Sabotage (2014)
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
On paper Sabotage should work. Director David Ayer (Training Day) is capable of making a movie that are more than the sum of its parts and presenting us with a tale of loyalty among elite squads. Sadly he fails. Schwarzenegger strives to give a more in-depth performance as John “Breacher” Wharton, leader of a crack squad of DEA agents. Yet his endeavours are lost within the movie's numerous shortcomings. The cast are mainly wasted, being saddled with an immensely stupid, contradictory and mean spirited screenplay. Sporting such two dimensional names as “Neck,” “Monster” and “Tripod” there is precious little to like about the main characters. There's a lot of on screen violence but it is not in the usual idiom you'd expect from such a movie. It's just there because some producer thought that it was required. The dialogue is poor and littered with profanity that seems to be present to simply bolster the screenplay.
If you are looking for any kind of redeeming quality in Sabotage, then there is the spark of a decent subplot involving Olivia Williams and Harold Perrineau, playing the two officers investigating the alleged theft of ten million dollars by Wharton's team. There is a tangible sense of chemistry between them and they have some amusing banter. Sadly it does not have sufficient impact upon the rest of the movie with it's casual brutality, crass sexism and misogyny. If the film had been written from their point of view then it may well have been a superior product. As it stands Sabotage is perfunctory. I have no problem with a movie being earnestly dumb. It's when it's cynically dumb I feel that all involved should pause and take stock.
I am very curious as to what Schwarzenegger will do next because I think his immediate film has ground to a halt. It's curious that some box office stars and larger than life Hollywood legends have managed to maintain a successful career well into their autumn years. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood both maintained box office and critical acclaim well beyond their sixties. Sadly the contrived shenanigans of Sabotage are a far cry from True Grit and Gran Torino. Perhaps a change in direction away from action movies would be beneficial. Maybe a move to a major TV show would offer a chance for Arnold to find an appropriate audience.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
Objectively, Terminator: Dark Fate plays out as a greatest hits of the Terminator franchise. Due to the way that Terminator 2: Judgement Day concluded, the future existence of Skynet has been definitively stopped. Therefore for this new film to justify its existence it has to contrive another comparable future threat and does so with a new rogue AI called Legion. So despite Judgement Day being averted, we are simply presented with a new dystopian future (because obviously Legion perceives mankind as a threat) and a new Terminator (Rev-9 model played by Gabriel Luna) sent back in time. Naturally, if there’s a Terminator on the loose, then they have to have a target. This time round it is Daniella Ramos (Natalia Reyes), a young woman who works in an automobile assembly factory. She is rescued and protected (as was Sarah Connorin the original movie) by a soldier from the future. The major difference being this time, is that Grace (Mackenzie Davis) has been cybernetically enhanced thus making her more capable in tackling Terminators.
Perhaps the most egregious offense that Terminator: Dark Fate commits is dealing with the conundrum of John Connor. With Judgement Day averted both John and his Mother Sarah were theoretically free to live out the remainder of their lives in peace. But the production’s need to include actress Linda Hamilton into the story (and thus increase the film marketability) requires a rather mean spirit plot twist that effectively negates the entire point of the first two films. To say more would spoil the film’s plot for those who have yet to see it but it really is a poor idea and has upset many ardent fans of this franchise. This narrative device also paves the way to crowbar Arnold Schwarzenegger into the proceedings as yet another T-800 model Terminator from the original Skynet timeline. There are some attempts in the screenplay by David Goyer, Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray to try and play against type, with this particular Terminator living out the rest of his existence as an average member of society. But the scenario envisaged is purely designed for easy laughs and offers nothing of substance beyond its inherent novelty.
Effectively all that Terminator: Dark Fate offers during its 128 minute duration is a retread of previous plot elements from the other movies and a series of noisy and frenetic action scenes, all of which are derivative and soulless, with no genuine sense of threat. Is the film poorly made? No not at all. Is it entertaining on any level? Yes. In a superficial way. But it has nothing to offer beyond that and it is utterly redundant. Beyond the need to make a film studio some money, Terminator: Dark Fate cannot really justify its existence. It adds nothing to the existing canon and lore and makes for rather ponderous viewing. The return to an R Rating provides no tangible benefits either, other than the scope for violence for violence sake. Sadly, the mainstream film making industry has no concept of integrity or art and is utterly lacking in self awareness. So I’m sure given some time, a focus group will attempt to resurrect this franchise yet again at a future date, only to make exactly the same mistakes.
Star Trek is slightly older than me by 14 months. I was born on December 18th 1967. Star Trek was first broadcast in the US on 8th September 1966. Hence this show has always been part of the prevailing pop culture that surrounded me, as I grew up. I first began watching Star Trek as a young child in the early seventies. It would be repeated on the BBC in the early evening on Fridays and it became a family ritual to sit down together and watch it. As a seven or eight year old, it left a great impression upon me and was in many ways, the television highlight of the week. Star Trek along with Doctor Who certainly started my interest in science fiction. Star Trek was also one of the first shows that introduced me to tie-in marketing. I remember seeing in a toy shop, near to my school at the time, a Dinky Klingon Battle Cruiser and was flabbergasted that such a thing existed. I immediately coveted it but sadly never obtained one.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Rambo: Last Blood (2019)
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
After the events of Rambo (2008) John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) returns to his home in Arizona, where he lives raising and selling horses which he manages with his Father’s old business partner Maria Beltran (Adriana Barraza), and her granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal). This surrogate family has provided John with stability and hope for the last decade and helped him face his inner demons. However, PTSD still plagues John and he often sleeps in a series of tunnels that he’s dug under his ranch as a form of self-therapy. Despite advice to the contrary, Gabriela goes to Mexico looking for her estranged Father. After meeting with an old school friend, Gizelle (Fenessa Pineda), a meeting is arranged but her Father rejects her. Upset by events, Gabriela goes to a nightclub with Gizelle to drown her sorrows. She is subsequently betrayed by her friend and falls into the hands of a human trafficking gang run by the Martinez Brothers. John comes looking for Gabriela and quickly has a run in with the violent gang. His actions have far reaching consequences leading to a show down at John’s heavily fortified ranch.
Rambo: Last Blood is curious hybrid genre film, sitting somewhere between Taken, Death Wish and a Friday the 13th movie. It’s quite different from previous instalments in both style and format. There are no covert missions, no skirmishes with foreign military forces and no schoolboy commentary on geopolitics. Instead director Adrian Grunberg (Get the Gringo) initially tries to focus on John Rambo coming to terms with his place in the world as he lives out his “retirement” on his Father’s ranch in quiet self-contemplation. The international version of the movie starts with an interesting prologue in which Rambo uses his tracking skills to try and rescue some tourist lost in a storm. His inability of save all of them triggers his PTSD. However, these scenes do not appear in the US and UK version of the movie. Furthermore, their relevance in the longer edit is soon lost as the movie quickly gives way to standard action movie and revenge tropes. From then on, we are subject to a generic kidnap and revenge fantasy, populated by decidedly two-dimensional characters. If you want copious amounts of action and gore then you have to wait 75 minutes for the final act, although there are a smattering of extreme unpleasantries along the way.
If Rambo: Last Blood had actually abandoned the premise of an action movie and instead been a character drama about John’s redemption through his adopted family, then this may well have been a far better film. But fans simply wouldn’t have supported such a radical change of direction and so we are subject to this tired and frankly uninspired undertaking. Although professionally made, it is best not to think too hard about narrative and themes of Rambo: Last Blood. Drug cartels and human trafficking are tough enough subjects to tackle in an intelligent and nuanced fashion. Even movies like Sicario struggle to dissect the complexities of these issues. Here they are simply just exploitation fodder, tinged with an undercurrent of racism. This is also a very mean spirited ending to John Rambo cinematic journey. Instead of finding some peace and a place in the world, he once again endures bereavement and a bleak future. As deluded right-wing revenge fantasies go this isn’t even a good one, because in winning he loses everything. Were both Stallone and Grunberg deliberately trying to make a statement that “wages of sin are death” and subvert the entire message of the franchise? No, I think they just painted themselves into a narrative corner due to the demands of fans and the producers to deliver what was expected.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
American Sniper (2014)
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
American Sniper is directed by Clint Eastwood in his customary minimalist and no-nonsense fashion, allowing us to focus on the subject matter without any unnecessary embellishment. Tom Stern's cinematography is far from flamboyant and appropriately stark. The central performances by Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle and Sienna Miller as his wife Taya Renae Kyle are both strong and clearly defined. Criticisms about a lack of depth and balance are misplaced as far as I'm concerned. If real people have strong views or convictions should that reality not be reflected in the script? Furthermore this is not a movie about the Iraq War itself and an exploration of the geo-political ramifications. It is simply a soldier’s story, told from his perspective. It is also a drama and not a documentary.
Eastwood has often explored within his movies the theme of violence and the impact it has upon all involved. In this instance he has chosen to focus upon one particular individual. Steven Spielberg, who was at one point associated with adapting this work, has indicated that he would have approached the subject differently. He intended to explore the curious duality between Chris Kyle and "Mustafa", his Iraqi rival and ex-Olympic marksman. Eastwood takes a different path depicting the emotional toll four tours of duty has upon Kyle and his family. Contrary to some opinions there is no triumphalist tone to the proceedings, nor are the action sequences overblown spectacles. They are straight forward and functional, very much in accord with the director’s approach to film making. The Iraqi's that are depicted in the movie are combatants and are treated as such. Beyond that there is no overt agenda against Islam nor does the film adopt any major political stance. The characters on screen certainly have their own views but American Sniper simply depicts them, rather than endorses them.
There are some flaws in the narrative but they are mainly procedural, rather than ideological. I would have liked to have seen more of Kyles home life between tours, as well as some exploration of the controversies surrounding his book. As for the codicil at the movies end regarding the news coverage of his subsequent death and funeral, again I see this as just a reflection of events rather than a specific commentary upon them. Overall these criticisms do not undermine the movie nor detract from the strong performances. However due to the emotive nature of US politics and even the reputation of its director, perceptions and opinions may well possibly have been skewed regarding the movie’s merits and its perspective.
A notable aspect regarding American Sniper is its soundtrack or virtual lack of one. Beyond three credited pieces of music used at strategic points in the story the movie has no overall score. However many viewers have drawn attention to the montage of news footage regarding Chris Kyles funeral shown at the end of the film. It plays out to a track called "The Funeral", composed by the great Ennio Morricone. The piece is a subtle variation of Taps, a tune played at dusk by the US military. The cue called Il Funerale was first used in the spaghetti Western “Il Ritorno di Ringo” AKA The Return of Ringo in 1965. Like so much of the composer’s work, its inherent beauty lends itself to intelligent use in other movies, thus it greatly compliments the final scenes of American Sniper.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
In the year 1860, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) faces execution by guillotine for the murders perpetrated by the creature he created. With the assistance of a hunchback named Karl (Oscar Quitak) he avoids death by beheading the priest who came to give him the last rites. The priest’s body is then mistakenly buried by the authorities. Three years later, Victor, now using the name Doctor Stein, has established himself as a prosperous physician in Karlsbrück, serving both affluent patients and the poor at a paupers’ hospital. Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews), a junior member of the medical council, recognises Victor and being an admirer, seeks to become his apprentice. Victor and Hans then undertake an experiment to transplant Karl’s living brain into a new, more refined body, rather than a grotesque monstrosity the Baron has previously made. Karl is eager to have a new healthy body, especially after encountering Margaret Conrad (Eunice Gayson), the charming new assistant at the hospital.
This movie questionnaire was originally created by Alexander from Cinemaniac Reviews. Sadly, I believe that website is now defunct. However, that doesn’t in anyway invalidate the questionnaire itself which has some very good questions about your relationship with cinema. Some of my answers to the questions posed are about films that I enjoy, as opposed to those that are considered cinematic classics. However, I have answered some questions more seriously than others, especially the one about undeserving recipients of the Best Film Oscar. I struggled with a couple of questions because I no longer go the cinema as frequently as I did 10 years ago. This is mainly due to the fact that a lot of the films I find interesting end up going straight to streaming after very brief theatrical releases. Some do not even get shown in cinemas. Hence I view far more at home. But I digress. On with the questions and answers. Feel free to comment below and share your views.
Exit 8 is a sophisticated and claustrophobic psychological thriller directed by Genki Kawamura, which skilfully transforms a minimalist indie walking-simulator game into a cinematic existential enigma. This overtly metaphorical film renders the repetitive nature and drudgery of modern working life into a physical environment in which the lead character is trapped and must find a way out. A random, brutal maze filled with an atmosphere of indifference to the lab rats that find themselves trapped within. Or is it their personal guilt that has put them there? Genki Kawamura’s psychological mystery draws inspiration from the Japanese video game of the same name, as well as from the cyclical nature of Groundhog Day and endless corridors of the Overlook Hotel in Kubrick’s The Shining. Although there are jump scares and some ghoulish imagery, this is not a horror vehicle. Instead this is a disquieting psychological drama with a strong sense of morality.
I wrote a post 18 month’s ago regarding whether a directors cut of a film is superior by default to the version originally shown in cinemas. Obviously the answer was no and I then went on to give three examples of films where I think the theatrical release is better to lengthier or substantially altered director’s cut that was subsequently made available at a later date. This time round in this post, I would like to do the complete opposite. I shall provide some examples of films that I think are significantly improved by a longer cut or a substantially, restructured edit. Note some of these examples are technically not a “director’s cuts” but a restoration or reconstruction of the director’s original vision. I shall endeavour to highlight what specific material or broader changes make each respective film “better”. As ever, all of these examples are a matter of subjective opinion and my views are presented as such, not “fact”.
