THE EXPENDABLES 2.

The first film was a pretty big disappointment. There was a lacking story, but the characters and action didn't make up for it--mainly because of an over-reliance on CGI and the fact every action sequence was edited to hell. It was incredibly mediocre to say the least. So a lot of people had dropped expectations for this one... but did they need to? Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) owes Church (Bruce Willis) big time, and Church is making sure he pays up. There's was a plane that crashed carrying some very top secret information, and he wants Barney's team to retrieve it, taking along the skilled Maggie (Nan Yu) to help. Of course, he gets caught up in a bomb-plot headed by Jean-Claude Van Damme and has to defeat him. So with the help of Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Liam Hemsworth, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Chuck Norris... they go on this mission. (Jet Li is also briefly in the movie.)

I'll start right off by saying what pretty much everybody else has said: This is what the first movie should have been, and what everybody pretty much expected the first movie to be. You know that awesome moment in the first film where it's Stallone, Arnold, and Willis in the church for 5 minutes just talking? This is that, but taken into action and expanded. It's all of the action stars you love, kicking ass side-by-side, dropping one liners, and making meta jokes about each other's careers.

There are really only a handful of action sequences in the film, but when you do have the, they are fantastic. The entire third act in the airport is probably one of the greatest throwback, nerdgasm sequences ever. The interactions between Arnold, Willis, and Norris alone are golden. And speaking of Norris, he's not here much, but he definitely has a badass presence. They even joke about Chuck Norris Facts at one point (well, prior to the third act, but whatever). This film really played up to fanboys, and of course its most meta moments were my favorite.

But the film isn't perfect. The film meanders at times, particularly in the middle and a subplot with villagers being forced to labor for the bad guys. It goes pretty much nowhere. There's a story bit with Statham's girlfriend (played again briefly by Charisma Carpenter) that also goes absolutely nowhere. Randy Couture is basically non-existant. I mean, he's always in the background... but he serves zero purpose in the story. They barely even give him lines. He's just there to be there. And, of course, there's yet again an incredibly over-reliance on CGI. Even on things that have NO NEED to be CGI. There's CGI blood, CGI helicopters/planes, CGI trams, CGI water... it just goes on and on. And that bugged me almost more than anything else.

(Well, almost everything. I had a young woman sitting behind me that was ungodly annoying. It was like having an over-excitable football superfan sitting next to you. She thought everything was 10 times funnier, sadder, more exciting and/or awesome, etc., than anybody else in the theater. And she made sure everyone knew it. It's like "Really, lady? Jason Statham putting on bronze knuckles is that fucking funny/awesome?" Anyway...)

Basically, if you were disappointed by the first one, definitely check out this one. It's everything you wanted the original to be. And there's really no need to see the original first. There's a couple references to it, but really... there's no need. I barely remembered anything about it and I did just fine. The action is awesome. The gleeful 80s-action nerd moments are splendid. There are a lot of meta references, which is great. It's just pure, action-y fun.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

V.G. Movie #30: In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

I actually knew just as much about the game series as I did about the movie--nothing. The game came out in 2002, an RPG published by Microsoft. It takes place in the kingdom of Ehb as a farmer's life is turned upside down when these creatures called the Krug attack his community. The story begins as the farmer goes to get help from a neighboring village, but then escalates as the farmer and his companions travel through the kingdom to stop other evil creatures--the Seck--who have awakened from a long slumber under the castle.

A sequel was also released in 2005, but as far as I can tell, the film is only based on the first game. And it's, yet again, Uwe Boll. The film is considered one of the worst ever made (as is par for the course with Mr. Boll), but even went so far as to be nominated for multiple Razzies and rank 49th in Rotten Tomatoes' 100 worst reviewed films of the 2000s.

In fact, a better history might be Uwe Boll's journey to this point instead. Boll's ability to get movies made in and of itself is shocking. His films were massive flops. To quote from Wikipedia, "House of the Dead, which was budgeted at $12 million, made $5.73 million in its opening weekend, Alone in the Dark, which was budgeted at $20 million, made $5.1 million, and BloodRayne, which was made for $25 million, made $2.42 million." He's known to produce terrible films that perform poorly, so how on Earth do people continue to fund him? Well...

