself dislikes) a new Superman movie. He and David Goyer (storywriter of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) have come up with a story, and a new direction for the Man of Steel. Nolan is also responsible for handpicking a Director to oversee production on a new Superman movie.
Nolan has remained tight lipped as to potential choices, but has ruled himself out due to his responsibilities to the Batman franchise. He has been too busy promoting a personal little movie called Inception, maybe you've seen it? But in the last few days, a list of potential directors has emerged. This is by no means official, but let's look at the names.
1) Tony Scott.
Accomplished, veteran action director. Tony Scott has directed such flashy classics as Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire and without a doubt his best work, The Last Boy Scout. There's no doubt his action pedigree, but for me this would not be a good choice. For one, his movies have always taken place in reality. He has showed no science fiction leanings, nor an interest in comic book movies. I think his quick editing, flash cuts would seriously undermine the action as well, and his movies are about as deep as a puddle. However, there is no doubt it would be entertaining as a spectacle, and would probably be more fun that Bryan Singer's versions. Can't help but think that his brother might be a better choice............
2) Matt Reeves.
Or Mr. Cloverfield to you and me. Look, I'm not going to bag on Cloverfield. It was a victim of maybe having too good an advertising plan, of being a bit too clever for itself in the run up to its release. It's mysterious trailer before Transformers, JJ Abrams involvement and was only referred to as 1-18-08 right up until it hit movie theatres. But I have watched it several times and have never failed to be entertained. He is currently working on Let Me In, a totally unnecessary American remake of one of the best foreign movies of the last few years, Let The Right One In. Until that hits, I don't think Cloverfield would be a strong enough reason to hand over a multi-million dollar franchise to him, and therefore think he is one of the least likely contenders.
3) Jonathan Liebesman
Another relative unknown, Liebesman has been responsible for The Killing Room, and the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. His upcoming Battle: Los Angeles shows a lot of promise, and he has already been earmarked for the Clash of the Titans follow up. I must admit, that Chainsaw Massacre aside, I have very little experience with his style and storytelling abilities. Massacre was good for what it was, and while it didn't match the intensity and grittiness of the original, it never disgraced itself either. In that sense, at least he shows that he has respect for whatever source material is available. But I think with his commitment to Clash 2 already in place, and Warners hoping to get moving on the Superman reboot, that he will be an unlikely choice.
4) Duncan Jones.
I'm a big fan of Moon. I think that finding originality in Science Fiction is so difficult these days. From Lovecraft to Philip K. Dick, from Aliens to Halo, almost every base has been covered. But with Moon, it was a film I couldn't readily equate to any other. Pushed, the movie it would remind of most would be The Shining, in terms of the loneliness, the dread and building atmosphere. He is currently working on another Sci-fi project called Source Code, due for release next year. Clearly, this is a genre he is comfortable in, and therefore seems like he would be a good choice. He has tons of experience directing commercials and has hand picked his film projects, rather than just direct anything to get experience. The advance word on Source Code is extremely positive, and this may be what tips favour in his direction. Out of the contenders mentioned, this would be my choice.
5) Zack Snyder.
And so we come to the love him or hate him selection of the contenders. I'm a fan. I think the Dawn of the Dead update was a template that any up and coming director should follow when it comes to updating a classic (though personally I'd like to see Hollywood leave the classics of yesteryear alone, but let's face it, that's not gonna happen). 300 was then a good follow up, if not the be all and end all that some proclaimed it to be. Snyder was then the man to finally tackle Watchmen, and last ten minutes aside, I think did a wonderful job. I'm not a strict fanboy and therefore changing the ending isn't what irked me. It was changing it to one that didn't make sense. If Dr Manhattan was a weapon that the US were hiding behind, and he disappeared, do you not think rival countries would be rubbing their hands together that the US would be in a weakened state? I don't think the world would have united like they did when a giant space octopus was brought to earth. But anyway I digress. Snyder's upcoming film Sucker Punch looks batshit crazy, and endlessly inventive. But what the hell is it all about? Maybe the execs at Warner Bros. have liked what they have seen? I think of all the directors mention, Snyder is the most likely. His movies are fun, gorgeous to look at and he has a comic book history with 300 and Watchmen. I would not be disappointed if he got the nod.
So there you have it. But you never know, Nolan is a master in misdirection and perhaps none of these names are being considered. It's been rumoured that there will be a couple of massive announcements in the coming weeks, regarding the future of the Batman and Superman movies. And while I'm excited about Superman, as long as Nolan commits to Batman 3 (or Gotham City as its rumoured title goes), then I'll be happier than a nymphomaniac in a brothel.
One things for sure though, whoever takes the reins, will have the weight of the world's expectation on their shoulders...........
Who would you guys choose? Or are there any other Directors you think should be considered? Please just don't say Kevin Smith......
Until next time.........
Now I'm no Superman expert. In fact, I've read very few of the comics due to the fact I'm much more of a Batman fan. Batman is somewhat based on reality. The idea of a dark avenger, with limitless resources and uber-smarts, has always seemed more plausible to me than an alien landing from outer space proving to be the saviour of humanity. But I quite enjoyed Superman Returns. It was not the bomb that was widely reported. In fact, it made in excess of $300 million dollars worldwide. Warner Bros. though were expecting Titanic or Lord of the Rings type numbers and it was back to the drawing board.
Fast forward a few years and one exceptionally awesome Dark Knight movie later, and suddenly its all go again. Warner Bros. officially announced that they have turned to Christopher Nolan to 'godfather' (a term Nolan himself dislikes) a new Superman movie. He and David Goyer (storywriter of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) have come up with a story, and a new direction for the Man of Steel. Nolan is also responsible for handpicking a Director to oversee production on a new Superman movie.
Nolan has remained tight lipped as to potential choices, but has ruled himself out due to his responsibilities to the Batman franchise. He has been too busy promoting a personal little movie called Inception, maybe you've seen it? But in the last few days, a list of potential directors has emerged. This is by no means official, but let's look at the names.
1) Tony Scott.
Accomplished, veteran action director. Tony Scott has directed such flashy classics as Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire and without a doubt his best work, The Last Boy Scout. There's no doubt his action pedigree, but for me this would not be a good choice. For one, his movies have always taken place in reality. He has showed no science fiction leanings, nor an interest in comic book movies. I think his quick editing, flash cuts would seriously undermine the action as well, and his movies are about as deep as a puddle. However, there is no doubt it would be entertaining as a spectacle, and would probably be more fun that Bryan Singer's versions. Can't help but think that his brother might be a better choice............