In 1968 the dilapidated freighter Corita hastily leaves Freetown to avoid a customs inspection. Captain Lansen (Eric Porter) has a cargo of dangerous explosives which he is smuggling so he can finally retire. His ship’s passengers also have reasons for leaving in a hurry. Dr. Webster (Nigel Stock), together with his daughter Unity (Suzanna leigh), is relocating due to his indiscretions with patients and illegal operations. Alcoholic pianist Harry Tyler (Tony Beckley) is aimlessly drifting from port to port. Eva Peters (Hildegard Knef) is fleeing from her husband with stolen bearer bonds which she intend to use to buy back her son from his evil clutches Caracas. Ricaldi (Ben Carruthers), a questionable lawyer, is pursuing Eva to retrieve the stolen bonds. First officer Hemmings (Neil McCallum) suggests that the ship should return to Freetown after an imminent Hurricane warning. The Captain asks the passengers and they are unanimous that they do not wish to return. However a mutinous crew, the bad weather and the instability of the explosives force everyone to abandon ship. The survivors find themselves adrift in a lifeboat surrounded by a strange carnivorous seaweed.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Transporter 3 (2008)
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
The fight scenes and car chases are well crafted and pitched at the right level for a PG-13 rated action-fest. The devil is in the editing, which is done in a very modern idiom, as you would expect. It is this fast pace style that allows the film to be get away with some of the content. The violence is strong but not dwelt upon. There are also some subtle references within the fight sequences to other classic films. Particularly Fist of Fury and Game of Death. Film buffs will know them when they see them. The dry banter between Statham and the sundry heavies he dispatches works well and embellishes the action. The franchise by this instalment has developed a sense of self-parody and there’s an amusing scene in which Frank give chase, not via some high-performance car but by bicycle instead. The joke works well, which is a surprising for a film that is derivative of a genre, that in itself, is self-plagiarising.
Transporter 3 has no pretensions to be anything else, other than what it is. It is very dumb, stylised and no cliché is left unturned. Its tone is pitched just right for this sort of movie. There is a running joke about Frank not liking to get his suit dirty when fighting and his disrobing becomes a potential weapon. The underlying homoeroticism of previous movies is openly explored this time (“You’re the gay?”) and is rather amusing. All in all, this film delivers perfectly what you expect in such a genre offering. Director Olivier Megaton (Taken 2 and Taken 3) thrives on this sort of material and seems to know inherently how to handle it. For once the movies rating and content do not work against it. The Transporter franchise may well be commercial and disposable, but it is also very entertaining. This in some respects, is the best sequel. The TV series that followed was lacklustre and the 2015 reboot failed to ignite audiences’ interest, despite Ed Skrein doing his best. The shadow of Jason Statham looms large in this franchise.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
The plot is constructed in such a way to dovetail nicely into the existing storyline. Whether its clever or contrived, I'll leave you to judge. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is an enhanced soldier from the Outcome program. This is the military's equivalent to CIA’s Treadstone project. After the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, Colonel Byer (Edward Norton) decides to eliminate all traces of Outcome. Not just the agents, but all medical researchers and admin staff. I wouldn't be surprised if that included the cleaners and stationery suppliers as well. So it's not long before Cross goes on the run the run with Dr Marta (Rachel Weisz), the one scientist who designed the physically and mentally enhancing "chems" that cross must take daily. Cue two hours plus of chase scenes, followed by plot exposition by character actors such as Stacy Keach and Scott Glen, followed by more chase scenes. Rinse and repeat.
It’s all very professionally made and somewhat soulless. One of the main selling points of the original Bourne trilogy was the lead character’s amnesia, struggle for identity and possible redemption. This plot device is absent from this movie and thus we’re much less emotionally connected with our hero. The concept of chemically altering a person into a Nietzchean superman is initially intriguing, portraying Cross as an addict. However it is conveniently dispensed with when we discovers that going cold turkey reveals that the drug’s effects are permanent. The ending leaves matters conveniently open for yet further exploration. Overall, The Bourne Legacy is somewhat perfunctory with its matter of fact, A to B style of film making. The movie lacks any dramatic focus.
The Bourne Legacy will provide you with adequate entertainment if you want nothing more than a technically competent chase movie for two hours or so. If you like your fight scenes edited so quickly you haven't a clue who just wupped who, then you're in for a treat. Yet considering the strength of the cast, this is a somewhat grey action movie. Apart from The Hurt Locker and The Town, I have yet to see Jeremy Renner in a role that he excels in. Certainly not any of his performances as Hawkeye, the dullest member of The Avengers. Overall, fans of the entire franchise can easily skip this instalment. It is worth noting that Matt Damon returned for a fourth movie in 2016 which provided a codicil to the Jason Bourne story arc. However, even this may not be the definitive end to the franchise. A further spinoff television show called Treadstone is due to be broadcast in October this year.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Safe (2012)
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Safe is a throwback movie. It's central plot theme is very seventies. It seems to be an integral part of the action movie stars rite of passage, that at some point they have to make a movie involving a child (special needs is optional), a pet or sundry exotic animal. Therefore, when I saw the trailer for Safe, the first thing I thought of was Bruce Willis in Mercury Rising. The similarities are quite apparent. In Safe, Statham plays Luke Wright, a New York law enforcer turned cage fighter whose wife has been killed by the Russian mob. He encounters on Mei (Catherine Chan) on the subway and intervenes when she is attacked by assassins. The eleven-year-old maths prodigy is the key to crime boss Han Jiao (James Hong) accounts system and therefore a huge liability in the wrong hands. Wright swears to protect her and so the bodies start piling up.
Director Boaz Yakin’s script is again very old school. It depicts a very modern Manhattan as a hotbed of corruption as you would see in many seventies’ movies such as Serpico. The entire bureaucracy is on the take from the mayor (Chris Sarandon) down to the street cops. It should also be noted that even with the required suspension of disbelief needed to watch such movies, Safe taxes credibility to the extreme with the level of mayhem that ensues. The dialogue is ripe and the acting consists of the cast shouting at each other in-between chewing the scenery. With regard to the action scenes, there are an adequate amount of set pieces, with hand to hand combat and sundry shootings. Nothing is exceptional but nor is anything substandard. Movies such as Safe require a liberal helping of action and sufficient is supplied. But there is nothing of note. Do not go expecting a bravura ending like in Wanted: Dead or Alive.
Yet despite these numerous faults, Safe bowls along under the power of its own insane internal logic. It also does exactly what it says on the side of the tin and somehow manages to entertain on a basic level. A lot of this comes down to Jason Statham. He has the ability to carry a film such as this. It is far from his finest work but overall, it’s acceptable. And so Safe simply joins the ever-growing list of tolerable action movies that are ideal for late night consumption, sans any major critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see that as a bad thing. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, not every film can be a critical success or a genre milestone. Material such as this fills a very particular niche in the market, serves a specific function and has its fans.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Safe House (2012)
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Frankly it is a mystery to me (and Toyah Wilcox) as to why actors of the calibre of Denzel Washington, Brendan Gleeson and Sam Shepard would deign to grace Daniel Espinosa's distinctly average action thriller, other than because it’s easy money. That is not meant as an insult. Actors have to make a living and regular work in average roles is more practical that infrequent parts in quality dramas. So I understand why generic action fodder such as this can be tempting to good actors. Sadly the presence of such a good cast does little to elevate this film to the standard of Training Day, Man on Fire or The Equalizer.
Rogue ex-CIA operative Tobin Frost (Washington), turns himself into the authorities and is subsequently held in a safe house in Cape Town. Rookie agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) endures a battle of wits with his enigmatic charge as well as swathes of bad guys queuing to kill Mr Frost. The Cape Town location is interesting initially. I believe the production balked at filming in the Favalas in Rio De Janeiro for security reasons. However, once the story moves to Europe and the US it really does become less engaging and far more formulaic. Denzel Washington is always watchable and brings a degree of gravitas to most pictures he appears in. Reynolds does what he can with a very formulaic role. The remainder of the cast advance the plot in true “Basil Exposition” style.
Safe House provides two hours of car chases, hand-to-hand fighting and sundry mayhem, all courtesy of contemporary film making’s favourite medium; shaky cam and lightning editing. The plot is neither staggeringly crass, nor above average. It simply follows the standard beats that you expect from this genre. For some viewers that is sufficient, providing adequate post-pub home viewing, via video-on-demand. Sadly the allure of the “A” list cast may raise expectations which are ultimately not met. Perhaps Swedish director Daniel Espinosa should have cut one of the more expensive named actors from the production and spent the money into revising the screenplay by David Guggenheim. A twist ending is only really works if you don't see it coming.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
13 Assassins (2010)
13 Assassins is one of Takashi Miike's most restrained and mature movies. Set in Feudal Japan and based on true events, a venerable clan suffers under the reign of the cruel young Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), who commits atrocities at will. Unable to break their oaths, the samurai are torn between duty and shame. Some of the masters in the clan even go so far as to commit Seppuku in protest. Unable to endure the status quo, a plan is formed to gather a small team of the deadliest samurai and assassinate Lord Naritsugu while he is travelling between clan territories. The responsibility falls upon Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) to take on this potentially fatal task. The matter is further complicated by Lord Naritsugu’s personal bodyguard (and Shimada’s former rival) master samurai Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), who is a force to be reckoned with.
13 Assassins is one of Takashi Miike's most restrained and mature movies. Set in Feudal Japan and based on true events, a venerable clan suffers under the reign of the cruel young Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), who commits atrocities at will. Unable to break their oaths, the samurai are torn between duty and shame. Some of the masters in the clan even go so far as to commit Seppuku in protest. Unable to endure the status quo, a plan is formed to gather a small team of the deadliest samurai and assassinate Lord Naritsugu while he is travelling between clan territories. The responsibility falls upon Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) to take on this potentially fatal task. The matter is further complicated by Lord Naritsugu’s personal bodyguard (and Shimada’s former rival) master samurai Hanbei (Masachika Ichimura), who is a force to be reckoned with.
The storyline of 13 Assassins plays to the strengths its director. Despite the formality and traditional nature of the story, he still manages to imbue scenes and characters with his hallmark quirks and foibles. The first act clearly established Lord Naritsugi's evil credentials and establishes the moral framework within the story to justify his death. Once the violent introduction is complete, the film settles into a measured second act punctuated with a degree of gallows humour. This relies on the formulaic assembling of the titular assassins, and the planning of Lord Naritsugu's demise. The climax is an epic battle that dominates the final third of the films running time. The action is gritty and credible and the fight scenes although technically accurate are not designed to be excessive balletic in their choreography, like some other Samurai movies.
It is to Miike’s credit that he maintains a strong narrative throughout all three acts. His direction is thoughtful, and he does well with managing a large number of protagonists, many of whom are not especially well defined. The cinematography is gorgeous and makes an interesting counterpoint to the unpleasantness that unfold within the story. There is minimal use of CGI and a reliance on traditional physical effects. This combined with the strength of the script and performances ensures that the film never becomes boring or baggy. Overall, 13 Assassins is a very moral film in a perverse way, with a very surprising conclusion. It maintains the right balance between exploring philosophical themes and providing dynamic escapist entertainment. For those not familiar with the work of Takashi Miike, this movie is a very good starting place.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Shout at the Devil (1976)
Adapted from the novel by Wilbur Smith, Shout at the Devil is the sort of big budget, sprawling, period set high adventure movie that has fallen out of vogue in recent decades. Its main attraction are its stars, location and robust action scenes. Crafted by former Bond director and long-time editor Peter Hunt, this is a full on, no nonsense character driven drama of the kind that were common place during the seventies. Sometimes the enormity of these sorts of productions meant that something suffered by omission. Be it a weak script, excessive set pieces or too many cameos by an all-star cast. Shout at the Devil broadly manages to avoid such pitfalls. There is however a notable tonal shift in the story about halfway through the film, which does take events in a different direction.
Adapted from the novel by Wilbur Smith, Shout at the Devil is the sort of big budget, sprawling, period set high adventure movie that has fallen out of vogue in recent decades. Its main attraction are its stars, location and robust action scenes. Crafted by former Bond director and long-time editor Peter Hunt, this is a full on, no nonsense character driven drama of the kind that were common place during the seventies. Sometimes the enormity of these sorts of productions meant that something suffered by omission. Be it a weak script, excessive set pieces or too many cameos by an all-star cast. Shout at the Devil broadly manages to avoid such pitfalls. There is however a notable tonal shift in the story about halfway through the film, which does take events in a different direction.
Set in East Africa in 1913 prior to WWI, Flynn O’Flynn (Lee Marvin) is a disreputable American of Irish descent exploiting the “riches” of the African continent. A poacher of ivory and a shameless con man, Flynn and his mute right-hand man Mohammed (Ian Holm) coerce an English Gentleman Sebastian Oldsmith (Roger Moore), into becoming a partner in their ivy poaching trade. This takes them into German colonial territory where they run afoul of Commander Fleischer (Rene Kolldehoff). Barely escaping they return to Flynn’s comfortable lodge located in the African bush. Sebastian meets and falls in love with Flynn’s daughter Rosa (Barbara Parkins) and the two marry and have a baby. The poaching continues but when war breaks out, Fleischer is granted unlimited local power and seeks revenge upon Flynn and Sebastian. He raids Flynn’s lodge but when he finds both Flynn and Sebastian absent, his troops massacre the staff and kill Rosa’s child. Devastated by events Flynn, Sebastian and Rosa undertake guerrilla missions on behalf of British navy. They discover that a German war ship is being hidden in the region and that it is being repaired before returning to sea. Furthermore, they learn that the work is being over seen by Fleischer, providing them with an opportunity for retribution.
The international version of Shout at the Devil has a running time of 150 minutes. This version restores a half hour of footage removed from the American theatrical release. The movie is well paced and has a clear narrative arc. Michael Reed's cinematography is sumptuous and makes the most of African locations. Maurice Jarre's score is suitably rousing and very much of its time. There is also some exceeding good miniature work by Derek Meddings who recreates a very convincing German Battleship. There is also genuine on-screen chemistry between Roger Moore and Lee Marvin. Moore plays straight man to Marvin's scenery-chewing character and the movie has a very jovial light-hearted tone initially. The first raid into German territory depicts the German Commander as a bumbling fool. Yet when Fleischer seeks revenge the plot takes a far more sinister and violent turn. The killing of a child is quite jarring, although far from graphic. The action scenes that follow also ramp up the casual violence. One notable scene has sheet steel being hauled across the savannah on wagons by dozens of native levy troops. In the ensuing gun battle, the wagons crush several people and sliding plate steel decapitates one unfortunate individual.