Apparently, German tax laws allowed any investors to write off their investment 100%, and if the film lost money (which they all did), you actually got 50% of your money back from the government. In other words, if you pay to make a film and it bombs, you've not only paid no taxes on it, but you've gotten half your money back. This method was how Boll continued to get funded, which actually garnered a lot of negativity. However, the law changed in 2005, and he lost the ability to be funded this way.

What doesn't make sense, however, is that after 2005, Boll was funded for not 1, 2, or even 3 films... but 4. He made 4 films in 2007, one of which was this one (though this one came out January 2008). And this is the most mind-boggling of them all. It's one of his biggest budgeted films, and it has one insane cast... literally, because this list of people should know better than to work with Uwe Boll. So I'm still not sure how he got this huge amount of money, nor am I sure how the hell he got this cast... but he did... and I can't wait to check this puppy out, so let's get to it...

THE FILM

I'm still not certain that Uwe Boll had sole creative freedom on this movie. This film follows Farmer (Jason Statham), a humble farmer, whose son is killed and wife (Claire Forlani) is kidnapped by creatures called the Krug. Along with his best friend/father figure, Norick (Ron Perlman), and Bastian (Will Sanderson), Farmer goes on a quest to gain his vengeance on the one responsible, a sorcerer named Gallian (Ray Liotta). Meanwhile, King Konreid (Burt Reynolds)--along with righthand sorcerer, Merick (John Rhys-Davies), and his army commander Tarish (Brian White)--is also attempting to fight against the hordes of Krug, while his nephew Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard) attempts to steal the throne. There's also another subplot of Merick's daughter, Muriella (Leelee Sobieski), wanting to get out of the castle and make a name for herself as a warrior.

Wait, so... this movie has Jason Statham kicking ass, Ron Perlman cracking wise, John Rhys-Davies as a wizard, Ray Liotta as a cheesy magic-using villain, Burt Reynolds as a king, and Matthew Lillard as a Shakespearean Matthew Lillard. There's also ninjas, cheesy monster costumes, and sexy tree-dwelling/nature-controlling women (one of which is played by Kristanna Loken). And people consider this a terrible movie? Have these people seen other Uwe Boll films? To be perfectly honest, this is easily Boll's second-best movie (next to the non-ironically good Rampage).

Of course, I think a lot of that probably has to do with the casting. Statham is fun in it. Perlman is severely underused, especially in the second half, but he's great in the first half, at least. Matthew Lillard and Ray Liotta steal the show, though, as our two primary villains. Both are deliciously over-the-top and in roles you probably never expected either of them to be in. Lillard plays a Shakespearean-esque villain, even going so far as to speak (or attempt to speak) in the dialect of the Bard. And Ray Liotta is an evil sorcerer. I think that's about enough said on that one. Though the best actual performance comes from Brian White, who seemed to be the only person taking the movie seriously. I guess he wasn't aware he was in an Uwe Boll film.

I also give Boll kudos for going mostly practical. It would have been so easy to do a lot of this movie CGI, but he didn't. Don't get me wrong--there's CGI on occasion, especially toward the end.. But it's actually not that bad. The book tornado attack thing in the climax is ridiculous, but that's about the only poor decision when it came to CGI. Everything else looked fine. The Krug are just dudes in suits. And sure, it can look silly. But I can bet there would have been even stronger complaints had they been pure CGI.

The battle sequences weren't anything special, though they had some moments here and there. Pretty much any time it focused Jason Statham was a standout, as he mixed this medieval sword fighting with his martial arts skills. Also kind of shockingly, there was a surprising lack of blood in this movie. This is more in the vein of Narnia where swords pierce but are never covered in blood. There's no sprays of blood. You see almost none the entire movie. And considering the films Boll made prior to this, you would think he'd go all out with it. Oh, and Jason Statham has a non-magical boomerang that might as well be magical for the way it acts. How is that not awesome, again?