2) Matt Reeves.
Or Mr. Cloverfield to you and me. Look, I'm not going to bag on Cloverfield. It was a victim of maybe having too good an advertising plan, of being a bit too clever for itself in the run up to its release. It's mysterious trailer before Transformers, JJ Abrams involvement and was only referred to as 1-18-08 right up until it hit movie theatres. But I have watched it several times and have never failed to be entertained. He is currently working on Let Me In, a totally unnecessary American remake of one of the best foreign movies of the last few years, Let The Right One In. Until that hits, I don't think Cloverfield would be a strong enough reason to hand over a multi-million dollar franchise to him, and therefore think he is one of the least likely contenders.
3) Jonathan Liebesman
Another relative unknown, Liebesman has been responsible for The Killing Room, and the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. His upcoming Battle: Los Angeles shows a lot of promise, and he has already been earmarked for the Clash of the Titans follow up. I must admit, that Chainsaw Massacre aside, I have very little experience with his style and storytelling abilities. Massacre was good for what it was, and while it didn't match the intensity and grittiness of the original, it never disgraced itself either. In that sense, at least he shows that he has respect for whatever source material is available. But I think with his commitment to Clash 2 already in place, and Warners hoping to get moving on the Superman reboot, that he will be an unlikely choice.
4) Duncan Jones.
I'm a big fan of Moon. I think that finding originality in Science Fiction is so difficult these days. From Lovecraft to Philip K. Dick, from Aliens to Halo, almost every base has been covered. But with Moon, it was a film I couldn't readily equate to any other. Pushed, the movie it would remind of most would be The Shining, in terms of the loneliness, the dread and building atmosphere. He is currently working on another Sci-fi project called Source Code, due for release next year. Clearly, this is a genre he is comfortable in, and therefore seems like he would be a good choice. He has tons of experience directing commercials and has hand picked his film projects, rather than just direct anything to get experience. The advance word on Source Code is extremely positive, and this may be what tips favour in his direction. Out of the contenders mentioned, this would be my choice.
5) Zack Snyder.
And so we come to the love him or hate him selection of the contenders. I'm a fan. I think the Dawn of the Dead update was a template that any up and coming director should follow when it comes to updating a classic (though personally I'd like to see Hollywood leave the classics of yesteryear alone, but let's face it, that's not gonna happen). 300 was then a good follow up, if not the be all and end all that some proclaimed it to be. Snyder was then the man to finally tackle Watchmen, and last ten minutes aside, I think did a wonderful job. I'm not a strict fanboy and therefore changing the ending isn't what irked me. It was changing it to one that didn't make sense. If Dr Manhattan was a weapon that the US were hiding behind, and he disappeared, do you not think rival countries would be rubbing their hands together that the US would be in a weakened state? I don't think the world would have united like they did when a giant space octopus was brought to earth. But anyway I digress. Snyder's upcoming film Sucker Punch looks batshit crazy, and endlessly inventive. But what the hell is it all about? Maybe the execs at Warner Bros. have liked what they have seen? I think of all the directors mention, Snyder is the most likely. His movies are fun, gorgeous to look at and he has a comic book history with 300 and Watchmen. I would not be disappointed if he got the nod.
So there you have it. But you never know, Nolan is a master in misdirection and perhaps none of these names are being considered. It's been rumoured that there will be a couple of massive announcements in the coming weeks, regarding the future of the Batman and Superman movies. And while I'm excited about Superman, as long as Nolan commits to Batman 3 (or Gotham City as its rumoured title goes), then I'll be happier than a nymphomaniac in a brothel.
One things for sure though, whoever takes the reins, will have the weight of the world's expectation on their shoulders...........
Who would you guys choose? Or are there any other Directors you think should be considered? Please just don't say Kevin Smith......
Until next time.........
Thursday, 23 September 2010
KNIGHT AND DAY - The most fun movie of the summer?
It's a bit weird to describe a film starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz as something of a sleeper. But in a summer filled with mind bending films, super hero capers and testosterone action movies, that's exactly what it is. Knight and Day, directed by James Mangold of Copland and Walk The Line Fame, flew in under the radar. A globe trotting spy caper, it may just be the most flat out enjoyable movie of the summer. This is not a great piece of art, nor will it change your outlook in life, but it is ridiculously entertaining.
The story follow June Haven, a thirty-something mechanic shop owner. About to board a flight home to her sister's wedding, she bumps into the mysterious Roy Millar. After a brief flirtation on the plane, she returns from the bathroom to find everyone on the flight dead by Roy's hand. He claims self-defense and is able to safely land the plane. On the ground, Roy tells her that some people are going to come after her and tell her stories of how he is a mentally deranged spy. Of course, he tells her that this will all be lies, and assures her that he will look after her.
What follows is a plot that takes our protagonists worldwide, from Sevilla to Austria, aboard the Orient Express to the streets of Boston. What this movie is clearly aiming for is a modern day Hitchcock spy caper. Tom Cruise is in the Cary Grant role, and Cameron Diaz fills Eva Marie Saint's shoes. Whilst this is not on the level of North by Northwest (though what is?), what it does, it does very well.
The action scenes are imaginative and varied. From fistfights on a plane, to a shootout in a safehouse. From a knife fight in the kitchen of the Orient Express to a car chase during a bullfight in Sevilla. The best thing about this movie is that it has a sense of fun. It doesn't take itself seriously and that's what I think sets it apart in a summer filled with angst, guilt, themes of loss and trying too hard to be cool. The film has comedic moments, and always has a nudge and a wink at the audience.
With regards to the cast I think they do a great job. Tom Cruise seems to be a love him or loathe him kind of actor, but I'm personally a fan. After all of his success in the 80's and early 90's, it would have been easy for him to follow an easy route and churn out charming rom-coms and coming of age tales. Instead he opted for challenging movies such as Magnolia, Vanilla Sky, Collateral and Born on the Fourth of July. This is by no means a role that stretches him, but it does demonstrate why he is a movie star. Cameron Diaz is clearly having a lot of fun as well. The two share great chemistry, no doubt a by-product of having worked together before in Vanilla Sky.
A quick word on the cinematography. As I say, this is a movie that supports a globe trotting plot, and the locations are cool. It really makes you want to jump on a plane and head out to Europe for a few weeks of R&R. The life of a movie star eh?