Shout at the Devil was shot in between The Man with the Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me and boasts a great deal of talent from the Bond franchise. Peter Hunt had edited the early Bond films and directed On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Although Roger Moore and Peter Hunt had never worked on a 007 film together, Moore did star in Hunt's previous adventure film Gold. Other Bond veterans involved in the production were main titles designer Maurice Binder, cinematographer Michael Reed and camera operators Alec Mills and Alan Hume. The movie has a very authentic quality due to the bulk of the production being shot on location. Sadly, this authenticity also extends to the poaching scene. Although no animals were directly harmed during the production, the film does use footage of a genuine elephant hunt and it proves hard to watch for those with modern sensibilities. Also, Caucasian actors playing other ethnicities is anachronistic.
One of the marked differences between modern movies and those from the sixties and seventies, is that contemporary films are often made to a specific rating. Hence every aspect of the film be it themes, dialogue, sex and violence are contrived in advance to be in accord with this. A movie such as Shout at the Devil would be pitched at a broad audience upon its release and would often veer from one idiom to another to accommodate different tastes. Hence you get a comedy fist fight or a humorous scene in which the local natives plead poverty to avoid paying taxes. And if the screenplay required it then you would quickly find yourself dealing with much heavier and dramatic adult themes, which in this case means infanticide, trauma and revenge. I’m not saying it doesn’t work or that it’s a deal breaker, but it is quite a noticeable change to the contained and measured approach of modern PG-13 rated movies.
Shout at the Devil is both an entertaining movie and a snapshot of the British film industry of the times. Elements of the production have dated and have to be judge contextually, if you don’t wish to balk at them. Any film based in twentieth century colonial history is naturally going to be challenging with respect to subjects such a racism and exploitation. Yet on the plus side, the movie does feature two genuine film greats at the height of their careers and their performances do much to carry the story. The films “broad church” approach means that its not stayed or safe and it has capacity to surprise when it decides to become darker. So, if you want an old school adventure movie with an epic scope and explosive climax, along with all the baggage from the era when it was made, then Shout at the Devil has it in spades. Just ensure that you see the international cut of the film in high definition to fully do the production justice.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
The Last Hunter (1980)
There are many films about war. There are many films about the Vietnam war. A few have transcended mere historical depiction and managed to capture the utter horror and political insanity of the situation, along with the tragic human cost. And then there are those which simply seek to use the setting as a vehicle for an exploitation movie, in the hope of making a fast buck. The Last Hunter (L'ultimo cacciatore) falls firmly into the second camp. This Italian "macaroni combat" movie (yes, I didn’t know that’s a thing either) offers a straight forward tale of an incursion behind enemy lines by an officer charged with destroying a radio transmitter, broadcasting anti-US propaganda. It is violent, action packed and surprisingly honest about what sort of film it is. You’ll find no pretentious philosophical musings here. Just explosions, rotting corpses and Viet Cong booby traps.
There are many films about war. There are many films about the Vietnam war. A few have transcended mere historical depiction and managed to capture the utter horror and political insanity of the situation, along with the tragic human cost. And then there are those which simply seek to use the setting as a vehicle for an exploitation movie, in the hope of making a fast buck. The Last Hunter (L'ultimo cacciatore) falls firmly into the second camp. This Italian "macaroni combat" movie (yes, I didn’t know that’s a thing either) offers a straight forward tale of an incursion behind enemy lines by an officer charged with destroying a radio transmitter, broadcasting anti-US propaganda. It is violent, action packed and surprisingly honest about what sort of film it is. You’ll find no pretentious philosophical musings here. Just explosions, rotting corpses and Viet Cong booby traps.
Directed by veteran Italian film maker Antonio Margheriti (and billed as Anthony Dawson on English language prints), The Last Hunter is a well-made (by Italian cash-in genre standards) exploitation war movie, with a solid international cast and good action set pieces. Margheriti had a background in miniature effects and the film features several scenes of this kind, such as the rail yard bombing at the start and the jungle cave demolition in the films second act. The dialogue is functional (and all dubbed in post-production like so many Italian movies of this kind) and the story efficiently moves the actors from set piece to set piece. There’s even the bonus of a minor twist in the movies climax. David Warbeck is suitably grizzled and burnt out as Captain Morris and Tisa Farrow fills the roll of the “plucky news reporter” embedded with the unit. There’s also wise cracking banter between Tony King and Bobby Rhodes as the units African-American representation. Connoisseurs of eighties Italian genre movies will delight at the cast and the additional inclusion of John Steiner as a suitably deranged Major.
Being an Italian movie of the times, there are copious acts of violence including a graphic gunshot to the eye, a partial decapitation and a leg amputation. There’s also a lot of crude barrack room humour and an attempted rape, but hey that’s how these movies roll. It almost as if there’s a check list being followed. The location cinematography in the Philippines gives the proceedings an authentic feel and like so many Italian movies from this decade, the soundtrack by Franco Micalizzi is contemporary, funky and far more interesting than some traditional orchestral scores. As this movie is not designed to be a cerebral undertaking it has to be judged on what it has to offer. And on that basis, then The Last Hunter is a better than average ninety plus minutes of Italian exploitation cinema. It is also a good steeping stone into the wider works of director Antonio Margheriti. If you enjoy this movie you may wish to try, Codename: Wild Geese (three guesses which movie this rips off), Command Leopard and Killer Fish. All have an interesting international cast, miniatures effects work along with either gore or action.
The Last Hunter Bonus Track: Music from the opening night club scene.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
On a superficial level the 2011 Conan reboot provides two hours of blood and thunder. For those who are seeking a quick fix of such material and are not burdened by a strong affiliation to Robert E. Howard’s source material, this will prove adequate. I suspect that Marcus Nispel’s offering will find a home with a younger audience. For purists or those who have fond memories of John Milius’ 1982 version, then this is not the film you are looking for. Move along. But to be honest after watching the various trailers that preceded this release and considering the directors track record, does this really come as any surprise? For those with a longer memory, cast you mind back to Nispel’s Viking versus Indian outing from 2007. Pathfinder was a high concept movie that was chronically mishandled.
On a superficial level the 2011 Conan reboot provides two hours of blood and thunder. For those who are seeking a quick fix of such material and are not burdened by a strong affiliation to Robert E. Howard’s source material, this will prove adequate. I suspect that Marcus Nispel’s offering will find a home with a younger audience. For purists or those who have fond memories of John Milius’ 1982 version, then this is not the film you are looking for. Move along. But to be honest after watching the various trailers that preceded this release and considering the directors track record, does this really come as any surprise? For those with a longer memory, cast you mind back to Nispel’s Viking versus Indian outing from 2007. Pathfinder was a high concept movie that was chronically mishandled.
This re-imagining loosely draws upon Robert E. Howard’s source material, as well as Schwarzenegger’s Conan. It is the opening scenes focusing on Conan’s youth which are the most engaging, from a narrative and character development stance. The brief insight into Cimmerian warrior culture makes for a strong start. But immediately after the death of Conan’s Father (Ron Perlman) it all lapses into by the numbers story telling. Evil Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) along with sorceress daughter Marique (Rose McGowan), seek an ancient relic to facilitate their fiendish (and formulaic) plans. Throw in a plucky warrior monk named Tamara (Rachel Nichols) and the generic story is complete. Conan’s motivation is purely one of revenge, but without the philosophical musings of Schwarzenegger’s. Jason Momoa has sufficient charm and presence to hold an audience, but the character has none of the depth you would hope.
The film clearly fails at script level. Jason Momoa’s mono-syllabic dialogue is purely reactive, serving as nothing more than an expositionary device. It is also delivered in a contemporary fashion. Nothing kills immersion for me more than period set dramas (be they based in fact or fantasy) utilising current American parlance. Potentially interesting characters are also neglected and given little to do. Rachel Nichols is introduced as a strong female lead but is sidelined as a damsel in distress rather quickly. Both Stephen Lang and Rose McGowan fail to deliver a good performance and maintain their evil nemesis roles purely by dint of the characters they have been assigned. Yet there is the scope for their curious and dysfunctional relationship to have been so much more.
What is so obviously lacking in this cinematic outing is depth. Can movies such as this have any, I hear you ask? Of course they can. Milius explored the nature of revenge and imbued his take on Conan with a Nietzschean subtext. Furthermore, Howard's original work has a multitude of themes and is not simply the pulp fiction it has been glibly labelled over the years. But director Marcus Nispel simply refuses to look beyond two-dimensional, cause and effect structure of the story. His Conan, although personable, has no dignity or nobility. Momoa is brooding but beyond his obvious vengeful motivation, he has few of the qualities of his literary namesake. It seems that the film makers only see the central character as an efficient killing machine and that's what they have brought to the screen.
Subsequently, Conan the Barbarian is totally the sum of its parts. As those respective parts are bland, hollow and uninspired, that is exactly the sort of movie that you get. For those seeking violence and bloodshed, then Conan the Barbarian can provide such commodities. However, it is subject to an excess of CGI and contemporary editing techniques that rob the action scenes of any sense of wonder. Compare them to the physical effects and sword play of the 1982 movie and the difference is obvious. The sequences with the sand spirits and under water creature, along with the films climax fail to offer any real tension. Again, they seem like a dislocated FX show reel that was added by the most economic bidder for the contract.
If Conan the Barbarian had simply been marketed under a different title and not linked to the franchise, perhaps critics would have been more forgiving. Had it just been “Wolgang Rippling Buttocks and the Sword of Kagnazax”, then it may well have been deemed acceptable. However, as it fails so notably to do any justice to Robert E. Howard’s work, it quite rightly merits harsher criticism. Furthermore, the point of failure is abundantly apparent. Director Nispel and the screen writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood are simply not up to the job. They fail to understand the philosophy of Conan and focus purely on spectacle and pandering to ill-conceived market research. The most depressing aspect of this is the fact that the box office failure of the film has pretty much ended any chance for a further reboot by more competent film makers.
I recently considered whether or not I should find a new MMORPG to play. A cursory Google search showed that there were plenty of titles that I have not tried. Unfortunately, they are predominantly fantasy based games drawing upon the established tropes and themes of the dungeons and dragons genre and the wider sword and sorcery literature. This begs the question “why aren’t there more science fiction or non-fantasy based MMOs?” apart from the handful that currently exist? After a little research and a degree of thinking it becomes very apparent that the answer to this question is mainly a business decision made by publishers. Furthermore, that business decision is based upon several specific factors. All of which cumulatively tip the scales towards fantasy, rather than science fiction or some other complex but non fantasy based franchise.
I had the pleasure of seeing Solomon Kane at the Empire Leicester Square upon its initial release. I remember at the time how I found it very refreshing to see an independent horror film that treated its underlying material with the respect it deserved. The genre was somewhat in the doldrums at the time, awash with soulless remakes and endless franchise sequels, produced by cynical studios that were ultimately contemptuous of the material they utilised and the fans that watched it. Although not a literal adaptation of the series of short stories by Robert E. Howard, Solomon Kane successfully captured their spirit and broadened their scope to accommodate both the horror and fantasy genres.
“In the universe there are things man cannot hope to understand. Powers he cannot hope to possess. Forces he cannot hope to control. The Four Crowns are such things. Yet the search has begun. A soldier of fortune takes the first step. He seeks a key that will unlock the power of the Four Crowns and unleash a world where good and evil collide”. So reads the Star Wars-esque opening crawl for the 1983 3D action movie, Treasure of the Four Crowns. It’s worth noting that when it appears on screen, this text is written in capitals and devoid of any punctuation. The movie is also a Cannon Films production. These facts may give viewers an inkling of what is to come over the next 100 minutes. It is certainly best to abandon expectations of linear, narrative filmmaking. Treasure of the Four Crowns is unique, batshit crazy and yet curiously entertaining.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
This December marks the 20th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, the first instalment of Peter Jacksons' adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s iconic novel, The Lord of the Rings. To celebrate this occasion, I shall post new reviews of the extended edition of all three films, as well as those of The Hobbit trilogy, which were made a decade later.
The Battle of the Five Armies is noticeably shorter than it's two predecessors, mainly because there is insufficient narrative to sustain the proceedings. Even the extended edition which adds a further 20 minutes to the running time, increasing it to 164 minutes, is mainly driven by one ongoing action sequence which is the titular battle. After the somewhat languid pace of the first movie and the bloated excess of the second, this further change of pace seems somewhat perplexing. Despite the more economical running time, events occur very rapidly. Perhaps a little too rapidly. It can be cogently argued that it somewhat diminishes the impact of some of them. Perhaps the biggest issue being the demise of Smaug. It comes promptly at the start of The Battle of the Five Armies and although spectacular, it quickly negates a major plot element.
This December marks the 20th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, the first instalment of Peter Jacksons' adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s iconic novel, The Lord of the Rings. To celebrate this occasion, I shall post new reviews of the extended edition of all three films, as well as those of The Hobbit trilogy, which were made a decade later.
I love the medium of film immensely. I like a wide range of genres and will happily watch weighty human dramas as well as the worst sort of trashy exploitation fodder. The key to reconciling such widely differing types of cinema is to judge them within their own context. Therefore don't compare the respective worth of Citizen Kane with The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, or Bicycle Thieves with The Medusa Touch. So because of the nature of Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit, I am prepared to make concessions to the fact that it is a big budget fantasy blockbuster franchise. Also the source material from which the film derives is quite sparse, often being nothing more than footnotes, or summations of history. Thus there is scope for a lot of "adaptation", artistic license and creativity. Jackson got a lot of this right with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, over a decade ago. I do not believe that to be the case this time round.
This December marks the 20th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring. The first instalment of Peter Jacksons' adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s iconic novel, The Lord of the Rings. To celebrate this occasion, I shall post new reviews of the extended edition of all three films, as well as those of The Hobbit trilogy, which were made a decade later.
Firstly let me start by saying I think the word unexpected is very apt in respect of the first instalment of Peter Jackson's three part adaptation of Tolkien's prequel to The Lord of the Rings. It is genuinely surprising how well parts of the narrative had been adapted and interpreted. Similarly there are other aspects that are less successful. Overall the good outweighs the bad but only the most ardent fanboy or girl would think the movie flawless. When one considers its problematic production along with the change of directors, this is quite an achievement. I wonder how much of Guillermo del Toro’s material survived into Peter Jacksons, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens revised screenplay? Secondly, a decade on from The Lord of the Rings, there has been a further move away from physical visual effects and filming on photographic film. Both of these changes are noticeable in An Unexpected Journey but the presence of Peter Jackson and his very specific style of filmmaking maintains a very strong sense of continuity.