I mean, it's not really a good movie. It's just not terrible. And the bizarre casting and pure silliness of the film makes it really entertaining to watch. A lot of the writing/dialogue is awkward. There's so much going on that the film can't really build on its characters, leaving almost all of them underdeveloped. And just some overall weird decisions (like two scenes happening at the same time, but one is at night in the rain, and the other is in the day with clear skies). It's also incredibly derivative of Lord of the Rings. The Krug are Orcs and/or Uruk-hai and/or Nazgul (depending on rank, of course). Jason Statham is Aragorn. Ray Liotta is Saruman. John Rhys-Davies is Gandalf (...oddly). Matthew Lillard is Wormtongue. Will Sanderson is Legolas (including the hair!). Leelee Sobieski is basically Eowyn. Hell, you could even say that Kristanna Loken and her ladies are just humanoid versions of the Ents.

The film, to me, is a strange creature. Half the movie is actually decent, while other aspects are so-bad-it's-good. There's no middle ground in my eyes. I don't think really anything in this movie is bad bad. It's just not original, has bizarre acting (including almost nobody talking in the same style or accent), and just misses the mark rather often. Still, I found it to be incredibly entertaining. And especially in comparison to Boll's other work, this was actually really good.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Review #10: Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels.

Having seen a couple other Guy Ritchie films in the past, I knew what I was getting into here. This is a title I've known for many, many years... but one I'd just never seen. Finally, however, that ghastly oversight has been fixed. And strangely, it transitions well from the previous film. This film takes on multiple stories. There's Tom (Jason Flemyng), Soap (Dexter Fletcher), Eddy (Nick Moran), and Bacon (Jason Statham), all of whom lose a high stakes card game to sex club owner Harry (P.H. Moriarty). They have a week to get half a million pounds or else they start losing some fingers. Meanwhile, Harry gets his right-hand man Barry the Baptist (Lenny McLean) to hire a couple idiots (don't remember their names, sorry) to steal some antique shotguns which end up getting sold to Nick the Greek (Stephen Marcus) on accident, as he's looking for guns for the original 4 guys, as they're planning on stealing money and drugs from another set of guys to get the money they owe to Harry. Also involved is Big Chris (Vinnie Jones), a bit of muscle hired by Harry for various reason.

There's probably even more I'm leaving out, but I'd learned from Snatch. how involved and confusing Ritchie's plots could get. (That's not a complaint, though.) If I did have a complaint, it was that I did get confused frequently at the beginning... maybe up through the card game. I was having a hard time following along with who was who and what was going on. There were so many characters and scenarios being thrown at you at once that it was just a wee bit tough keeping track. But I started to manage after a while.

The acting was great and the characters were a lot of fun. My favorite was probably Vinnie Jones' Big Chris. He's essentially a hitman who takes his son around with him and is always polite and patient. The dialogue was fun, too. Sometimes it was hard to follow, but I stayed with it for the most part.

I do really enjoy these types of stories. It isn't exactly an anthology, despite it being a collection of multiple, interweaving stories. It's similar to Pulp Fiction where just a bunch of random stuff is happening to different characters, but they all affect each other (here much more than Pulp Fiction). Really, when you break it down... all it is is that four guys owe money to a dangerous man, another set of guys need to sell some weed, and the aforementioned dangerous man wants a pair of antique guns. But when you mix all of those together, chaos ensues.

I found it an interesting directorial choice to have those kind of grayish tones and shadows throughout the whole film. It gave the whole thing a kind of wet, gritty, grimy feel to it with just the color. Otherwise, I don't have a hell of a whole lot to say about the movie. I need to rewatch Snatch. now that I know what I'm getting into (that one was my first, and I was really left like WTF afterwards). Right now I like this one a little better. I watched it last night and thought on it, and the more I think about it, the more I think I like it. So before I get on rambling too much, I'll just go ahead and stop here.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

CRANK: HIGH VOLTAGE.

I don't even know where to start. This isn't going to be the usual review, I'll tell you that. I don't have that much to say about it. Hell, I'm not even sure if I liked it or not. It's one of those.