Overall, this was a thoroughly fun and entertaining way to pass two hours. When the blu-ray arrives I will definitely pick it up. In a summer that has contained such disappointments as Salt and Scott Pilgrim, this old school style of moviemaking feels like a breath of fresh air.
Until next time.......
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Looking forward to RED....
I like to post trailers on my blog, show the films that I'm looking forward to in the coming months. The latest one to catch my eye is RED (or Retired, Extremely, Dangerous). Based on a graphic novel (aren't 50% of movies these days?), this stands out for me because of the cool cast. Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren? All trained former agents? All showing how to kick ass old school style? I'm sold. It looks like they're having a lot of fun with this. I only hope the trailer doesn't show too much of the cool stuff. The shot of Bruce exiting a moving car and pulling out a gun is high level bad-assery. Looking forward to this.....
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Why KICK-ASS kicks ass.....
I'm not usually one to pay full price for a blu ray. I think they are still too expensive and have been quietly building my collection through sales and 2 for £18 deals. This week I made an exception. Before either were released, I had grouped together KICK ASS and SCOTT PILGRIM into the same category in my mind. Both were based on graphic novels, both were from hip, rising British directors, and based on the trailers, as much as I was looking forward to them, I thought they might both be trying too hard to be cool. I saw Kick Ass in the cinema, and I enjoyed it. I saw Scott Pilgrim in the cinema, and well....you know my thoughts on that.
Kick Ass came out on blu ray, and to be honest, I thought I would wait and pick it up on the cheap, but Dom Cobb and his team must have infiltrated my mind and planted the idea that I should buy it, because for a few days there, there was no other movie I wanted to watch. So I caved (well actually Emma grabbed it for me when she was in town, might not have given her the money for it yet........), and settled down to watch it the other night.
I was not disappointed. From the opening, which sets perfectly the tone of this movie, where a guy tries to fly from the top of a tall building and subsequently falls to his death, to the opening bars of 'Stand Up' by The Prodigy, I knew I was going to have a good time with this movie.
The story concerns Dave Lizewski, an unremarkable yet not too much of a loser, teenager. A self confessed comic book geek, he and his friends like to shoot the shit about comics, their place in the world and their importance. Dave gets the idea in his head (that Dom Cobb does get around) that someone should try to be a real life superhero. He reasons that you don't have to have superpowers, just the right amount of determination and balls to help people who are in need, whether it be someone who is getting beat up or helping someone find their lost cat.
When he saves a guy, the incident is filmed and of course, put on the internet. It quickly becomes the most viewed video on youtube, and Kick Ass has become something of a celebritiy. This does not go down well with a local gangster Frank D'Amico, who wants rid of him. Obviously Kick Ass is not the strongest guy in the world, and Frank could easily crush him at any time. Luckily, help comes in the form of Big Daddy and Hit Girl, a father and daughter who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of scum. And they have their own unique way of doing it.
Coming from Matthew Vaughn, the producer behind Guy Ritchie's good movies (Lock, Stock and Snatch), it's no surprise to see that this movie has it's fair share of dark humour, colourful language and over the top the violence. What is surprising, is that it all blends perfectly. And that is down in no small part to his secret weapon, Hit Girl.
Hit Girl is a twelve year old mini assassin, that would give James Bond and Jason Bourne a run for their money. She would certainly beat them in a swearing contest, and it'll never cease to be funny to hear a 12 year old girl utter the word 'cunt' (sue me, I'm immature!). But what really makes this character stand out is that she has the moves to back up the language. I think I counted that she had killed over 25 people by the movies end, and nearly every kill is different. She is definitely versatile.
But Hit Girl is not the only reason this movie works. It works because the characters are likable and their problems are relatable. This was always my main gripe with SCOTT PILGRIM. There was never anything approaching an interesting or likable character. Here, they are plentiful. From Dave's best friends, to Chris D'Amico, to Dave himself, and Big Daddy, these are all interesting characters with their own motivations and goals.
And then we come to the action. This movie is always entertaining to watch because the action sequences are awesome. From Big Daddy taking out a warehouse full of guys captured on Nanny cam (it'll make sense I promise), to Hit Girl and Kick Ass's assault on Chris D'Amico's penthouse, the film constantly mixes it up and the action never feels repetitive. It has rocket launchers, night vision goggles, throwing blades and even a jet pack put to use. This is what we all want to see in a movie like this.
A word about the blu ray. The transfer is really crisp, the sound clear as a bell (very important given the great soundtrack) and the extras are extensive and entertaining (I especially liked listening to Matthew Vaughn's commentary where he calls the movie Kick-Arse. Can you tell he's from London?).
The film is not perfect. There are one or two jokes that fall flat, and also Nic Cage's Adam West impression does grate after a while. But these are small issues when compared to everything that does work. The film can frequently be laugh out loud funny, full of 'holy shit!' action scenes and has great potential to be a franchise. And not one that relies on action figures or happy meals to keep going.
Just one last thought. There are scenes where guys are stabbed in the throat, or their leg is sliced right off, or they are made to shoot themselves, and you can't help but laugh. But as soon as someone gets a knuckleduster to the face, you can't help but grimace. How does that work?
Overall, highly recommended, and I might even consider giving Emma the money for it. Well, we'll see. Until next time..........
Kick Ass came out on blu ray, and to be honest, I thought I would wait and pick it up on the cheap, but Dom Cobb and his team must have infiltrated my mind and planted the idea that I should buy it, because for a few days there, there was no other movie I wanted to watch. So I caved (well actually Emma grabbed it for me when she was in town, might not have given her the money for it yet........), and settled down to watch it the other night.
I was not disappointed. From the opening, which sets perfectly the tone of this movie, where a guy tries to fly from the top of a tall building and subsequently falls to his death, to the opening bars of 'Stand Up' by The Prodigy, I knew I was going to have a good time with this movie.
The story concerns Dave Lizewski, an unremarkable yet not too much of a loser, teenager. A self confessed comic book geek, he and his friends like to shoot the shit about comics, their place in the world and their importance. Dave gets the idea in his head (that Dom Cobb does get around) that someone should try to be a real life superhero. He reasons that you don't have to have superpowers, just the right amount of determination and balls to help people who are in need, whether it be someone who is getting beat up or helping someone find their lost cat.