In December it will be the twenty year anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring. The first entry in Peter Jackson’s trilogy of film adaptations of Professor Tolkien’s iconic novel, The Lord of the Rings. I was utterly swept up in the hype and media frenzy that persisted for three years around these movies between 2001 and 2003. I certainly have fond memories of seeing each film on the first day of its release at the prestigious Leicester Square Odeon in London. Broadly speaking I was very impressed with all three films at the time of their release. However, over the years excitement and fandom has been tempered with a greater degree of critical analysis and appraisal. Having recently watched the Extended Editions of all three films, remastered in 4K, I now think it would be pertinent to revise my thoughts on them and repost them here on Contains Moderate Peril. This initial post is intended more as an overview on the trilogy. I shall write three new in depth reviews in due course.
Before I begin, let’s just take a moment to remind ourselves about the notion of historical context. Movies, like so many other aspects of popular culture, reflect the prevailing attitudes of the time they were created. The reason I mention this is because within a few minutes of watching Arabian Adventure, viewers will become abundantly aware that the movie is very much product of British film making from the late seventies. If you are particularly sensitive on such issues as identity and gender politics, as well as historically accurate depictions of cultures and societies then watching this movie may prove jarring. If however, you view it through the prism of historical context and do not try to judge it against contemporary standards, then it may be an easier experience.
On a superficial level the 2011 Conan reboot provides two hours of blood and thunder. For those who are seeking a quick fix of such material and are not burdened by a strong affiliation to Robert E. Howard’s source material, this will prove adequate. I suspect that Marcus Nispel’s offering will find a home with a younger audience. For purists or those who have fond memories of John Milius’ 1982 version, then this is not the film you are looking for. Move along. But to be honest after watching the various trailers that preceded this release and considering the directors track record, does this really come as any surprise? For those with a longer memory, cast you mind back to Nispel’s Viking versus Indian outing from 2007. Pathfinder was a high concept movie that was chronically mishandled.
Twenty-five years ago, Super Mario Bros. was released upon an unsuspecting public and subsequently met with universal critical derision and box office failure. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight is seems incredible that this project ever got given a green light. Yet at the time, not only was it granted a generous $48 million budget, but it boasted a cast and production team of the highest pedigree. Produced by Oscar nominated director Roland Joffé, the cinematography was by Dean Semmler and the editing was by Mark Goldblatt. The central characters of Mario and Luigi where played by Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo and the icing on the cake was Dennis Hopper as King Koopa. You simply couldn't make it up.
Tarsem Singh's Immortals follows in the wake of Zac Snyder’s 300 with a similar aesthetic and editing style. Despite an interesting cast, featuring the talents of John Hurt, Mickey Rourke and Henry Cavill, it’s a singularly uninspired film, devoid of any story telling of any substance. Immortals main selling points are glossy, stylised visuals and a striking production design which is very derivative of Italian cinema from the sixties. There are also liberal doses of violence and heaving oiled flesh to enliven the proceedings, but it is all feels somewhat arbitrary and a bit of a box ticking exercise. Overall what surprises me the most is how a film maker with all of the drama and excitement of Greek mythology at his disposal, can still make such a turgid and dull movie as this?
The early eighties saw an interesting mini boom in the sword and sorcery films. Studios have always been quick to jump on any bandwagon and the growing popularity of the Dungeons and Dragons role playing games showed a potential market. Subsequently, there was a glut of material from the fantasy genre. John Milius’ Conan the Barbarian (1982) remains the benchmark for such movies with its blend of high adventure and philosophical musing. Other films of note include John Boorman’s Excalibur (1981), Dragonslayer (1981), Legend (1985), Krull (1983) and The Beastmaster (1982) to name but a few. All of them have an interesting pedigree with regard to their respective cast and directors. As always there were numerous poor and substandard entries, but we will not catalogue them here.
After years of war, two 14th century Crusaders (Nicholas Cage and Ron Perlman) returns to a homeland devastated by the Black Plague. The church, deeming sorcery to be the source of the outbreak, tasks the knights to transport an accused witch (Claire Foy) to a remote abbey, where monks will perform a ritual in hopes of ending the pestilence. A priest, a grieving knight, a disgraced trader and an altar boy who dreams of becoming a knight, join the mission across a hostile wilderness. The group soon finds itself at odds with each other over the fate of the girl. When the embattled party finally arrives at the abbey, a horrific discovery jeopardises the knight's pledge to ensure the girl fair treatment, pitting them against an inexplicably powerful and destructive force. Will good or evil triumph?
Having recently sat through Orcs! I decided to take a further chance and watch Orc Wars. It too is a very low budget film, although this time the finances were raised through crowdfunding. Sadly, it is not the fun, tongue in cheek, independent adventure movie the trailer and associated marketing implies. There is very little merit in this production. It's cheap, cheerful and although harmless, it clearly demonstrates that not all fan funded projects are good cinema. Some are just indulgences. The problem is in the title itself, which tries to sell an idea that the movie production is incapable of delivering. Instead of the spectacle of an army of a thousand Orcs pitted against the technological might of the US war machine, we get a few extras in ill-fitting costumes, running skirmishes against no-name actors on quad bikes and a few old Army Surplus vehicles. It's all rather lacklustre and underwhelming.
As a fan of the horror genre I’ve sat through numerous low budget films in my time. This has usually been at festivals or conventions. Sometimes watching something as part of a group, with likeminded individuals, makes a difference. You find yourself groaning in unison and the shared experience helps compensate for potential deficiencies. Watching questionable material in the comfort of your own home, purely on your own can be a lot tougher. However, due to my abiding love of the genre, I am prepared to cut a lot of cheap ass indie flicks considerably more slack than I would others. So, I'll endeavour to review Orcs! with as much impartiality as possible. Oh, and before we start, let us clarify the term Orcs. Although Middle-earth is not referenced in any way, this film is definitely about Tolkien's creations. Or at least their depiction in another well-known series of films.
Stephen King’s body of work has proven to be an invaluable source of material for film and television over the last forty years. The results have often been as varied as the books themselves. Because of the inherent differences between the respective mediums, sometimes the complexity and sheer scope of King’s work can be lost in translation from one to the other. It’s happened before with several high-profile adaptations and it will no doubt happen again. The Dark Tower is a classic example failing to capture the essence of King’s work. Trying to distil and convey a mythos that is spread over eight volumes, into a single movie is a tall order for any director and screen writer. It can be cogently argued that material of this sort is better suited to television where lengthy, complex story arcs can be indulged and characters can be explored at leisure. In fact, during it’s time in development hell, The Dark Tower was at one point destined to be adapted for the small screen. However, the desire to create a lucrative film franchise ultimately prevailed.
A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus-the demigod, son of Zeus, is attempting to live a quieter life. Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and the Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos. Enlisting the help of the warrior Queen Andromeda, Poseidon's demigod son Argenor and fallen god Hephaestus, Perseus bravely embarks on a treacherous quest into the underworld to overthrow the Titans and save mankind. Or so Warner Bros. Pictures say in their 2012 press release for Wrath of the Titans.
When I initially heard that Clash of the Titans was to be remade, I had mixed feelings. I grew up watch Ray Harryhausen movies and have a great affection for them. However, it can be argued that the 1981 original movie has hardly Harryhausens finest work. It was saddled with an uninspired script, a wooden lead and seemed very dated compared to comparable fantasy movies at the time, such as Dragonslayer. So, I chose to give the 2010 remake the benefit of the doubt. I was even prepared to overlook the fact that the movie had been retrofitted in to 3D during post-production. A pointless embellishment. Upon my first viewing, which I saw on a big screen West End theatre, I was left with mixed feelings. I recently decided to watch Clash of the Titans again to see if there were any aspects of the film that I had overlooked. Sadly, my conclusions remained the same.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
For many fans and enthusiasts, there are the original trilogy of Indiana Jones movies, all made in the eighties when director Steven Spielberg was reaching the height of his film making creativity. And then you have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; the poorly regarded, Johnny-come-lately fourth instalment made nearly twenty years later, that jumped the shark, or in this instance “nuked the fridge” and for some viewers, pretty much pissed on the memory of its three predecessors. Make no mistake, over a decade on from the films theatrical release there is still a lot of ill will held towards the fourth Indiana Jones adventure. Let us not forget that South Park based an entire episode around the contempt they have for the movie. Yet despite all this hostility, it should be noted that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the most commercially successful entry in the franchise, grossing $786,636,033 worldwide. It was the second most successful movie in 2008 (the first being Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight) and although not universally well received by fans, it did broadly garner critical success. However, within that spectrum of reviews there were some strong negative opinions. All things considered Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is somewhat of an enigma, in so far as being financially successful but a movie that most people don’t admit to liking.
For many fans and enthusiasts, there are the original trilogy of Indiana Jones movies, all made in the eighties when director Steven Spielberg was reaching the height of his film making creativity. And then you have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; the poorly regarded, Johnny-come-lately fourth instalment made nearly twenty years later, that jumped the shark, or in this instance “nuked the fridge” and for some viewers, pretty much pissed on the memory of its three predecessors. Make no mistake, over a decade on from the films theatrical release there is still a lot of ill will held towards the fourth Indiana Jones adventure. Let us not forget that South Park based an entire episode around the contempt they have for the movie. Yet despite all this hostility, it should be noted that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the most commercially successful entry in the franchise, grossing $786,636,033 worldwide. It was the second most successful movie in 2008 (the first being Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight) and although not universally well received by fans, it did broadly garner critical success. However, within that spectrum of reviews there were some strong negative opinions. All things considered Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is somewhat of an enigma, in so far as being financially successful but a movie that most people don’t admit to liking.
So, what exactly is the proverbial beef with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Let’s take a few moments to go over possible areas of contention. Plot wise the story is nothing special but then again, it’s hardly anything controversial. Indie seeks Akator, the mythical kingdom in the Amazon that may hold both great power and wealth. It’s the same basic sort of MacGuffin used in the previous instalments. The story actually does a good job updating the format from the thirties to the fifties. The nuggets of information we get about what Indy's been up to in the last 20 years are rather intriguing. Working for O.S.S. and becoming a decorated war hero for example, are touched upon but never over egged. We also learn the fate of both Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) and Henry Jones Senior (Sean Connery), both of whom have died. This is both credible and to a degree necessary because having too many cameos from prior characters can sometimes be as both a boon and a bane. The Soviet Union and Communists replacing Nazis is also a sound move and the way Indy falls foul of McCarthyism and loses his position at the university is a novel idea. It all adds to keeping the same vibe going yet playing it against a subtly different back drop. I even like the anecdote about Roswell, as it raised a wry smile. Overall, despite a superficial change from the supernatural to science fiction, Indy 4 is pretty much a case of same meat, different gravy, when it comes to the narrative.
As for casting, action scenes, pacing and general continuity, as well as visual aesthetics, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does remarkably well. Harrison Ford and Karen Allen genuinely recreate the chemistry that was present in the original movie. The fist fights and associated stunt work are still very good, leaning towards the gritty. This has always been a violent franchise, despite being sold a family entertainment. Editing is also invaluable cinematic tool for creating a sense of style and maintaining a sense of continuous ambience. Veteran editor Michael Kahn, who has worked on all Spielberg’s movies since 1979, does much to make the movie feel just like the others. Also, although Douglas Slocombe, the cinematographer of the original trilogy had long retired by 2008, Janusz Kamiński, who has shot all of the director's films since Schindler's List, made a conscious effort to recreate the previous visual style. Plus let us not overlook the immense contribution that composer John Williams has made to world of Indiana Jones. His score for the fourth movie is every bit the equal of the first three.
So, if it’s not an overt and specific facet of the production that is the problem, is it a case of something subtler being to blame? I believe the answer is yes. Hollywood is an industry that regularly resurrects franchises. If in doubt, revisit a tried and tested formula. Public good will and nostalgia will often guarantee decent box office returns. Sometimes this works as with Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. Others fails. Take I Spy, Starsky & Hutch, The Dukes of Hazard, and some may argue the latter three Star Wars prequels. It often comes down to a trade-off between pleasing existing fans and trying to capture a new market who may not be familiar with the original material. It sounds perfectly reasonable to make such a choice but endeavouring to reconcile these two aspirations is far harder to achieve than you think. Both markets have very different needs at times and certainly there are distinct variations in taste across generations.
Despite the familiar faces, music, production team and many other common elements to previous entries, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull suffers from a weak screenplay. Although the story is straight forward, the various scenes don’t quite hang well together. New characters are introduced but none have enough back story. The fact that these roles are carried by quality actors helps, but they are not used to the best of their potential. You don’t have to write large swathes of dialogue to flesh out a fictional character. You just needs to write something intriguing, that makes you think. A detail that makes that individual seem less contrived and more like a real person. It can be an affectation, quirk or foible. Or they can reference a tragedy that shaped their character or show an interest in something you wouldn’t immediately assume. It’s a difficult thing to quantify, but you know it when you see it. Hans Gruber from Die Hard is a great bad guy for example. Because the screenplay in Indy 4 is inconsistent, the movie suffers from a tonal shift on several occasions. I actually liked the way Spielberg handles the relationship between Shia LaBeouf and Harrison Ford. The banter between the two, focusing very much on the age gap feels right. By contrast the female characters do not fare so well. Karen Allen is not given enough to do, which is an utter shame as her character has so much potential. Kate Blanchett is also rather imposing as the Russian villain. Equipped with borderline psychic powers and a penchant for fencing, you'd think she'd be a standout feature of the film. Alas, again there is not enough material to flesh out the role.