I'll just say this: If you liked Crank, you'll probably like Crank: High Voltage. If you didn't like Crank, stay far... far away from this. It's like the first, but far more over the top, far crazier, and far weirder. There's more blood; there were even some scenes where I cringed. There's (a lot) more boobs, too, including Amy Smart's (though her nipples are taped over, and everything else is--I kid you not--blurred out). And although I don't think there's the same sense of urgency and adrenaline the first movie had (at least to me), it was still intense.

It's funny, too... and usually inappropriately so. This is a movie out to not just break all the rules, but shatter them into tiny pieces and then nuke those pieces--twice. It reminded me of Feast 3, except more insane, and I don't think I hated this one. They really took the whole idea of psychedelic video game and exploded it.

The only thing I outright hated was the ending, but for two reasons. First, this old man, literally about 2 minutes before the credits start to roll, and right in the peak of the climax, gets his things and goes to leave. But then he stands in the middle of the freakin' theater and just watches from there, being awfully distracting. So I missed the vital 30 seconds or so where Chev gets to the big baddie. I got the main idea of the scene, but still. However, I still saw the following bit in its full, and I didn't like it at all. Let's just say the flames couldn't have looked more ridiculously fake, and the whole scene, I felt, was a really crappy ending. Though I liked the stuff during the credits. That made up for it a bit.

All in all, there's really only one way I can sum up this movie. In the words of Chev Chelios...

Cheese... and... Broccoli.


WTF

Short Review: Snatch.

I finally got around to watching this. I was confused as hell. So I gave it a second chance before reviewing it. Here we are.

-----------

Premise: A bunch of random people are all randomly connected to a diamond heist.

Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Dennis Farina, Vinnie Jones, Jason Statham, and Brad Pitt (among a bunch of others).

My Reaction: The beginning montage bit was, and still is, incredibly, mind-bogglingly confusing. To the point it messes with me for the remainder of the movie. The acting was brilliant all around. The editing style was brilliant, as well. I particularly liked the juxtaposition of the Coursing with the chasing/questioning of the one thug guy, as well as the slow motion fall into the dream-water during the boxing match and that whole little segment. I also really liked the ending, though it utterly confused me the first time around (mostly due to being linked with the incredibly confusing opening). I wanted to like this more, but the more I think about it and try to connect everybody/everything, the more my brain hurts. Too much interconnected randomness going on all at the same time. But for some odd reason, I still liked it.

I Am McLovin!

TRANSPORTER 3.

When you take an action franchise staring Jason Statham, co-written by Luc Besson, choreographed by Corey Yuen, and then give it to a director named Olivier Megaton (seriously… Olivier-freakin-Megaton), you know you’re in for something special. Now, I am a fan of this franchise, so to speak. I really liked the first film, anyway. The second film was way too over-the-top in action and too little on story (When your action requires you to use CGI in order to do a car-related stunt, you know something with your movie is screwed up). But I had high hopes for the third installment after seeing the trailers. I wasn’t let down.

Frank Martin (Jason Statham) is taking some time off, fishing and relaxing with his old friend, Inspector Tarconi (François Berléand), after turning down a transportation deal he didn’t feel suited for. But when the case comes back and falls in his lap once more, he’s forced into the job. All he has to do is drive his car, along with sexy passenger Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) to different destination points, where he will get the next set of coordinates and continue until he finally reaches the drop-off point. There’s only one catch: both Frank and Valentina have bracelets around their wrists that will explode if they go more than 75 feet from the car.

First let me discuss the new concept of the story: the bracelets. Not too long ago, I reviewed Battle Royale 2, wherein each student wore a collaborating necklace that would explode if either the pair got too far apart or one of them died. I mentioned how disappointed I was with the poor execution of such a good idea. Well, let me just say that Transporter 3 basically takes that same idea and uses it the right way. There are some really good moments of suspense where you have no idea how Frank is going to survive and stick with the car; and then there are other moments where having to stay near the car is a hindrance that he has to find a way around. Either way, they really played well with the idea, and it was good fun.