When he saves a guy, the incident is filmed and of course, put on the internet. It quickly becomes the most viewed video on youtube, and Kick Ass has become something of a celebritiy. This does not go down well with a local gangster Frank D'Amico, who wants rid of him. Obviously Kick Ass is not the strongest guy in the world, and Frank could easily crush him at any time. Luckily, help comes in the form of Big Daddy and Hit Girl, a father and daughter who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of scum. And they have their own unique way of doing it.
Coming from Matthew Vaughn, the producer behind Guy Ritchie's good movies (Lock, Stock and Snatch), it's no surprise to see that this movie has it's fair share of dark humour, colourful language and over the top the violence. What is surprising, is that it all blends perfectly. And that is down in no small part to his secret weapon, Hit Girl.
Hit Girl is a twelve year old mini assassin, that would give James Bond and Jason Bourne a run for their money. She would certainly beat them in a swearing contest, and it'll never cease to be funny to hear a 12 year old girl utter the word 'cunt' (sue me, I'm immature!). But what really makes this character stand out is that she has the moves to back up the language. I think I counted that she had killed over 25 people by the movies end, and nearly every kill is different. She is definitely versatile.
But Hit Girl is not the only reason this movie works. It works because the characters are likable and their problems are relatable. This was always my main gripe with SCOTT PILGRIM. There was never anything approaching an interesting or likable character. Here, they are plentiful. From Dave's best friends, to Chris D'Amico, to Dave himself, and Big Daddy, these are all interesting characters with their own motivations and goals.
And then we come to the action. This movie is always entertaining to watch because the action sequences are awesome. From Big Daddy taking out a warehouse full of guys captured on Nanny cam (it'll make sense I promise), to Hit Girl and Kick Ass's assault on Chris D'Amico's penthouse, the film constantly mixes it up and the action never feels repetitive. It has rocket launchers, night vision goggles, throwing blades and even a jet pack put to use. This is what we all want to see in a movie like this.
A word about the blu ray. The transfer is really crisp, the sound clear as a bell (very important given the great soundtrack) and the extras are extensive and entertaining (I especially liked listening to Matthew Vaughn's commentary where he calls the movie Kick-Arse. Can you tell he's from London?).
The film is not perfect. There are one or two jokes that fall flat, and also Nic Cage's Adam West impression does grate after a while. But these are small issues when compared to everything that does work. The film can frequently be laugh out loud funny, full of 'holy shit!' action scenes and has great potential to be a franchise. And not one that relies on action figures or happy meals to keep going.
Just one last thought. There are scenes where guys are stabbed in the throat, or their leg is sliced right off, or they are made to shoot themselves, and you can't help but laugh. But as soon as someone gets a knuckleduster to the face, you can't help but grimace. How does that work?
Overall, highly recommended, and I might even consider giving Emma the money for it. Well, we'll see. Until next time..........
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs The Expendables. My Crazy Tuesday Double Bill.......
Tuesday is the best day to go to the cinema in Belfast. £2.50 a ticket, good crowds and plenty of movies to choose from. Even if you see a bad one, you don't feel ripped off (though Salt did test that theory to the limits). So double bills have become something of a commonplace for me. A few weeks ago it was Inception and The A Team. We all know my ridiculous level of manlust for the first of those movies but The A Team was damn enjoyable as well.
So yesterday it was The Expendables, followed by Scott Pilgrim vs The World.
First up, The Expendables. I've been looking forward to this all summer. As a child of the 80's and early 90's, the idea of an ensemble piece with Sly, Bruce and Arnold was an impossible dream. But here they are, all up on screen, at the same time. Unfortunately, this movie was not made 15 years ago and therefore it was a small scene.
The plot revolves around a group of Mercenaries, who are hired to overthrow an dictator on a small tropical island. And that's it. But that's the whole point of a movie like this. There is no need for a complicated plot, or deep character development. We're here to see these guys blow shit up. And therein lies the problem of The Expendables. If this movie was made 15 years ago, when these guys were all big box office draws, it would have been epic and the budget would have been off the scale. This movie unfortunately seems small budget, with all the action taking place on a small island or mainland America. Even the opening on a ship relies on thermal imagery, and ends up looking like a cut scene from a video game. There is no globe trotting plot, no glamourous locations.
The dialogue at times is cringe-worthy and it actually doesn't make sense. One exchange was 'Who sent you?' Answer 'So does your mom?'. What??? It doesn't even follow the rules of a simple conversation. Again this wouldn't be so much of a problem if it had the humour of something like Commando, but the humour falls flat most of the time. The story of how Randy Couture's character ended up with cauliflower ears was terrible. Sly is much better than this. This is the man who wrote Rocky, Rambo and their various sequels. He knows how to write great dialogue but here the script really struggles.
I also think it's a mistake for a film like this to hire Eric Roberts and Mickey Rourke. These guys are great actors, and they add weight and believability to their characters. Unfortunately, this really shows how limited some of these other guys are. Anytime (Stone Cold) Steve Austin was on screen, trying to exert menace, I couldn't help but laugh. Jet Li's broken English never helps, and he kept telling a story about needing money for his family, and it ultimately went nowhere. Randy Couture was so bad he couldn't even pull off a joke. And Sly is looking old. He's creepily trying to look young with his eyeliner and drawn on 'stylized' goatee. Why? We know he's older than he used to be, but it's his experience that makes him vital. He should be the Clint Eastwood of a film like this, instead of Roger Moore in A View to a Kill.
But enough bitching. When this movie does get going in places, it's awesome. The scene at the docks where Sly and The Stath (also good doing his best Stath impression) are escaping in the plane, only to turn around and 'send a message'. Great stuff. And when the team decide to go back to the island, the last 30 minutes are pure, visceral boy's own action. This is where limited 'actors' such as Stone Cold and Couture prove useful and fun to watch. But to me, there's not enough of this. The film really takes too long to get going when it should start and finish with a bang.
As I alluded to earlier, this movie gives the impression that its budget was small. In addition to this, I'm guessing there must have been some sort of clause that this movie was 15/pg13 rated. There's definitely a better, grittier and bloodier version of this film waiting to be released. Keep an eye out for a 'Director's Cut' on DVD and Blu Ray.
So overall, it was pretty much what I expected, though I can't shake the feeling that it was a missed opportunity. However, I say, bring on The Expendables 2 with JCVD, Wesley Snipes, Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen. So, onto Scott Pilgrim.........