But perhaps the biggest Achilles heel of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the action set pieces. This is ironic as next to the Bond franchise, Indiana Jones did much to refine and advance this aspect of film making. Yet it is this element of the movie that inadvertently hobbles it instead of embellishing it. Take a moment to reflect upon Raiders of the Lost Ark. The iconic scene at the beginning where Indy flees the collapsing temple pursued by the giant stone ball booby trap. The truck chase in which stuntman Terry Leonard created a modern variation of Yakima Canutt’s iconic set piece form Stagecoach. And of course, the fistfight with Pat Roach under the German flying wing. What made these scenes so great is that they were all done physically with very little or no post production effects. What optical effects there were, remained measured in scope. In many ways the technical limitations forced a degree of credibility on the proceedings. Of course, all movies require audiences to suspend their sense of disbelief, and more so with genre movies. Yet being grounded in these ways mean that the first film stays the right side of the “relative credibility line” and keeps the audience on board. Sadly, in each subsequent movie, the franchise subsequently broke this rule by greater degrees. Bailing out of a plane using an inflatable raft as parachute was a big ask in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. A rear facing turret on a plane that does not have interrupter gear, thus enabling the machine gun to shoot its own rudder in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, again is a step too far. These examples are the tipping point where high adventure becomes a caricature of itself.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull made nearly two decades later from the original trilogy had all the “benefits” of computer-generated imagery and contemporary FX technology. Such limitless possibilities thus removed any remaining vestiges of credibility and the action scenes failed to wow because they were simply impossible and obviously “not real”. I have no problem with the nuclear test scene, but I dislike its resolution. It is just far too silly and instantly breaks a degree of immersion for the enthusiastic viewer. The much-protracted chase through the jungle between jeeps, trucks and amphibious vehicles is ruined by the digital sequences that depict acts so ludicrously implausible they’d be better off in a cartoon. If this scene had been scaled back, lost the Tarzan wine swinging references and had just confined itself to what could be done in camera, then it would have been vastly improved. And as for the alien revelation at the denouement, again it focuses too much on digital spectacle. Even the traditional fist fight with the signature heavy (Igor Jijikine) is spoilt by an excessively FX driven pay off.
Sadly, the aliens plot element and its impersonal CGI actions scenes all bear the clumsy handiwork of George Lucas. It was he who allegedly vetoed scripts from several respected writers, including Frank Darabont and was insistent on pursuing his penchant for spectacle over narrative. At its root the fundamental problem with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is that Messrs Spielberg and Lucas were trying to recreate a franchise movie that hailed from an era when not only techniques and film making philosophy were fundamentally different, but so were both men. Trying to revisit your own past is inherently difficult so perhaps this instalment may have faired better if both individuals had deferred to other film makers to helm the project. Modern action blockbusters are a very different beast to those from the eighties and I can’t help feeling the modern corporate film making is too formulaic for the likes of franchise born of a more experimental and flexible era in movie making. Does Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull deserve the animosity it still receives from the viewing public. Perhaps not. There are many good aspects to the film. But it is definitely a compromise and like most compromises it doesn’t meet all parties’ expectations. Furthermore, in the last ten years or so the general public seems to be far less disposed toward anything other than getting exclusively what they want. If we do get a further Indiana Jones film in 2020, it will be interesting to see if there is a revision of opinion on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That may depend on how bad the new one is because although Indy may well be able to get the better of both Nazis and aliens, he doesn’t seem to have survived modern studio film making too well.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
In the year 1860, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) faces execution by guillotine for the murders perpetrated by the creature he created. With the assistance of a hunchback named Karl (Oscar Quitak) he avoids death by beheading the priest who came to give him the last rites. The priest’s body is then mistakenly buried by the authorities. Three years later, Victor, now using the name Doctor Stein, has established himself as a prosperous physician in Karlsbrück, serving both affluent patients and the poor at a paupers’ hospital. Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews), a junior member of the medical council, recognises Victor and being an admirer, seeks to become his apprentice. Victor and Hans then undertake an experiment to transplant Karl’s living brain into a new, more refined body, rather than a grotesque monstrosity the Baron has previously made. Karl is eager to have a new healthy body, especially after encountering Margaret Conrad (Eunice Gayson), the charming new assistant at the hospital.
This movie questionnaire was originally created by Alexander from Cinemaniac Reviews. Sadly, I believe that website is now defunct. However, that doesn’t in anyway invalidate the questionnaire itself which has some very good questions about your relationship with cinema. Some of my answers to the questions posed are about films that I enjoy, as opposed to those that are considered cinematic classics. However, I have answered some questions more seriously than others, especially the one about undeserving recipients of the Best Film Oscar. I struggled with a couple of questions because I no longer go the cinema as frequently as I did 10 years ago. This is mainly due to the fact that a lot of the films I find interesting end up going straight to streaming after very brief theatrical releases. Some do not even get shown in cinemas. Hence I view far more at home. But I digress. On with the questions and answers. Feel free to comment below and share your views.
Exit 8 is a sophisticated and claustrophobic psychological thriller directed by Genki Kawamura, which skilfully transforms a minimalist indie walking-simulator game into a cinematic existential enigma. This overtly metaphorical film renders the repetitive nature and drudgery of modern working life into a physical environment in which the lead character is trapped and must find a way out. A random, brutal maze filled with an atmosphere of indifference to the lab rats that find themselves trapped within. Or is it their personal guilt that has put them there? Genki Kawamura’s psychological mystery draws inspiration from the Japanese video game of the same name, as well as from the cyclical nature of Groundhog Day and endless corridors of the Overlook Hotel in Kubrick’s The Shining. Although there are jump scares and some ghoulish imagery, this is not a horror vehicle. Instead this is a disquieting psychological drama with a strong sense of morality.
I wrote a post 18 month’s ago regarding whether a directors cut of a film is superior by default to the version originally shown in cinemas. Obviously the answer was no and I then went on to give three examples of films where I think the theatrical release is better to lengthier or substantially altered director’s cut that was subsequently made available at a later date. This time round in this post, I would like to do the complete opposite. I shall provide some examples of films that I think are significantly improved by a longer cut or a substantially, restructured edit. Note some of these examples are technically not a “director’s cuts” but a restoration or reconstruction of the director’s original vision. I shall endeavour to highlight what specific material or broader changes make each respective film “better”. As ever, all of these examples are a matter of subjective opinion and my views are presented as such, not “fact”.
In 1968 the dilapidated freighter Corita hastily leaves Freetown to avoid a customs inspection. Captain Lansen (Eric Porter) has a cargo of dangerous explosives which he is smuggling so he can finally retire. His ship’s passengers also have reasons for leaving in a hurry. Dr. Webster (Nigel Stock), together with his daughter Unity (Suzanna leigh), is relocating due to his indiscretions with patients and illegal operations. Alcoholic pianist Harry Tyler (Tony Beckley) is aimlessly drifting from port to port. Eva Peters (Hildegard Knef) is fleeing from her husband with stolen bearer bonds which she intend to use to buy back her son from his evil clutches Caracas. Ricaldi (Ben Carruthers), a questionable lawyer, is pursuing Eva to retrieve the stolen bonds. First officer Hemmings (Neil McCallum) suggests that the ship should return to Freetown after an imminent Hurricane warning. The Captain asks the passengers and they are unanimous that they do not wish to return. However a mutinous crew, the bad weather and the instability of the explosives force everyone to abandon ship. The survivors find themselves adrift in a lifeboat surrounded by a strange carnivorous seaweed.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955. Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful. The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
There are certain subjects that are notoriously uncinematic. These tend to be things that exist or are undertaken mainly in the mind, rather than expressed in an overtly physical way. Computing, science and mathematics are good examples. Writing code or working out complex equations does not immediately lend themselves to a visual medium such as cinema. Therefore, any film dealing with the world of corporate finance has its work cut out. Hence writer-director J C Chandor immediately deserves praise for making Margin Call, a film about the financial crash of 2008, as gripping and compelling as any political thriller. He does this by keeping the financial elements of the story to a minimum, choosing instead to focus upon those who have become aware of the imminent crisis and their reaction to it. However, the film remains a tough watch with regard to the some of the characters and their respective personal morality or lack there of.
The 1937 Hindenburg disaster has remained an enduring mystery over the years. The physical mechanics of how this airship filled with 7,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen gas caught fire has been fully explored over the decades and there are now several extremely plausible theories as to how it may have happened. However, there remains the possibility of sabotage. As such an idea has more dramatic potential than mechanical failure, it was used as the central theme of the 1975 disaster movie The Hindenburg. Directed by Robert Wise, the screenplay by Nelson Gidding explores a German resistance against the Nazi regime. The airship is targeted as it is a powerful propaganda symbol for Hitler’s Germany. Sadly despite some interesting ideas, a strong cast and solid, old school optical effects, The Hindenburg is a slow and somewhat ponderous production. Although the final 20 minutes of the film recreate the infamous explosion meticulously, it doesn’t quite compensate for the uneventful, dialogue driven investigation of the previous 100 minutes.
On the Eastern Front in 1943, a German Tiger tank crew led by Lieutenant Philip Gerkens (David Schütter) is sent on a mission to rescue the missing officer Paul von Hardenburg (Tilman Strauss) from a top-secret bunker that is at risk of falling into enemy hands. As they make their way through an eerie no-man’s land, they have to avoid Russian armoured vehicles that seem to be aware of their mission. They also encounter a German unit taking punitive action against a peasant village, in reprisal for partisan activity in the area. The youngest crew member, Michel (Yoran Leicher), talks of the land being home to ghosts and spirits. As the tank penetrates further into contested territory the crew become increasingly disturbed by the uncanny nature of their mission and begin to fall prey to their own inner fears.
Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel has been adapted for cinema and television numerous times. Perhaps the most well known is the 1950 Disney version, starring Robert Newton as Long John Silver. His eye rolling performance and exaggerated West Country accent is credited with popularising the stereotypical form of “pirate speech" that has become the pop culture default. Although an enjoyable film, it does gloss over the more sinister aspects of both the source text and history, perpetuating the myth that pirates are just loveable scoundrels. Many subsequent adaptations have fallen into the same trap to a greater or lesser degree. However, that is not the case with the 1990 version of Treasure island, which was made for the TNT cable network and released theatrically outside of the US. This darker and notably more violent adaptation closely follows the source text and is widely considered the most faithful to the book.
The Planet of the Apes movie franchise took a radical change of course with its third entry in the series. The first two films were set in the future and benefited from high production values to help realise a post apocalyptic earth. However, due to a substantial reduction of budget, Escape from the Planet of the Apes uses a time travel plot device to bring the ape protagonists to present day Los Angeles (1971 in this case). The result is a film with a much smaller narrative scope. However, although it lacks the science fiction spectacle of its predecessors, it features an interesting satirical exploration of celebrity culture and ponders what it is like to be deemed an enemy of the state. As ever, Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter provide exceptional lead performances as the Chimpanzees Cornelius and Zira. Escape from the Planet of the Apes also captures the pop culture vibe of seventies America.
It is not unusual for Disney to change film titles when marketing them outside of the US. In 2016 they renamed the animated feature film Zootopia to Zootropolis in the UK and Europe to avoid trademark conflicts with other existing businesses. For example there is a Danish zoo which already holds the “Zootopia” name. Similarly, in Germany there is a children’s book which caused copyright conflict, which led to the film being released under the title Zoomania. Such changes, although practical for legal reasons, can sometimes cause a degree of confusion. Especially as there are numerous, low budget productions companies that go out of their way to produce similarly titled “mockbusters” whenever there are big, tentpole, releases. So for clarity, Zootopia 2 has been released in the UK as Zootropolis 2.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
The Haunted Dolls House is a short film based on a story by M.R. James about a unique antique that is subject to supernatural phenomenon. Adapted by Stephen Gray and David Lilley, this is the third of three short films based upon James’ work that the pair have made. It stars Steven Dolton as Mr. Dillet, a collector of antique dolls houses, who acquires a bargain only to discover that it harbours a ghostly secret. Made on an extremely modest budget over the course of 2012 this clever, innovative and rather sinister adaptation is a fine example of short film creativity. It manages to offer a unique visual depiction of M.R. James’ classic story whilst capturing the unsettling quality of the author’s work. Like so many independently made short films it is clearly a labour of love, made with modest resources. It succinctly captures the spirit of the author’s work and is both innovative and rewarding.
A lot of people may know Luke Evans from the live action version of Beauty and the Beast or Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy. With his matinee idol good looks, charming Welsh demeanour and his “smoky” tenor singing voice, he projects a sense of old school stardom. Which brings us to No One Lives; a film which is a radical departure from his previous work. His performance is disconcerting to say the least and the film is somewhat unhinged. Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura, who made an interesting adaptation of Clive Barker’s The Midnight Meat Train, this cinematic outing is similarly replete with robust shocks and gore. There are some interesting ideas about the nature of violence, Stockholm Syndrome and whether one should deny or embrace one’s nature. However, these are ultimately minor asides. Philosophical musings in between bouts of surprisingly striking unpleasantness.
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
One of the most common objections raised regarding the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is that the films are specifically made to obtain a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association, for purely commercial reasons. Hence, in all films, there is little on screen violence and the dinosaurs are mainly portrayed as a threat and a means of providing jump scares. When a character is killed by a dinosaur it usually happens off screen, is obscured by something else in frame, or is shown in long shot with very little detail. The realities of being eaten alive by a predator are conspicuously absent. Hence, audiences looking for films featuring more graphic dinosaur attacks, have not been well catered for apart from some minor direct-to-video titles. Primitive War finally fills this gap in the market with a frenetic genre mashup that strives to punch above is budgetary weight.
During the seventies, cinema was not only a source of mass, commercial entertainment but was still perceived as a medium for intellectual and philosophical discourse. Television was a poor relation in terms of art and cultural significance. Film was where the so called auteur director could muse and ruminate upon the nature of the human condition and audiences could subsequently gush sycophantically about their work at dinner parties. Or something like that. Let it suffice to say that some film makers were still indulged by studios and financiers, who were still keen to cash in on the cultural sea change that came to Hollywood in the late sixties. It’s difficult to see how a film such as Emperor of the North (AKA Emperor of the North Pole) could have been made otherwise. A film set in the Great Depression about a hobo illegally travelling on freight trains and his feud with a ruthless conductor.
In Buenos Aires, Clara (Natalia Señorales) hears voices emanating from the plughole in her kitchen sink. The voices seem to be plotting against her. Her husband Juan (Agustín Rittano) says the sounds are coming from next door. That night, Juan finds Clara’s dead body levitating in their bathroom, slamming against the wall by an invisible force. Meanwhile their neighbour, Walter (Demián Salomón), is experiencing supernatural occurrences while he tries to sleep. An invisible force repeatedly shakes his bed. After using a video camera to film these events, he sees a tall, cadaverous figure emerging from under the bed, standing over him as he sleeps. Across the road, Alicia (Julieta Vallina) is grieving for her recently deceased son, who was run over outside Walter’s house. Alicia's ex-boyfriend, police commissioner Funes (Maximiliano Ghione) calls Jano (Norberto Gonzalo), a paranormal investigator and the pair soon discover more supernatural occurrences in the area.