Next I’d like to bring up the actors/characters. Jason Statham is Jason Statham; every fight scene basically has to find a way to get him out of his shirt. And his fighting is rough, which is good. Then there’s Natalya Rudakova, who is very hot in this movie. The only disappointment was that the movie gave some good eye candy for the ladies with Statham, but not nearly enough eye candy for the guys. Another brief complaint I do have to go along with the characters of these two actors is that the love story that bubbles up between them was too forced and contrived. It didn’t feel natural at all. But anyway, then we have Inspector Tarconi, who was used much better in this film than in the previous. In the last movie, he was mainly used for comedic relief. And while he has some funny lines in this one, as well, he went back to his roots in the first film and actually acted like an Inspector. Finally, the villain was actually villainous. He wasn’t over-the-top or goofy. He was actually very malignant.

The story was much darker this time, as well. Actually, the whole movie was much darker than both of the previous films. And, believe it or not, there actually was a story. Granted, the motive behind everything that was going on was a bit odd (and slightly weak), but it was there, nonetheless. There were twists and turns throughout the film (not jaw-dropping or anything, but they were there). And there was actually more story this time around than action.

But there was action, don’t get me wrong. And the action was all fun, for the most part. It was a bit choppier in editing, so it was rather fast-paced (think Bourne). I think the first film’s action was a bit more creative and fun (oil slick, anyone?), but this film still had some heavy punches. And there was more car-related action this time, as well. Not as over-the-top as the second film (except for maybe the two-wheel driving between the trucks scene), and more grounded in some kind of realm of possibility.

My final notes include a couple plot and/or logistical errors. The first, unless I just missed the explanation, was that how did Frank know they were on the train toward the end of the movie? Without an explanation (and granted, I just might have missed it), that’s a pretty big plot hole. Second, and more just on the logistics side of things (SPOILER WARNING):

Why did the bad guy jump off the car at the end if he knew what doing that would bring about? That just didn’t make sense to me. Falling off with the car would have been the wiser choice.

(END SPOILER)

All in all, I thought it was a fun movie. It has a decent story and some good action. It felt like it was missing just a little something special, but overall, it did what it set out to do: entertain the brainless masses. And for that, I give it a good scoring.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

2 In 1: Chaos and Dog Day Afternoon.

Alrighty. After watching The Bank Job this past Friday, I got in the mood to check out some more heist movies, so I went to rent Dog Day Afternoon. While there, I rented some other movies, one of which was a movie called Chaos with Jason Statham, which could also be considered a heist movie (and better, I thought, than The Bank Job, also starring Jason Statham). Watching both, I felt I could turn this into a 2 in 1, so here we go.

Chaos.

Chaos has an interesting take on the heist film. It actually reminded me a bit of my last novel (without the supernatural/religious elements). The plot of Chaos is thus: After a disastrous hostage situation on a bridge in which both hostage and hostage taker die, Detective Conners (Jason Statham) is suspended and basically blacklisted, while his partner is fired. But when a bank robber who calls himself Lorenz (Wesley Snipes) takes hostages and seemingly tries to rob the place, he only has one request: to have Conners be the negotiator in charge. So Conners is brought back in and is partnered up with the young Detective Dekker (Ryan Phillippe). But when the robbers escape and people start dying randomly, the two detectives believe it has to do with the Chaos Theory—a bunch of seemingly unrelated events are all connected somehow.

The movie is just plain fun, really. The acting is alright… it’s basic thriller-genre acting (and Jason Statham). The plot is really cool, I thought, though highly predictable (though that could be a bad thing, considering the point of the plot is to be unpredictable). I figured out way too much early on, but that honestly didn’t stop me from enjoying the movie. Even though I figured out the final twist before it happened, I was still able to enjoy it with a smile on my face as it was revealed.

I think this is really the first time Jason Statham hasn’t really done his thing in one of his movies. He does kick some ass at one point, but its more cop-type brawling than anything. But I don’t think that’s a drawback or anything. And Wesley Snipes plays a pretty cool bad guy. He just has this “Oh, I’m cool, I’m a badass, I’m totally big pimpin. Look at my hat!” air about him every time you see him. And all the characters were more than just one-dimensional. They each had some kind of backstory to deepen their characters (at least to a degree).