If The Expendables is a throwback to Ye Ol' action movies of yore, I feel that Scott Pilgrim is trying to establish itself as the action movie for the future. It is however, an abject failure. I said afterwards that 'never before has a film been so loud and energetic, yet so ridiculously dull.'
I'll just admit it now. I'm not a huge fan of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz. Spaced, for me, was too busy patting itself on the back for cramming in as many cultural and geeky references as possible, that it was devoid of original ideas or humour. Shaun of the Dead was okay, but hardly great. The fact that it is even mentioned in the same breath as British classics such as Trainspotting, The Italian Job or Lock, Stock is laughable. Hot Fuzz I definitely enjoyed the most of the three, but after watching it once, I have no desire to revisit it again anytime soon.
Scott Pilgrim is a continuation of Spaced. It's so concerned with being as loud as possible, as full of geek references as possible, of being cool, that they forgot to make an interesting movie.
The problem starts with the structure of the movie. Scott has to defeat 7 evil exes. So if he's only on number 2, do you think he'll win? Of course he will, it's all so predictable that every time he faces off against an opponent who is so much stronger and better than he is, that he will emerge victorious.
The film also starts off with this cool, interesting editing style of speeding up and slowing down the action. It throws up subtitles on the screen showing off the characters like they were items in an IKEA catalogue. It shows pee meters being drained when Scott goes to the toilet. That's pretty cool and original. But when they continue this style for a full two hours, it grows tiresome very quickly. The editing style is at home in a 2 minute trailer, but for two hours you'd swear Edgar Wright had gone to the Michael Bay school of editing.
Then there's the characters. Do you really care about any of them? Scott himself, played by Michael Cera, is a selfish, unlikable and stupid person. He is defined as a loser, yet when he is confronted by these super evil exes, he suddenly becomes the most cunning, hardest and most determined person in the world. Character development? Who needs it? Let's just have our characters able to do anything to suit a scene. Ridiculous! Then we have Ramona, the so called 'woman of his dreams'. She's flightly, impulsive and not so nice. She even tells Scott that she's like this, but he just has to accept it. Please, can she be my girlfriend? All of the evil exes were cliched ideas in one way or another.
Another thing. If your movie is going to employ mind bending physics, or slow motion fights, then you, as the director or writer, have to justify it. There's The Matrix, when bullet time is justified by Morpheus saying that in that world you are not able to break the rules, but you can bend them. In Inception, all the action takes place in the dream world, and therefore gravity is manipulated. In Scott Pilgrim it just is. Some scenes take place in a representation of reality, others in a hyper unrealistic computer game world. Is it a dream? Do they have superpowers? Why bother explaing it to the audience in any coherent way? Just accept it.
But they don't just stop at computer game references. There's a three minute scene which starts with the Seinfeld music and the riffs on that show complete with audience laughter and everything. I've never walked out of a movie (and proud to say I still haven't), but that was stretched to breaking point at that moment. Again, let's try to prove how cool we are by throwing in another couple of totally unrelated pop culture references.
So after two of the longest hours of my life, Scott and Ramona ended up together. What a shock! I didn't see that coming at all. Sorry I guess I should have used SPOILER ALERT, but let's be honest, this movie was never going to end in any other way.
Crazy Tuesday double bill will of course continue. I just hope my choices next time are a little better. I guess I still haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, so that's a definite. Anyone with any ideas please comment below.
Until next time.......
So yesterday it was The Expendables, followed by Scott Pilgrim vs The World.
First up, The Expendables. I've been looking forward to this all summer. As a child of the 80's and early 90's, the idea of an ensemble piece with Sly, Bruce and Arnold was an impossible dream. But here they are, all up on screen, at the same time. Unfortunately, this movie was not made 15 years ago and therefore it was a small scene.
The plot revolves around a group of Mercenaries, who are hired to overthrow an dictator on a small tropical island. And that's it. But that's the whole point of a movie like this. There is no need for a complicated plot, or deep character development. We're here to see these guys blow shit up. And therein lies the problem of The Expendables. If this movie was made 15 years ago, when these guys were all big box office draws, it would have been epic and the budget would have been off the scale. This movie unfortunately seems small budget, with all the action taking place on a small island or mainland America. Even the opening on a ship relies on thermal imagery, and ends up looking like a cut scene from a video game. There is no globe trotting plot, no glamourous locations.
The dialogue at times is cringe-worthy and it actually doesn't make sense. One exchange was 'Who sent you?' Answer 'So does your mom?'. What??? It doesn't even follow the rules of a simple conversation. Again this wouldn't be so much of a problem if it had the humour of something like Commando, but the humour falls flat most of the time. The story of how Randy Couture's character ended up with cauliflower ears was terrible. Sly is much better than this. This is the man who wrote Rocky, Rambo and their various sequels. He knows how to write great dialogue but here the script really struggles.
I also think it's a mistake for a film like this to hire Eric Roberts and Mickey Rourke. These guys are great actors, and they add weight and believability to their characters. Unfortunately, this really shows how limited some of these other guys are. Anytime (Stone Cold) Steve Austin was on screen, trying to exert menace, I couldn't help but laugh. Jet Li's broken English never helps, and he kept telling a story about needing money for his family, and it ultimately went nowhere. Randy Couture was so bad he couldn't even pull off a joke. And Sly is looking old. He's creepily trying to look young with his eyeliner and drawn on 'stylized' goatee. Why? We know he's older than he used to be, but it's his experience that makes him vital. He should be the Clint Eastwood of a film like this, instead of Roger Moore in A View to a Kill.
But enough bitching. When this movie does get going in places, it's awesome. The scene at the docks where Sly and The Stath (also good doing his best Stath impression) are escaping in the plane, only to turn around and 'send a message'. Great stuff. And when the team decide to go back to the island, the last 30 minutes are pure, visceral boy's own action. This is where limited 'actors' such as Stone Cold and Couture prove useful and fun to watch. But to me, there's not enough of this. The film really takes too long to get going when it should start and finish with a bang.
As I alluded to earlier, this movie gives the impression that its budget was small. In addition to this, I'm guessing there must have been some sort of clause that this movie was 15/pg13 rated. There's definitely a better, grittier and bloodier version of this film waiting to be released. Keep an eye out for a 'Director's Cut' on DVD and Blu Ray.
So overall, it was pretty much what I expected, though I can't shake the feeling that it was a missed opportunity. However, I say, bring on The Expendables 2 with JCVD, Wesley Snipes, Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen. So, onto Scott Pilgrim.........