Black Sabbath (AKA I tre volti della paura) is a 1963 horror anthology film directed by Mario Bava. Although an Italian production, the film was co-financed by American International Pictures and as such was conceived to appeal to US audiences. Hence, the English dialogue edit of the film which was released in America differs significantly to the original Italian version. Despite the presence of the legendary Boris Karloff and the popularity of both anthology and gothic horror at the time,the film was only a modest success at the US box office and did not do well in Italy. However, in more recent years there has been a critical reappraisal of Black Sabbath, especially the Italian dialogue version. Many aspects of the film which are standard genre tropes today, were in fact novel at the time. Also despite the production mainly being studio bound, the film oozes style and has a striking visual aesthetic.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
American music producer James William Guercio is primarily known for his work in the music industry. He was the producer of the band Chicago’s first eleven studio albums. In the mid-seventies he also managed the Beach Boys and was a member of their backing band. He was during this time, well known in his field and respected. In 1973, Guercio directed, produced and wrote the score for his first and only feature film, Electra Glide in Blue. He was 28 years old at the time. Upon release the film received mixed reviews from many traditional US newspapers, who were dismissive of its revisionist themes and poetical style. However, in Europe the film was received more favourably and was entered into the 1973 Cannes Film Festival. Fifty two years on and Electra Glide in Blue is now considered an overlooked cult classic and is analysed in a more measured fashion.
Get the Gringo AKA How I Spent My Summer Vacation (2012)
Mel Gibson fall from grace has been well documented, so I feel no need to dwell on it here. I also don't take any particular moral stance with regard to the man himself. I'm more interested in his work as an actor, director and the material he produces. People are flawed and we all make mistakes. Does this automatically invalidate our work? However, it would appear that I am in the minority on this one, as Mr Gibson has never truly bounced back. The Hollywood establishment has remained sceptical of him in recent years. Therefore, he has financed many of his film projects himself and personally arranged their international distribution deals. Get the Gringo AKA How I Spent My Summer Vacation is one such example of this and the movie premièred on VOD in the US rather than in theatres. However, it did get shown in movie theatres in other territories.
Mel Gibson fall from grace has been well documented, so I feel no need to dwell on it here. I also don't take any particular moral stance with regard to the man himself. I'm more interested in his work as an actor, director and the material he produces. People are flawed and we all make mistakes. Does this automatically invalidate our work? However, it would appear that I am in the minority on this one, as Mr Gibson has never truly bounced back. The Hollywood establishment has remained sceptical of him in recent years. Therefore, he has financed many of his film projects himself and personally arranged their international distribution deals. Get the Gringo AKA How I Spent My Summer Vacation is one such example of this and the movie premièred on VOD in the US rather than in theatres. However, it did get shown in movie theatres in other territories.
Get the Gringo was at the time of its release a clear return to form for Mel Gibson, harking back to the halcyon days of Payback. It’s a fast paced, hard edged action movie, with interesting if amoral characters. It shows all the intelligence and attention to detail you expect from Gibson. Although directed by Adrian Grunberg who usually specialises in second unit direction, the movie shows the presence of its star in all aspects of the production. Career criminal Gibson find himself in an experimental prison south of the border after a bank job goes wrong. Once inside he proceeds to run rings around gang bosses, corrupt official and play the very system for his own personal gain. Although far from a hero, he does extend a hand of friendship to ten-year-old boy (Kevin Hernandez) and his tough but caring mother (Dolores Heredia).
Now the astute reader may well be asking what is a child doing in a prison? Well the films setting is based on a genuine experiment the Mexican authorities undertook, in which prisoners were allowed to set up their own community while incarcerated. This included bringing their families and running business etc. An interesting idea on paper, but the reality of the situation was a lot closer to Escape From New York. Production designer Bernardo Trujillo has created a unique environment in which the story unfolds. Being a prison that story is a violent and bloody one. There is also an interesting subplot in which one of the crime bosses needs a liver transplant. The only suitable donor is of course the young boy under Gibson's protection. It makes for some curious developments.
Under different circumstances Get the Gringo would have garnered a great deal more attention and would have probably been a box office success if released at a different time. It certainly deserved a wider release within the US, but unfortunately some people in the film industry have long memories. The cinematography is solid, bringing to life the grimy environment and many Mexican clichés are turned on their head. The movie did receive a warmer welcome in the international market under its alternative title of How I Spent My Summer Vacation. For those that like more depth to their thrillers Get the Gringo is certainly worth a viewing and should provide more than just gritty action. There are strong performances and amoral conundrums to enjoy.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
The Raid 2 (2014)
It is very difficult to write about The Raid 2 without descending into hyperbole or gushing like a fanboy. As the movie poster shows, the popular press used pretty much every cliché available on the film’s release in 2014. If I remember, they did this previously with the original movie, The Raid in 2011. I may have leaned towards such enthusiasm myself when reviewing the previous movie. One thing that can be said about The Raid 2 is that it's a game changer and a genre milestone. It is more than just an action movie, in the same way that Enter the Dragon is more than just a martial arts movie and Singin' in the Rain is more than just a musical. Director Gareth Evans has stepped beyond the traditionally narrow scope of the genre to produce something far more ambitious.
It is very difficult to write about The Raid 2 without descending into hyperbole or gushing like a fanboy. As the movie poster shows, the popular press used pretty much every cliché available on the film’s release in 2014. If I remember, they did this previously with the original movie, The Raid in 2011. I may have leaned towards such enthusiasm myself when reviewing the previous movie. One thing that can be said about The Raid 2 is that it's a game changer and a genre milestone. It is more than just an action movie, in the same way that Enter the Dragon is more than just a martial arts movie and Singin' in the Rain is more than just a musical. Director Gareth Evans has stepped beyond the traditionally narrow scope of the genre to produce something far more ambitious.
The Raid 2 exceeds the claustrophobic confines of its predecessor and offers a far more ambitious plot. Following two hours after the siege on Boss Tama’s tower block complex (as seen in the first film), cop Rama (Iko Uwais) is asked to go undercover in a maximum-security prison so he can infiltrate a Jakarta crime syndicate. Rama manages to penetrate the inner circle of Ucok (Arifin Putra), the son of crime boss Bangun (Tio Pakusodewo). When rival gang leader Bejo (Alex Abbad) instigates a turf war for the streets of Jakarta, Rama quickly finds that all may not be as it seems, both in prison and within the ranks of his own police department.
The Raid 2 has a running time of two and a half hours, but it does not out stay its welcome despite its length. It manages to keep the narrative moving forward and switches seamlessly from action scene to occasional exposition. It is clear that director Evans has been influenced by the works of Akira Kurosawa, Park Chan-wook, Takeshi Kitano and Alan Mak, both visually and thematically. There are clear homages to several genre classics; a mass fight in a prison yard that has turned to mud, the use as claw hammers as a weapon and the complex inner politics of the crime syndicate. The movie also excels with its cinematography, editing and choreography. The action is superbly framed and presented in such a way that allows the audience to enjoy the frenetic pace but still see exactly what is happening on screen.
The Raid 2 is not for the squeamish. It is a brutal and unflinching in its depiction of violence. Yet there is a poetical quality to the never-ending litany of broken limbs, stabbings and sundry mayhem. Edwards manages to succeed in making the violence both titillating and disturbing at once. The audience is never quite sure what is going to happen next. It is this element of unpredictability that works so well in the film favour. It’s a radical change in approach to the distinctly passive experience that contemporary mainstream action movies have become in the west. Four years on we have yet to see a third instalment of this franchise, which is a shame. There is still talk of a US remake of the original film, for those viewers that cannot cope with subtitles or a non-American cast. For viewers with broader cinematic taste, The Raid 2 is well worth seeking out and seeing in its original language, because it is a superior, stylish and honest product.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
The Raid (2011)
I was not a big fan of Gareth Evans 2009 movie Merantau. Although it was an interesting showcase for Iko Uwais and Pencak Silat martial arts, the story had a ponderous narrative and was thirty minutes too long. The human drama seemed at odds with the action content. However, in early 2011 I started to hear positive things about his follow up movie The Raid. When I finally got to see the international version of the film the following year, I was summarily impressed. The Raid was the most entertaining, all out, kick you in the nuts action film I’d seen since Hard Boiled at that point. Every so often, a film comes along that breathes new life in to an ageing and tired genre. The Raid was exactly such a movie and it didn’t take long for people to take note.
I was not a big fan of Gareth Evans 2009 movie Merantau. Although it was an interesting showcase for Iko Uwais and Pencak Silat martial arts, the story had a ponderous narrative and was thirty minutes too long. The human drama seemed at odds with the action content. However, in early 2011 I started to hear positive things about his follow up movie The Raid. When I finally got to see the international version of the film the following year, I was summarily impressed. The Raid was the most entertaining, all out, kick you in the nuts action film I’d seen since Hard Boiled at that point. Every so often, a film comes along that breathes new life in to an ageing and tired genre. The Raid was exactly such a movie and it didn’t take long for people to take note.
Seven years on (and a sequel later) I recently watched this movie for a second time. Let it suffice to say it still boasts a formidable pedigree. It reaches high gear within minutes of starting and simply does not let up for its hundred-minute duration. It is atmospheric, mean and dirty with one of the highest bodycounts to running time ratios I’ve encountered. And it remains extremely hard hitting. If your forays into the action genre have been mainly PG-13, mainstream US fodder, then you’re in for a “great big fucking surprise” as Jack Watson said in The Wild Geese. This is a fast paced and frenetic movie with a hard edge. It’s violent slick and compelling. It’s lack of Hollywood gloss makes it gritty and a refreshing change from other western genre movies.
A group of elite SWAT style specialist cops launch a dawn raid on 30 floor tenement block that doubles as armed fortress for an evil local drugs baron. However, the textbook plan goes terribly wrong, leaving the forces of law and order decimated. The fire fights with automatic weapons give way to hand to hand combat as honest cop Rama (Iko Uwais) tries to keep the remainder of his team alive and carry out their mission. The Raid boast a grimy production design which is credible and atmospheric. The cinematography by Matt Flannery captures the rundown aesthetic of Jarkarta’s slums very well. Even when the mayhem becomes somewhat balletic, the down to earth setting keeps the viewer grounded. There are shades of Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13 in the narrative as well as nods to John Woo and Walter Hill. Director Gareth Evans balances tone, pacing and a feel for action sequences perfectly.
The Raid succeeds because it does not aim to high. There is a wealth of action and wall to wall mayhem. Blood flows freely, but the movie does not make the mistake of copying standard Hollywood output. We don’t have a hero who is bullet proof, blessed with limitless ammunition and can take down a plane with a single shot. We have a flawed hero, who bleeds. Of course, we have to suspend our sense of disbelief. But we do not have to seal it in a lead container and drop it into the ocean to be recovered at a later date. If you like old school action movies, then see The Raid. You won’t regret it. If only Hollywood would take note. Less is more in this case. Also using a talented director who knows what he’s doing, helps. Unfortunately, the US studios seem oblivious to what the fans want and still blithely continue churning out there “targeted products”.
Here is some further trivia on The Raid. The title of the movie was altered from The Raid to The Raid: Redemption in the United States because the production company SPC could not secure the rights to the title; this also allowed Gareth Evans to plan out future titles in the series. The US version also sports a different soundtrack. While the original film was still in production, in May 2011, Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions acquired the distribution rights of the film for the U.S. and asked Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park and Joseph Trapanese to create a new score for U.S. release. The original score from the Indonesian version was composed by Aria Prayogi and Fajar Yuskemal, who worked with Evan's on his previous film, Merantau. This version can be found on the international DVD and Blu-ray release of the movie.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Hanna (2011)
Some people seem to draw parallels between Hanna and Mathew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass but the similarities are somewhat superficial. One is traditional, intelligent action thriller about a youthful female assassin. The other is a tongue-in-cheek neo-exploitation movie, involving a preteen vigilante. The more you compare them the greater the differences become. So, let us start by dismissing such erroneous comparisons.
Some people seem to draw parallels between Hanna and Mathew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass but the similarities are somewhat superficial. One is traditional, intelligent action thriller about a youthful female assassin. The other is a tongue-in-cheek neo-exploitation movie, involving a preteen vigilante. The more you compare them the greater the differences become. So, let us start by dismissing such erroneous comparisons.
One of the most compelling reason to see Hanna is Saoirse Ronan's performance, previously seen in Atonement and Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. It is precise and utterly compelling. Another selling point is Joe Wright's tight and well measured direction. This is a real revelation as his previous works tend to be costume pieces or worthy human dramas. Yet he shows a real feel for the genre proving that some directors can successfully change verticals (unlike Marc Forster, who struggled to grasp the concept of a Bond movie, with Quantum of Solace).
The plot is a straight forward affair about an individual raised in isolation and subsequently discovering on contact with the real world, that they are “different”. There is the implication that Hanna is not only the product of her upbringing, by ex-assassin Eric Bana, but potentially the child of a genetic experiment. Once the initial premise has been established, the script is essentially a series of action sequences, shot in a very contemporary fashion (hence achieving its PG-13/12A rating). The story is neatly structured although formulaic, with a twist ending that really isn't that much of a revalation.
Yet director Joe Wright manages to expand the story's subtext, providing more rounded characters than you would expect in a genre piece such as this. Cate Blanchett and Tom Hollander, provide superior performances as the films antagonists. The score by the Chemical brothers is another innovative aspect that should be applauded. Soundtracks in the action movies are so often perfunctory, these days. Hanna overall is pure escapism but is elevated above the mundane by the significant talent of Joe Wright. Let us hope that he continues to experiment with different genres.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Death Wish (2018)
The latest movie adaptation of Brian Garfield’s notorious 1972 novel has not had an easy journey to the big screen. Over more than a decade, multiple directors have been associated with the project, including Sylvester Stallone, Joe Carnahan as well as Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado. Actors such as Liam Neeson, Russel Crowe and Frank Grillo have been on the shortlist to play Paul Kersey. Yet due to differing opinions as to how the subject matter of vigilantism should be approached, most of these earlier projects failed. Joe Carnahan apparently wanted to explore the concepts of “toxic masculinity” and gun culture but studio executives simply wanted a more traditional action thriller. This resulted in a particularly acrimonious public falling out in which the boss in question was labelled a “gutless turd” by Carnahan. Oddly enough the job of remaking Death Wish finally went to horror film maker Eli Roth. And as you would expect from a director with such credentials as Cabin Fever, Hostel and The Green Inferno, his grisly signature set pieces take pride of place in the proceedings.