So yeah, really, this is just one of those movies you have to not look too much into, but just sit back and enjoy it. But you also gotta pay attention toward the end, or it might go too fast for you to keep up (I know my dad started trying to talk to me during this point, and I was trying to pay attention to the movie, too. But I got the basic gist of what was going on; plus, I had already figured it out by that point, anyway).

I Am McLovin!

Dog Day Afternoon.

So I just saw it for the first time last night. Better late than never, right? Dog Day Afternoon is based on the true story of a simple bank robbery gone bad. Sonny (Al Pacino) and Sal (John Cazale) go to rob a bank, but being the down-on-their-luck overall nice guys, they take too long and attract police attention. The day lingers on with the employees no longer feeling any threat from the two men (except maybe Sal), and some even refusing to leave when they have the opportunity (by the way, just a random bit of trivia: this is known as Stockholm Syndrome, when the hostages begin to become attached to their hostage takers). Anyway, it gets all over the news, and the two men (moreso Sonny) start getting many fans. The only question left is… how are they gonna get out of this?

I thought this movie was excellent. Its two hours flew by. It was hilarious, sad, and dramatic. The acting was phenomenal, especially by the then young Al Pacino. The subtle performance by the late John Cazale was good, too, making you feel both frightened of and worried for him. The twist about halfway in when you find out exactly why Sonny is robbing the bank was unexpected (at least for me). But it worked (I’d hope so, considering it actually happened that way).

Afterwards I read an article from the real ‘Sonny’ and said he loved the movie, but was highly upset at how some of the things were portrayed and “Hollywood-ized,” and that the movie was really only about 30% true. Still, the movie version of the events was great in its own right. I just rented this movie, but I have a feeling I’m gonna end up going out and buying it. Let’s all go to the country of Wyoming!

Royale With Cheese

THE BANK JOB.

Apparently I couldn’t be a professional movie critic, because I’d be disagreeing with what seems to be everybody on the planet. I thought I was going to see a heist movie… and I did, I suppose… though I’m not too sure… and I don’t think the movie was sure, either. The Bank Job is the true story about this one guy who is this drug dealing pimp black radical gangster who gets accused of all said charges, but the cops can’t do anything because he has illicit photos of one of the royal family that he can use as blackmail. So the cops get this one chick to get Jason Statham (who gets a crew of his own) to find a way to rob the bank and safety deposit boxes that the photos are held in. Unfortunately, that’s not all they take, and they end up over their heads in numerous scandals such as dirty cops and compromising sexual photos of prominent figures.

I first have to say that, even though this was based on a true story, it seemed way too complicated for what it was. Don’t get me wrong, by the end of the movie I understood everything that was going on and wasn’t confused whatsoever, but during the movie, everything was twisting and turning and this was going on while that was happening and so-and-so was being undercover while this-that-and-the-other were doing whatever the hell else was going on. And to me, the undercover woman who was with the black radical guys seemed to be an unnecessary subplot just used to complicate the matter.

The first act of the movie seemed too random and confusing at the time (with an insane amount of nudity). The second act of the movie, the actual heist, was way too short. The third act of the movie, the part where all the crooked cops and whatnot are trying to get back their information and such, seemed way too long. It also seemed like the movie wasn’t sure what it was trying to be. The first act seemed like a dark comedy (with a bit of drama). The second act was like a heist drama (with a bit of dark comedy). And the third act was just a violent, overdramatic, depressing thriller. When that third act hit, I was shocked. I wasn’t expecting that amount of violence and such, or for some of the people to die who did. The first half of the movie just didn’t set me up for that.

It wasn’t a terrible movie by any means, but I don’t think it deserves the awesome praise it’s getting from what seems to be almost every professional critic. The acting was alright, and it was pretty funny at times. The big fight at the end of the movie was some Jason Statham action, as always. And I really liked the idea behind it: a bunch of small-time crooks robbing a bank, finding more than they can chew, and then trying to get out of the situation both alive and while trying to do the right thing. I just don’t think it was executed as well as it could have been.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.