If The Expendables is a throwback to Ye Ol' action movies of yore, I feel that Scott Pilgrim is trying to establish itself as the action movie for the future. It is however, an abject failure. I said afterwards that 'never before has a film been so loud and energetic, yet so ridiculously dull.'
I'll just admit it now. I'm not a huge fan of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz. Spaced, for me, was too busy patting itself on the back for cramming in as many cultural and geeky references as possible, that it was devoid of original ideas or humour. Shaun of the Dead was okay, but hardly great. The fact that it is even mentioned in the same breath as British classics such as Trainspotting, The Italian Job or Lock, Stock is laughable. Hot Fuzz I definitely enjoyed the most of the three, but after watching it once, I have no desire to revisit it again anytime soon.
Scott Pilgrim is a continuation of Spaced. It's so concerned with being as loud as possible, as full of geek references as possible, of being cool, that they forgot to make an interesting movie.
The problem starts with the structure of the movie. Scott has to defeat 7 evil exes. So if he's only on number 2, do you think he'll win? Of course he will, it's all so predictable that every time he faces off against an opponent who is so much stronger and better than he is, that he will emerge victorious.
The film also starts off with this cool, interesting editing style of speeding up and slowing down the action. It throws up subtitles on the screen showing off the characters like they were items in an IKEA catalogue. It shows pee meters being drained when Scott goes to the toilet. That's pretty cool and original. But when they continue this style for a full two hours, it grows tiresome very quickly. The editing style is at home in a 2 minute trailer, but for two hours you'd swear Edgar Wright had gone to the Michael Bay school of editing.
Then there's the characters. Do you really care about any of them? Scott himself, played by Michael Cera, is a selfish, unlikable and stupid person. He is defined as a loser, yet when he is confronted by these super evil exes, he suddenly becomes the most cunning, hardest and most determined person in the world. Character development? Who needs it? Let's just have our characters able to do anything to suit a scene. Ridiculous! Then we have Ramona, the so called 'woman of his dreams'. She's flightly, impulsive and not so nice. She even tells Scott that she's like this, but he just has to accept it. Please, can she be my girlfriend? All of the evil exes were cliched ideas in one way or another.
Another thing. If your movie is going to employ mind bending physics, or slow motion fights, then you, as the director or writer, have to justify it. There's The Matrix, when bullet time is justified by Morpheus saying that in that world you are not able to break the rules, but you can bend them. In Inception, all the action takes place in the dream world, and therefore gravity is manipulated. In Scott Pilgrim it just is. Some scenes take place in a representation of reality, others in a hyper unrealistic computer game world. Is it a dream? Do they have superpowers? Why bother explaing it to the audience in any coherent way? Just accept it.
But they don't just stop at computer game references. There's a three minute scene which starts with the Seinfeld music and the riffs on that show complete with audience laughter and everything. I've never walked out of a movie (and proud to say I still haven't), but that was stretched to breaking point at that moment. Again, let's try to prove how cool we are by throwing in another couple of totally unrelated pop culture references.
So after two of the longest hours of my life, Scott and Ramona ended up together. What a shock! I didn't see that coming at all. Sorry I guess I should have used SPOILER ALERT, but let's be honest, this movie was never going to end in any other way.
Crazy Tuesday double bill will of course continue. I just hope my choices next time are a little better. I guess I still haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, so that's a definite. Anyone with any ideas please comment below.
Until next time.......
Saturday, 4 September 2010
'No one kills me, until I say so' - Jacques Mesrine
Now that's pronounced 'May-reen' not 'Mes-rine'. This is something that Jacques Mesrine is very clear about, correcting various people throughout the course of two movies and four and a half hours of his life story. Both movies begin with a very fitting quote. 'All movies are part fiction. No movie can accurately portray the complexity of human life'. It's almost a disclaimer, a slight of hand that tells you not to believe everything that happens is true, it couldn't possibly be. And this fact alone sums up the man of Jacques Mesrine.
I'm always wary of films that start with the story's conclusion. I think sometimes it can be used effectively. Take American Beauty for example, it's just a simple line 'My name is Lester Burnham, and in one year I will be dead'. This is effective as it sets up the mystery of why will he be dead? And also what did he do in that last year that led to his death? How will he lead the last year of his life. On the flipside, we have something like Mission:Impossible 3. It starts out with Ethan Hunt tied up, being told by the villain Owen Davian, that he has to the count of 10 to tell him where the rabbit's foot is, or he will kill his wife. There's nothing wrong with the scene itself. In fact it is very tense, well written and well acted. My problem comes from the fact that movies like these depend on the suspense of what will happen to the main character? How much danger is he in? How will he ever get out of this? Bearing all this in mind, if you know the character survives to this pivotal scene then all of the suspense is drained out of the film.
With a story like Mesrine, bearing in mind that it's based on fact, and you realize the extravagance of his character, there really is only one logical way it can end. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Split into two films - Killer Instinct and Public Enemy Number One, the story of Mesrine begins when he is in the Army. It is during the conflict between France and Algeria in the 1960's, and he is a low level foot soldier. He does however show his ruthless streak when he is told by his superior to kill a woman in front of her brother, in a bid to learn the location of bombs planted by the Algerians. However, he shoots the brother instead, letting the woman live, and thus showing despite his ruthlessness, he has his own moral code.
The Algerian wars come to an end, and he goes back to Paris to live with his parents. It is here that his downward spiral begins. Catching up with his old friend Paul, he is seduced by the dark side of Paris - the prostitution, the booze, the gangsters. He forges a relationship with Guido, a gangster boss who rules the underworld of Paris. When an Arab immigrant pimp roughs up one of the girls Mesrine has been seeing, he takes it upon himself to teach the Arab some manners. And it is done in his own, ruthless way.
So what follows is the next 15/20 years of his life, as he robs banks, escapes prisons, romances women and lives well. There is no clearly defined start, middle and end, and this is simply due to the fact that the life he lived was so sporadic. One day he'd be buying Mercedes and drinking Cristal, the next he'd be suffering at the hands of the SCU. The next year he'd be escaping from prison and on the run, then he'd be going back to said prison armed to the teeth and trying to get the rest of the inmates out. He lived moment to moment, never in denial that it'll last forever, but in the belief that he'd make it count while he did. And that's what these two films are, a series of moments.