The latest movie adaptation of Brian Garfield’s notorious 1972 novel has not had an easy journey to the big screen. Over more than a decade, multiple directors have been associated with the project, including Sylvester Stallone, Joe Carnahan as well as Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado. Actors such as Liam Neeson, Russel Crowe and Frank Grillo have been on the shortlist to play Paul Kersey. Yet due to differing opinions as to how the subject matter of vigilantism should be approached, most of these earlier projects failed. Joe Carnahan apparently wanted to explore the concepts of “toxic masculinity” and gun culture but studio executives simply wanted a more traditional action thriller. This resulted in a particularly acrimonious public falling out in which the boss in question was labelled a “gutless turd” by Carnahan. Oddly enough the job of remaking Death Wish finally went to horror film maker Eli Roth. And as you would expect from a director with such credentials as Cabin Fever, Hostel and The Green Inferno, his grisly signature set pieces take pride of place in the proceedings.
As a crime wave grips Chicago, surgeon Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis) experiences first hand the resulting increase in gunshot wounds as he treats both police and criminal alike. Kersey is a law-abiding citizen and doesn’t own any firearms and seems bemused by the violence of society, as he watches various TV talk shows and listens to radio phone-ins. When his wife Lucy (Elisabeth Shue) is fatally shot and his daughter Jordan (Camilla Morrone) is left comatose after a bungled burglary, Kersey looks to the police and Detectives Kevin Raines (Dean Norris) and Leonore Jackson (Kimberly Elise) to track down the culprits. But it soon becomes apparent that crimes of this nature are seldom solved, so grief and anger drive the doctor to seek a gun and roam the streets at night. After he intervenes in a carjacking, a video taken by a passer-by goes viral on the internet. Labelled “The Grim Reaper” by the press, public opinion is divided over his actions. As the police turn their attention on this urban vigilante, Kersey stumbles upon evidence that points to those who attacked his family and sets out to track them down.
Death Wish is professionally made with a robust cast of character actors. The production is not lacking and certainly doesn’t look cheap or rushed. The location work is appropriate contrasting the opulence of the wealthy suburbs with the poverty and decay of the inner city. Sadly, what is lacking is a quality screenplay and a willingness to explore any of the subjects and themes that the narrative sets up. Eli Roth has simply made a seventies exploitation movie with the trapping of a contemporary thriller. If you are just looking for violent set pieces, then you’ll find them here. There is a particular wince inducing torture scene in which Bruce Willis slices into a bad guys sciatic nerve with a scalpel and then pours brake fluid into the wound. There is also a fight sequence that culminates in a random bowling ball incommoding a villain, that could have come straight out of the Wile E. Coyote playbook. If you like your movies nasty and meanspirited, then Death Wish has those qualities in spades.
What Death Wish fails to do is follow through on any of the “hooks” it uses in the first two acts. Talk radio shows, social media, populist news channels are touched upon in setting up “The Grim Reaper” but then fail to dissect and debate the contentious nature of such a social phenomenon. The subject of gun control is referenced and then utterly side-lined in the third act to accommodate the required blood-spattered denouement. As for the character of Paul Kersey, his journey from sedate model citizen to cold blooded killer is perfunctory to say the least. Bruce Willis still has a degree of inherent charisma, but he doesn’t give a performance of note, nor does the much re-written screenplay give him any depth to explore. The remainder of the film is littered with further missed opportunities. There’s a brief appearance by Stephen McHattie as the Chief of Detectives who seems concerned about the appearance of a vigilante. However, this political angle is abandoned. Then there’s Vincent D'Onofrio as Paul Kersey’s brother. Yet the potential of this role as an underachiever who’s always in his brother’s shadow is left undeveloped.
Considering the current political climate in the US along with the thorny issue of gun control and mass shootings, Death Wish could have said something relevant on a multitude of issues if it had wished to. The studio chose conspicuously not to do so. Instead we have a rather glib throwback exploitation movie that achieves nothing new. Compared to The Equalizer 2, which touches upon similar themes and wraps them in a character driven narrative, Eli Roth’s movie is a pale imitation. If you are simply looking for a violent and undemanding thriller to fill an evening, without having to apply yourself in anyway, then Death Wish will tick those boxes. If you want something more then I would recommend James Wan’s Death Sentence, which explores similar territory but actually sticks it’s neck out (especially in the unrated version) and tries to bring some moral consequences to the subject of vigilantism. And then there’s always Michael Winner’s original Death Wish to consider. Although a product of its time it at least had something more to say on the subject, than this current remake. Choose accordingly.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
The Predator (2018)
It’s a fairly common habit for a film studio to seek out a particularly skilled director who has an established track record with regard handling specific types of movies, only to subsequently micro-manage and impede them as they go about the task they were employed to do. The net result is often a movie that falls between two stools and lacks any conviction. Furthermore, this is a malady that seems to happen far more often with genre movies. All too often you’ll read about film makers that endured tumultuous productions, running battles with studio executives and ultimately chose to disassociate themselves from the final cut of a movie. With The Predator, we have a curious situation where the opposite appears to be true. Genre luminaries Shane Black and Fred Dekker were both hired to write the screenplay and Black then went on to direct this fourth instalment in the franchise. The idea was to use their established talents to create something that would please core fans and return to the spirit of the first movie. Yet I can only describe the finished results as a classic case of trying too hard. The Predator feels like a caricature of its predecessors and fails to hit its mark.
It’s a fairly common habit for a film studio to seek out a particularly skilled director who has an established track record with regard handling specific types of movies, only to subsequently micro-manage and impede them as they go about the task they were employed to do. The net result is often a movie that falls between two stools and lacks any conviction. Furthermore, this is a malady that seems to happen far more often with genre movies. All too often you’ll read about film makers that endured tumultuous productions, running battles with studio executives and ultimately chose to disassociate themselves from the final cut of a movie. With The Predator, we have a curious situation where the opposite appears to be true. Genre luminaries Shane Black and Fred Dekker were both hired to write the screenplay and Black then went on to direct this fourth instalment in the franchise. The idea was to use their established talents to create something that would please core fans and return to the spirit of the first movie. Yet I can only describe the finished results as a classic case of trying too hard. The Predator feels like a caricature of its predecessors and fails to hit its mark.
Army Ranger sniper Quinn McKenna (Boyd Holbrook) and his team are attacked by a "classic" Predator while on a hostage retrieval mission. McKenna incapacitates the Predator and escapes with part of its armour as a government team arrive. McKenna suspecting the worse sends his evidence by courier to his former home address. After being arrested by government agent Will Traeger (Sterling K. Brown), he written off as "insane" and used as an alibi to cover the governments tracks. McKenna is subsequently shipped off with a bus full of other "troubled" ex-army members. This includes ex-Marine Gaylord "Nebraska" Williams, military veterans Coyle and Baxley, helicopter pilot Nettles, and Lynch, another ex-Marine. Meanwhile Traeger takes the captured Predator to a lab for experimentation and observation, recruiting evolutionary biologist Casey Bracket (Olivia Munn) to study it. The Predator awakes, breaks out of its bonds, and escapes so it can find it's missing equipment that is now in the hands of McKenna's autistic son, Rory (Jacob Tremblay). However, it becomes apparent that a second genetically enhanced Predator is en route, pursuing its own agenda.
It's difficult to know where to start, as there as so many aspects of the film that are problematic. Many of them have been raised by others already. But here are a few off the top of my head that stand out. The plot is tediously generic, simply falling back on an arbitrary trope to justify a “bigger and better” monster (which is neither). The protagonists (and antagonists) are cookie-cutter characters who have zero development. The dialogue strives to be hardboiled, punctuated by dry quips and banter, but sadly comes across as crass, unrelenting and strident, like teenagers trying to out gross each other. The film reeks of re-editing and frequent changes to the production. Characters and plot devices come and go, such as Jake Busey as Scientist Sean Keyes, the son of Peter Keyes from Predator 2 (played by his own father Gary Busey). The alien dog storyline also runs out of steam and ends up being killed quickly out of frame. Then there’s the unpleasant trend of portraying autism as some kind of super power or novelty ability. The action scenes are violent but soulless and of course the villain is underused. The list goes on and on.
What The Predator clearly needed was for the writers to be reined in and for each idea to be developed in a measured and relevant fashion. The “everything bar the kitchen sink” approach that permeates the movie quickly becomes wearing. I have only seen Boyd Holbrook previously in Logan; a role in which he was more of a plot device rather than a defining aspect of the movie. On the strength of The Predator I am far from convinced he can carry a film such as this. Even the score by Henry Jackman overreaches itself. It riffs on previous cues and themes by Alan Silvestri too frequently and the new material sounds more satirical than a homage. The only flashes of inspiration remain the Predator make up effects work by Tom Woodruff Jr (but only for the “classic” predator) and for the brief exchanges of dialogue between the school bullies (it reminded me so much of the Monster Squad). But these are just fleeting positive aspects during one hundred and six minutes of bad choices. I am still aghast that a studio such as Twentieth Century Fox could spend $88 million on an established franchise, employ the best in the genre writing and production wise, only to still fumble the ball so monumentally.
The Predator franchise has spawned numerous comics and novels that have endeavoured to approach the core story from new and innovative angles. Why have none of these been optioned or at least used as a premise for a bespoke screenplay? For example, setting Predator hunts in different periods of world history is a promising premise. Why not explore the backstory of the Predator culture and history? Are there other alien cultures that oppose Predator hunts? Is there any form of law enforcement body that intercedes in their activities? All of these ideas are better and more to the point, have the scope to be developed into something far superior to the sorry mess that is The Predator. Perhaps the studio will reflect upon such feedback before they proceed with yet another instalment. I won’t hold my breath however, as film studios are notoriously tone deaf when it comes to feedback and franchise management. The Predator despite all it’s failings still doubled its budget at the world box office. And the way the movie ends sets things up nicely for further sequels, although given the standard of this one and it’s childish cliffhanger, who would want more of the same?
Star Trek is slightly older than me by 14 months. I was born on December 18th 1967. Star Trek was first broadcast in the US on 8th September 1966. Hence this show has always been part of the prevailing pop culture that surrounded me, as I grew up. I first began watching Star Trek as a young child in the early seventies. It would be repeated on the BBC in the early evening on Fridays and it became a family ritual to sit down together and watch it. As a seven or eight year old, it left a great impression upon me and was in many ways, the television highlight of the week. Star Trek along with Doctor Who certainly started my interest in science fiction. Star Trek was also one of the first shows that introduced me to tie-in marketing. I remember seeing in a toy shop, near to my school at the time, a Dinky Klingon Battle Cruiser and was flabbergasted that such a thing existed. I immediately coveted it but sadly never obtained one.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Taken 3 (2015)
Life in the Mills family is never easy. After surviving two previous kidnappings, Brian (Liam Neeson) now finds that his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) has been brutally murdered. Framed for the crime, goes on the run from the Police, in an attempt to discover the true perpetrator and clear his name. Is Lenore's current partner, Stuart St. John (Dougray Scott) involved in some way? Can Brian protect his pregnant daughter Kim (Maggie Grace)? Has he ever stopped to consider why so many bad things happen to him? Why wasn’t this movie set in Europe like the others? What happens to the huge cuddly Panda seen at the start of the movie? Who in the name of all that is holy edited this movie?
Life in the Mills family is never easy. After surviving two previous kidnappings, Brian (Liam Neeson) now finds that his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) has been brutally murdered. Framed for the crime, goes on the run from the Police, in an attempt to discover the true perpetrator and clear his name. Is Lenore's current partner, Stuart St. John (Dougray Scott) involved in some way? Can Brian protect his pregnant daughter Kim (Maggie Grace)? Has he ever stopped to consider why so many bad things happen to him? Why wasn’t this movie set in Europe like the others? What happens to the huge cuddly Panda seen at the start of the movie? Who in the name of all that is holy edited this movie?
There's no denying it Taken 3 (or Taken to the Cleaners as I like to call it) is a loud, insanely edited, contrived and downright stupid movie. Once again, just like it’s immediate predecessor, it feels like a bad soap opera for the first thirty minutes until the action kicks in. As before there are two versions of the film available; a PG-13 cut where the fights and set pieces are lightning edited to the point of confusion. Then there’s an unrated edition with a more graphic body count that uses alternative material. The plot and dialogue are often risible with numerous plot holes, to the point that its almost becomes self-parody. At one-point Brian Mills kills two henchmen with a defibrillator, begging the question why wasn't it used in an attempt to resuscitate the screenplay? Yet despite its utter mediocrity, headache inducing visual style and overall stupidity, I still enjoyed Taken 3. That doesn't pardon its sins in anyway. I just find Liam Neeson compelling to watch, even in a movie such as this. He has a very humane, even avuncular quality about him. But an uncle who is also a bit of a sociopath.
Director Oliver Megaton is a very inconsistent film maker. Previous movies such as Colombiana and The Transporter 3 have been more than serviceable. Yet more recent titles such as Taken 2 and Taken 3 are lacking in polish. In this latest instalment the even the ever-dependable Forest Whitaker is left with precious little to do as the Police Inspector tracking down Brian Mills. He tries to bring embellishments to the character, such as his habit of wearing rubber bands around the wrists and carrying a solitary chess piece, but there simply isn't enough material for him to work with. Sam Spruell similarly has a vague role, as Malankov, the villain of the proceedings. Both these actors are potential assets to the movie, but Megaton simply neglects them, focusing more of unnecessary chases and CGI effects.