The character of Jacques Mesrine himself in an interesting one. When most people live a life as a gangster, that's what they are an that's the end of it. It's the only life they know. At different times in his life he tried to go straight. He had jobs as diverse as a model maker to a private chauffer. But the life of crime was always there for him and that is what he is good at. Later in his life, robbing banks and escaping prisons was not enough for him. He was turning to life as a revolutionary, planning to overthrow financial institutions and governments.
I'm looking forward to watching these movies again, as this is a story worth repeating. In fact, when watching the second film, it comes to light that Part 1 - Killer Instinct, was based on a book Mesrine wrote whilst in prison. I think I'll delve deeper into his story by reading his book.
I asked in an earlier post was this the French Scarface? I would say while not as good a movie as the Al Pacino classic, it is a more interesting story. Fact is often more interesting than fiction....
I'm always wary of films that start with the story's conclusion. I think sometimes it can be used effectively. Take American Beauty for example, it's just a simple line 'My name is Lester Burnham, and in one year I will be dead'. This is effective as it sets up the mystery of why will he be dead? And also what did he do in that last year that led to his death? How will he lead the last year of his life. On the flipside, we have something like Mission:Impossible 3. It starts out with Ethan Hunt tied up, being told by the villain Owen Davian, that he has to the count of 10 to tell him where the rabbit's foot is, or he will kill his wife. There's nothing wrong with the scene itself. In fact it is very tense, well written and well acted. My problem comes from the fact that movies like these depend on the suspense of what will happen to the main character? How much danger is he in? How will he ever get out of this? Bearing all this in mind, if you know the character survives to this pivotal scene then all of the suspense is drained out of the film.
With a story like Mesrine, bearing in mind that it's based on fact, and you realize the extravagance of his character, there really is only one logical way it can end. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Split into two films - Killer Instinct and Public Enemy Number One, the story of Mesrine begins when he is in the Army. It is during the conflict between France and Algeria in the 1960's, and he is a low level foot soldier. He does however show his ruthless streak when he is told by his superior to kill a woman in front of her brother, in a bid to learn the location of bombs planted by the Algerians. However, he shoots the brother instead, letting the woman live, and thus showing despite his ruthlessness, he has his own moral code.
The Algerian wars come to an end, and he goes back to Paris to live with his parents. It is here that his downward spiral begins. Catching up with his old friend Paul, he is seduced by the dark side of Paris - the prostitution, the booze, the gangsters. He forges a relationship with Guido, a gangster boss who rules the underworld of Paris. When an Arab immigrant pimp roughs up one of the girls Mesrine has been seeing, he takes it upon himself to teach the Arab some manners. And it is done in his own, ruthless way.
So what follows is the next 15/20 years of his life, as he robs banks, escapes prisons, romances women and lives well. There is no clearly defined start, middle and end, and this is simply due to the fact that the life he lived was so sporadic. One day he'd be buying Mercedes and drinking Cristal, the next he'd be suffering at the hands of the SCU. The next year he'd be escaping from prison and on the run, then he'd be going back to said prison armed to the teeth and trying to get the rest of the inmates out. He lived moment to moment, never in denial that it'll last forever, but in the belief that he'd make it count while he did. And that's what these two films are, a series of moments.
The character of Jacques Mesrine himself in an interesting one. When most people live a life as a gangster, that's what they are an that's the end of it. It's the only life they know. At different times in his life he tried to go straight. He had jobs as diverse as a model maker to a private chauffer. But the life of crime was always there for him and that is what he is good at. Later in his life, robbing banks and escaping prisons was not enough for him. He was turning to life as a revolutionary, planning to overthrow financial institutions and governments.
I'm looking forward to watching these movies again, as this is a story worth repeating. In fact, when watching the second film, it comes to light that Part 1 - Killer Instinct, was based on a book Mesrine wrote whilst in prison. I think I'll delve deeper into his story by reading his book.
I asked in an earlier post was this the French Scarface? I would say while not as good a movie as the Al Pacino classic, it is a more interesting story. Fact is often more interesting than fiction....
Thursday, 2 September 2010
The French Scarface? I'll soon know.....
I've bought quite a few Blu Rays recently. A couple of classics (Psycho and Casablanca), a couple of bargains (JCVD for £4, and Night Watch for £6) and a few newer releases (Shutter Island). But having just caught the above trailer for the imminent US release of Mesrine, I remembered I'd bought it in the middle of my splurge, and I'm off to watch it.
Anyone already seen it? Leave your comments below. If it strikes a chord (or even if it doesn't), expect my two cent review on it in the coming days.
JCVD - Legend....
If like me, you were a child of the 80's and 90's, it would have been impossible to get into movies, without watching the films of 'The Muscles From Brussels'. Bloodsport, Kickboxer, AWOL, Cyborg, Double Impact, Death Warrant - these were all big hits on the burgeoning home video scene. Low on plot, but high on cool karate and charismatic characters, they were an essential part of any movie education. Then Hollywood came calling.
Starting out with Universal Soldier, Van Damme was being tailored for the big screen. Executives seeing him as a smaller but more flexible version of Arnie. Here was a karate champion, someone who could do all his own stunts, but had already proven that his name could sell a movie in the home market. UniSol (don't movie executives love shortened versions of movie titles?) performed well, and so it was onto his next project - bringing John Woo to Hollywood. Hard Target was the result of their collaboration. For me, this is a ridiculously underrated movie. Effectively a modern western, it traded on the theme of man being the toughest prey. There were kick ass karate sequences, cool slow-mo car chases and pigeons aplenty. It had all the hallmarks of a John Woo classic, yet it did not exactly pack them in at the movie theatres. However it did take almost $40,000,000 domestically against an $18,000,000 budget, so while it wasn't the hit they had hoped for, it was onto the next project for Van Damme.
That next project turned out to be Timecop. An adaptation of a graphic novel long before they were fashionable, it concerned Gabe Walker, a cop who is able to travel through time. Unfortunately, it's not just cops who have access to this technology, and therefore time itself has to be protected. This was bigger in every way than Hard Target, a full $10,000,000 higher budget, special effects, futuristic sets and vehicles. This was the movie where Van Damme was to have arrived. Again, it did not perform as well as expected, though it did make $44,000,000 domestically. Whilst not at an accelerated rate, Van Damme's audience and appeal was growing.
At this point, I'm going to ignore Street Fighter. Without a doubt the worst film in Van Damme's catalogue (though Derailed does run it close), it broke even, just about making its budget back.