A Walk Among the Tombstones proved that Liam Neeson can still produce quality performances when given a well written screenplay. He is a good actor and a genuine screen presence. It is the latter attribute that allows him to bluff his way through such unmitigated nonsense as Taken 3. I won't deny that I had fun watching the film (the unrated version naturally), although that was mainly due to my revelling in its iniquities and failings. However, I do recognise that if you are not as forgiving towards Mr. Neeson as I am, then all you will see if a crass, overcooked action movie starring an ageing Irish man who seems nice in-between breaking people’s limbs.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
Levon Cade (Jason Staham) is a former Royal Marine Commando who has retired from military service and now works as the leader of a construction team in Chicago. He has a close relationship with Joe and Carla Garcia (Michael Peña and Noemi Gonzalez ) who run the company and considers them as family. Outside of work, Levon is involved in a bitter custody battle for his daughter, against her maternal grandfather, who blames Levon for his daughter’s suicide. When Garcia's teenage daughter Jenny (Arianna Rivas) goes missing, Levon reluctantly agrees to help her parents and get her back. Beginning his search at the nightclub where Jenny was last seen, he soon discovers that she was abducted by Russian traffickers. Furthermore, the culprit is Dimi Kolisnyk (Maximilian Osinski), the wayward son of a senior ranking gangster.
PC Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an exemplary Police Officer, with a strict adherence to the letter of the law. As a result of making the rest of the London Metropolitan Police look bad, he is transferred to the rural town of Sandford, Gloucestershire. On arrival, Angel finds that the local Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), takes a far more laissez-faire approach to policing. His colleagues are incompetent and he is further hampered by the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (NWA), who prioritise low crime statistics over law enforcement due to their desire to win the title of “Village of the Year”. Furthermore, Angel is partnered with the Inspector’s son, Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who is infatuated with “buddy cop” movies and is in awe of Angel’s London experience. “Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air?” However, a sudden spate of grisly accidents lead Angel to believe that there's more to the seemingly tranquil and picture-perfect community than meets the eye.
As a collection of history's worst tyrants and criminal masterminds gather to plot a war to wipe out millions, one man must race against time to stop them. Discover the origins of the very first independent intelligence agency in The King's Man. Based on the Comic Book “The Secret Service” by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. 20th Century Studios
Matthew Vaughn’s The King’s Man is an inconsistent film, both narratively and tonally. It veers between serious themes and stylised, hyperbolic action. At times it does quite a good job of exploring such complex subjects as global politics, mechanised warfare and colonialism. Sadly it then wrenches the viewer out of these cerebral reveries as it lapses into the sort of over the top action sequences that were notable in the two earlier films. It’s a shame because The King’s Man gets so many other aspects of the production right. The casting is very interesting, especially Ralph Fiennes as the “pacifist” Duke of Oxford. He is actually a very good fit for the action genre. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton are given little backstory beyond being respectively the faithful manservant and the family nanny but both are notable due to their own inherent acting chops and personal charisma. Rhys Ifans obviously has a great time as Grigori Rasputin, ensuring all the man’s vices are robustly depicted.
On paper, a video games franchise such as Assassin’s Creed lends itself perfectly to a cinematic adaptation. The parkour action scenes, the historical settings and the contemporary conspiracy theory themes are all elements that should play well with a modern youth audience. Hence with the backing of a major studio such as Twentieth Century Fox and a budget of $125 million, the 2016 movie should have been a guaranteed box office hit. The casting of Michael Fassbender, an actor who is comfortable with serious roles and big Hollywood franchises, should have carried this film comfortably over the finishing line. Director Justin Kurzel, who had found critical success with his adaptation of MacBeth a year previously, must have looked like a safe pair of hands to handle such a project. Sadly, that was not the case. Assassin’s Creed is not the sum of its parts, in fact many elements appear to be pulling in opposite directions. The resulting feature film is staggeringly dull, soulless and a chore to watch. A testament to how modern big budget franchise movies have become a production line, with all the art stripped from them.
300: Rise of an Empire is a curious beast, being neither a sequel nor a prequel. It is infact a tale that takes place simultaneously with those of the original movie. While Gerard Butler is busy making a last stand at the Battle of Thermopylae, fellow warrior and politician Themistokles, played by the singularly uncharismatic Sullivan Stapleton, leads a similar army of buffed Greeks against the Persian fleet. Once again we have a movie that is the epitome of style over substance, complete with a sound design that challenges what can physically be endured by human hearing. They say the first casualty of war is innocence but in this type of movie it's closely followed by historical accuracy and authentic depictions of ethnicity. 300: Rise of an Empire is a cinematic assault upon the senses but not in a good way like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Back in September 2017, Liam Neeson stated in an interview with Sky News that he was retiring from the action genre, due to his age. He felt that audiences would question his credibility in such roles. After the release of The Commuter (2018) and Cold Pursuit (2019) Mr Neeson appeared to return to human dramas and films that focus on performance rather than punching man and beast. Ordinary Love and Made in Italy, both released in 2019, demonstrate the actor’s versatility and skill. People seem to forget that he is a thespian who was initially known for his character driven roles in films such as The Mission (1986), Rob Roy (1995 and Michael Collins (1996). It was only in 2008 that he reinvented himself as an action hero. It’s all a far cry from Schindler’s List and his performance that earned him an academy award nomination. The reason I mention all of this is because The Ice Road is the third action movie I’ve seen in 2021 that stars Liam Neeson.
One of the stand out tropes of the modern action film is that the stakes are always cranked right up to 11. Terrorists, biological weapons and nuclear bombs are common threats in such movies with a hero or heroes trying to save the world from death and destruction or worse. However, back in the sixties and seventies, things were a little more straight forward and in some respects more credible. Take When Eight Bells Toll, released in 1971, for example. British Treasury secret agent Phillip Calvert investigates the theft of £8,000,000 in gold bullion by a gang of international smugglers. In the context of the times this was no small beer however it’s somewhat mundane compared to fighting super villains and their space lasers. Frankly I prefer these low key plot devices as they can make a film a little more plausible within the confines of the genre. A concept that is often forgotten today.
Forensic accountant Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) flees his home with his teenage son Connor (Finn Little) when he discovers he has been targeted by a pair of assassins (Nicholas Hoult and Aidan Gillen) who have been hired to stop him giving evidence in a major corruption case. Connor witnesses the murder of his father after their car is run off the road. Entrusted with important written evidence, he escapes into the dense forests of the Montana wilderness pursued by the killers. Seeking help he runs into smokejumper Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie) who is stationed at a remote fire lookout tower. Hannah suffers from PTSD from a previous forest fire in which she was unable to save three young boys. Hannah attempts to lead Connor through the forest to safety. Meanwhile the assassins set fire to the forest to divert the attention of the authorities and cover their tracks.
I must admit that I did not have particularly high hopes for Paul W S Anderson's remake of the 1975 Roger Corman produced cult classic. Anderson’s work varies greatly. Event Horizon and Soldier are solid genre films but I still have not fully come to terms with Alien vs. Predator. Jason Statham is also a name that divides the public, with solid material such as The Transporter and unfathomable tosh like Revolver. But despite these considerations, Death Race is in fact quite a surprise and does not follow the path that so many remakes do. It takes the basic themes and concept associated with the original and tries to do something different with them. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel nor is it a genre milestone. But it does offer a different spin on things, have some engaging action scenes and provide some dumb but enjoyable entertainment. When combined with snacks and some beer this is a passable way to kill 111 minutes.
I did not watch Zero Dark Thirty upon its initial release, due to the politics surrounding it. I wanted to be able to view it free from bipartisan debate. Eight years on I believe this now achievable and although debate still exists it is now more measured and less strident. Zero Dark Thirty is certainly a compelling movie. It plays as a docudrama, providing an in-depth study of the US intelligence services hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It cannot be faulted on a technical level and the performances are very strong. It does not adopt a celebratory or triumphalist tone in its approach to the story. Director Kathryn Bigelow endeavours to keep the proceedings focused upon the intricacies of an intelligence driven manhunt. There is little or no tubthumping, jingoism. The decision to find Bin Laden is shown as a political and military exercise of foreign policy. The film solely focuses on the story from a US perspective but that is perfectly acceptable as it is not intended to be an exploration of geo-politics.
Firestorm was originally written as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone, however when the production company Savoy Pictures went bankrupt the screenplay was bought by Twentieth Fox and the scope of the movie reduced to suit a lower budget. It’s broadly similar to Cliffhanger in so far as the lead character is a specialist in a certain field who runs afoul of criminals in a perilous environment. Whereas Cliffhanger is set in the Rocky Mountains, Firestorm takes place in the forests of Northern Wyoming. After the script was revised four times, the finished screenplay was given a final “polish” by Graham Yost who has considerable experience with the action movie genre. As stallone was no longer associated with the project and the production had been repurposed to be less extravagant, the movie was assigned to former NFL star Howie Long. Long had already appeared in the John Woo movie Broken Arrow (1996) and the Firestorm was seen as a means to give him a star vehicle.
The original French movies District 13 and its sequel District 13: Ultimatum, conceived and produced by Luc Besson, were enjoyable variations of the Escape from New York theme. Their charm lay in their European pedigree and the skilful use of parkour. The two leads, David Belle and Cyril Raffaelli, were eminently suited to the minimalist roles and the screenplays were fun. Half of these movies appeal was the fact that they were not mainstream US products. Brick Mansions is the Hollywood remake of District 13, as well as being Paul Walkers’ final movie. Sadly, this film is far from a fitting epitaph, being devoid of any charisma or innovations. It is blandly shot , poorly edited and has been stripped of everything that made the original entertaining.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to the big screen after his political career has been uneven to say the least. His cameos in The Expendables and The Expendables 2 were well received, with their self referential charm and age related irony. Yet his first major movie The Last Stand, although competent, failed to find an audience. Escape Plan fared better at the box office but did not put Arnie back on the A list. Effectively there's a large percentage of the contemporary cinematic audience who were born after his heyday and are simply not overt fans of his work. His core audience is more than likely of the age group that consume most of their film entertainment at home. Which may explain why Sabotage tanked in the US upon release on March 28th 2014. It was the worst opening box office of Arnie's career. He used to break first day opening records.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
The enduring appeal of the character John Rambo in First Blood comes from the fact that he is a traumatised ex- service man who keeps himself to himself as he drifts from job to job, trying to come to terms with his wartime experiences. His poor treatment at the hands of a small-town Sheriff is a succinct metaphor for the social and political indifference that Vietnam veterans were shown upon their return to the US. He’s a man with a code in a world that no longer has any use for him. His simple and honest patriotism is not returned and he is in fact viewed with shame by many from the nation he loves. Furthermore, the first movie does not paint him as a cold-blooded killer. Despite provocation he is not the first person to shoot to kill. Rambo is in many ways a victim. A broken man, who society has asked to do unspeakable things. Now society wants nothing to do with him and fears the “monster” they created. Although clearly an action movie, First Blood had narrative depth and a flawed but sympathetic protagonist. 37 years and four movies later, such dramatic themes have long left the franchise. The central character is indeed a caricature of its former self.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
Do I really need to present you with some sort of plot synopsis for Transporter 3? No, I didn’t think so. More of the same as Frank Martin (Jason Statham) and his police chum, Inspector Tarconi (Francois Berleand) become embroiled in yet another high-octane escapade. There's fights, car stunts, exotic international locations and a strong sense of humour. This time, the disposable love interest is a Ukrainian girl named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who fulfils her role succinctly. The film benefits by being set back in Europe, after the mistake of basing Transporter 2 in the US. This time, the story takes us to such locations as Budapest and Odessa. The international film crew once again bring a veneer of panache to the production that is conspicuously absent in US action movies. For a modest budget fil, Transporter 3 it looks very good. Again the proceedings are given a boost by a pertinent soundtrack by Alexandre Azaria and a selection of European “tunes”.
Jason Bourne originally graced our screens for the first time seventeen years ago. The Bourne Identity was a gritty, minimalist take on the espionage genre and a welcome change from the excesses of the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. The story arc was sustained over three movies and ended efficiently and succinctly. After which Matt Damon moved on, as did the director of two of the movies, Paul Greengrass. Which leaves us with The Bourne Legacy; the tangential sequel that arrived in 2012. A film that exists because the money men and bean counters hate to pass up on a franchise until it has been squeezed utterly dry. Hence, they commissioned the writer of the series, Tony Gilroy, to come up with a screenplay and direct a spinoff movie. Jeremy Renner was cast in the lead role. Yet despite narrative and production continuity, The Bourne Legacy was not a Jason Bourne movie with the star appeal of Matt Damon. Although the film turned a profit, it had the lowest box office returns out of the entire franchise.
During the eighties there was a clear league table of action movie stars. By the mid-nineties this system fell into decline and the Hollywood lacked any clearly defined exponents of the genre. A decade later, due to the success of Luc Besson’s Transporter films, Jason Statham became a bankable box office star in this field. When you look at Statham's early work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it is hard to envisage the "mockney geezer" as an international action star. Yet he has successfully stepped into the role and enjoys a large following. I enjoy his work as he has a likeable on-screen persona. My 88-year-old Mum likes him to because "he wears nice suits". The action genre seldom reaches such a diverse demographic.
Before we start, I recollect that one well known UK critic described Safe House as sub-Tony Scott, upon its release. Now I’ve always been conflicted over Scott’s back catalogue, as I’ve always found his movies to be hampered by their own unique style. The subtleties of his characters and depth of his themes are all too often drowned out by his frenetic style and fast paced editing. Therefore a comment such as this really sets off alarm bells for me. Having recently watched The Equalizer 2, I wanted a further fix of Denzel Washington in a similar action vehicle. As Safe House was available on Netflix UK, I decided to kill a couple of hours and see what actually constitutes as “sub-Tony Scott”.
Mainstream films are easy to recommend to people. They’re usually formulaic, work within clear parameters and they’re not controversial. Most people, when viewing such film on someone else’s suggestion, are left with a fairly simply choice. Did they like it or not? Whatever the outcome, no feathers are ruffled. No one looks at you askance afterwards and says “why the hell did you think I’d like that piece of shit”? If something like this happens, then you have clearly not recommended a mainstream film. Perhaps you’ve suggested something that’s a little more of an acquired taste. Something niche, from a very specific sub-genre. Which brings me neatly to Blazing Magnum AKA Strange Shadows in an Empty Room (1976). The US title gives the impression that this film is a hard boiled cop thriller, like so many others that followed in the wake of Dirty Harry. But there’s a clue in the European title. Yes, this movie has more than just a whiff of a giallo about it.