So it was time for Hollywood to throw their entire weight behind Van Damme, leading to his biggest theatrical release in Sudden Death. In it he plays a fireman who, after a traumatic day where he loses a little girl in the middle of a rescue, has chosen to lead a quieter life as a fire marshall at a sports arena. Said sports arena is then taken over by terrorists, as they hold the vice-president hostage and demand a huge ransom. So in other words, it's Die Hard in a sports arena. It had a well known actor as the villain (Powers Boothe), a reputable director in Peter Hyams and effective action set pieces. Without doubt the standout of these is where he fights a woman who is dressed up in a Pebguin suit (trust me, it makes sense within the context of the movie!). It was a big hit. Worldwide it more than doubled its budget. Van Damme had truly arrived. Surely the only way was up.
But with the success, brought the temptations. Van Damme slipped into a serious drug habit and became uncontrollable. He entered a month long rehab programme but lasted merely a week. By 1997, he was divorced and the reasons given alluded to abuse of his wife and drug addiction. It was around this time that his movies were no longer released theatrically, and he was seemingly condemned to straight to video hell. This would continue for 10/11 years, with a serious of low budget action films. It was not hard to see that Van Damme was simply working for the paycheck and brought next to nothing to his performances. As well as suffering a creative vacuum, his health was deteriorating by the day. He was diagnosed with rapid cycling bipolar disorder, and had become suicidal.
It was the only unexplored role for Van Damme, that would ultimately be his saviour. He would have to play himself.
Here, at last, was a movie where Van Damme could actually show some emotion. Show that he was more than just high kicks and bad jokes. And it is fantastic. I recently watched this on blu ray for the first time in over a year and it has lost none of its freshness. It is by turns darkly comic, and unflinchingly real. Apparently, Van Damme was wary of parodying himself, and thought the project was a bad idea. It was only when he read the script, and learned that there would be a scene where he would 'break the fourth wall' did he agree to do it. Said scene happens around 2/3 into the movie. Van Damme is raised up to the rafters, and away from the fictional story being told. He addresses the audience and talks about all his mistakes, how Hollywood corrupted him, and how life for him has been by turns both exceptionally hard and exceptionally blessed. It is extremely moving and unflinching, leaving no punches pulled (bad pun I know) and showing Van Damme in his most fragile, human state.
If you have not yet watched JCVD, I highly recommend it. And I challenge you, once it is over, not to be in the mood to watch Bloodsport, or AWOL. I went for Bloodsport myself...........
Starting out with Universal Soldier, Van Damme was being tailored for the big screen. Executives seeing him as a smaller but more flexible version of Arnie. Here was a karate champion, someone who could do all his own stunts, but had already proven that his name could sell a movie in the home market. UniSol (don't movie executives love shortened versions of movie titles?) performed well, and so it was onto his next project - bringing John Woo to Hollywood. Hard Target was the result of their collaboration. For me, this is a ridiculously underrated movie. Effectively a modern western, it traded on the theme of man being the toughest prey. There were kick ass karate sequences, cool slow-mo car chases and pigeons aplenty. It had all the hallmarks of a John Woo classic, yet it did not exactly pack them in at the movie theatres. However it did take almost $40,000,000 domestically against an $18,000,000 budget, so while it wasn't the hit they had hoped for, it was onto the next project for Van Damme.
That next project turned out to be Timecop. An adaptation of a graphic novel long before they were fashionable, it concerned Gabe Walker, a cop who is able to travel through time. Unfortunately, it's not just cops who have access to this technology, and therefore time itself has to be protected. This was bigger in every way than Hard Target, a full $10,000,000 higher budget, special effects, futuristic sets and vehicles. This was the movie where Van Damme was to have arrived. Again, it did not perform as well as expected, though it did make $44,000,000 domestically. Whilst not at an accelerated rate, Van Damme's audience and appeal was growing.
At this point, I'm going to ignore Street Fighter. Without a doubt the worst film in Van Damme's catalogue (though Derailed does run it close), it broke even, just about making its budget back.
So it was time for Hollywood to throw their entire weight behind Van Damme, leading to his biggest theatrical release in Sudden Death. In it he plays a fireman who, after a traumatic day where he loses a little girl in the middle of a rescue, has chosen to lead a quieter life as a fire marshall at a sports arena. Said sports arena is then taken over by terrorists, as they hold the vice-president hostage and demand a huge ransom. So in other words, it's Die Hard in a sports arena. It had a well known actor as the villain (Powers Boothe), a reputable director in Peter Hyams and effective action set pieces. Without doubt the standout of these is where he fights a woman who is dressed up in a Pebguin suit (trust me, it makes sense within the context of the movie!). It was a big hit. Worldwide it more than doubled its budget. Van Damme had truly arrived. Surely the only way was up.
But with the success, brought the temptations. Van Damme slipped into a serious drug habit and became uncontrollable. He entered a month long rehab programme but lasted merely a week. By 1997, he was divorced and the reasons given alluded to abuse of his wife and drug addiction. It was around this time that his movies were no longer released theatrically, and he was seemingly condemned to straight to video hell. This would continue for 10/11 years, with a serious of low budget action films. It was not hard to see that Van Damme was simply working for the paycheck and brought next to nothing to his performances. As well as suffering a creative vacuum, his health was deteriorating by the day. He was diagnosed with rapid cycling bipolar disorder, and had become suicidal.
It was the only unexplored role for Van Damme, that would ultimately be his saviour. He would have to play himself.
Here, at last, was a movie where Van Damme could actually show some emotion. Show that he was more than just high kicks and bad jokes. And it is fantastic. I recently watched this on blu ray for the first time in over a year and it has lost none of its freshness. It is by turns darkly comic, and unflinchingly real. Apparently, Van Damme was wary of parodying himself, and thought the project was a bad idea. It was only when he read the script, and learned that there would be a scene where he would 'break the fourth wall' did he agree to do it. Said scene happens around 2/3 into the movie. Van Damme is raised up to the rafters, and away from the fictional story being told. He addresses the audience and talks about all his mistakes, how Hollywood corrupted him, and how life for him has been by turns both exceptionally hard and exceptionally blessed. It is extremely moving and unflinching, leaving no punches pulled (bad pun I know) and showing Van Damme in his most fragile, human state.
If you have not yet watched JCVD, I highly recommend it. And I challenge you, once it is over, not to be in the mood to watch Bloodsport, or AWOL. I went for Bloodsport myself...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)