Now Watching : ENDANGERED SPECIES and TUSK on NetFlix VOD and Amazon Prime!

ENDANGERED SPECIES- Slow Netflix Night, and despite the atrocious poster, the name Eric Roberts and the premise of a scifi/horror flick intrigues me enough to give this a try. The first thing that strikes you is how incredibly dated the film seems.

Indeed despite the film having a production date of 2003, it looks far more like a film from 1983, with dated special effects, and an anemic budget to match, and borrows from more well known scifi films of the 80s and 90s. But those negatives aside, it moves at a quick clip, and there is some originality here, an unexpected environmental twist that makes the movie keep till the end.
Grade: C-. Horrible and misleading poster, but worth a look.

TUSK- I remember when Kevin Smith did the on-air little joke on his pod-cast that would become this film. The joke on the pod-cast was hilarious, and having seen the film, it should have just remained that pod-cast joke. It’s hilarious as something Kevin Smith is describing on a pod-cast, but the film is ultimately just exceedingly distasteful as a finished product, and backs itself into a miserable and ugly corner. Grade: D-.

THE EXPENDABLES Movie Review or THE EFFICACY OF THE BLOOD OF HEROES

THE EXPENDABLES- When I first heard about this idea, I thought it would be a nice, fun kooky throwback to the 80s film of yore. Nothing great but just a nice teaming of some 80s icon, a nice throwaway flick.

So what did I think?

To say EXPENDABLES does not disappoint is to perhaps practice understatement to an unacceptable degree. Quite frankly it is a great movie… full stop. Sylvester Stallone, once again, proving himself to be a creative force to be reckoned with, and a damn great director.

Stallone, much as he did in 2008’s RAMBO, takes the tropes of Hollywood’s current 80s infatuation phase, to craft on to that skeleton a film that is superior to its influences. A homage indicates a film that is a calling card to something greater, THE EXPENDABLES like the aforementioned RAMBO, is not a homage. It is better than its inspirations, as Stallone ratchets the action and adrenaline up to 100, and then takes it beyond.

And more than that THE EXPENDABLES is a far less one dimensional film than those of the 80s, where the bad guys were mustache twirling villains and right and wrong were clearly delineated paths (with the exception of the Somalian Piracy issue, that the film presents in just that one dimensional way. Eschewing the larger issues that the pirates may not be the ones seizing those boats, but may instead be the companies and nations, that are launching them, and are providing the money and weapons that allow a genocidal war to continue. This vilification of easy targets, akin, but less severe than DISTRICT 9’s Nigerian Bashing).

The Generalisimo is presented, thankfully, more adeptly. While a despot, he is one placed there by forces in the form of the always impressive Eric Roberts.

And to speak on Eric Roberts for a second: I’m glad to see in films like this and THE DARK KNIGHT that he is finally getting the due he didn’t in his youth. Eric Roberts long being one of the best actors Hollywood was ignoring.

And Stallone manages to grant all these stalwarts their moments. Peppering his 80s icons with relative new guys and real life tough guys Terry Crews (Retired NFL Football Player, and has appeared in several films including GET SMART and DELIVER US FROM EVA. He brings a distinct, calming and very affable energy to the mix), Randy Couture (Wrestler and retired MMA Champion. Has starred in REDBELT and SCORPION KING among others. Like all truly dangerous guys he brings an easy, laid back presence to the screen), Steve Austin (A former champion WWF Wrestler, and has starred in NASH BRIDGES and THE LONGEST YARD. Known as Stone Cold from wrestling, he brings that intimidating presence to the EXPENDABLES with impressive results).

And not to be outdone by the new guys Stallone, Statham, Li and Rourke (who delivers the film’s central theme of sacrifice in quite a moving scene) do the heavy lifting in terms of story beats.

Giselle Itie, the stunning 28 year old Mexican actress, makes her big screen debut as the worthy reason for the Expendables to expend themselves. She captivates and I see big things ahead for her.

And Charisma Carpenter stars as Statham’s love interest, I didn’t even equate her with BUFFY until checking IMDB in prep for this review. Always attractive, there is something new in her face. Something that is not quite unlike suffering, and not quite unlike grace. She’s one of those rare people whose face only grows more… compelling with time. She is on-screen just briefly, but manages to truly burn herself into those scenes.

And returning to Icon territory, Dolph Lundgren is an actor (like many Action heroes) who has fought long for respect. I’ve always felt he has earned it, being quite a fan of the much railed against first PUNISHER movie starring him and Louis Gossett Jr.

And by all accounts his Direct To Video films, which I intend to bring you an overview of, showcase his growing skills as both actor and director.

With THE EXPENDABLES he gets his first big screen showing in decades, and captivates with it. As a man who has endured and seen and been… too much.

To a certain extent the script by Stallone, in seeming throwaway one-liners addresses each man’s very public private issues, in a self effacing way that speaks of much courage to those who can listen. From Stallone’s marriage woes, to claims of substance abuse, to subtle lights shined on, not the 80s, but today.

The fact that their defacto hangout is Rourke’s tattoo parlor, has nothing to do with the 80s and everything to do with today. It speaks to the proliferation of body art in the 21st century, the need in an empty age to wear your allegiances on your skin because all other allegiances… have failed you. They are men shorn of an inner identity seeking to find in the identification of the flesh, a needle and ink that will pierce deep enough… to identify their souls.

You can get all this out of the movie (akin to how the French looked at our stylish Black and White crime films of the post war era, and saw in them existential commentaries on fatalism and the human dilemma and ultimately coined them… Film Noir), or you can see it as just a phenomenal action movie. Or if you’re like me, you can do both.

Either way, Stallone is really pushing the envelope in terms of on-screen brutality. It is not as clearly disturbing as RAMBO, which I think is a very subversive film, that works on levels of both exhilaration and castigation.

I think one thing it gives you, that you didn’t get from the films of the 80s,where everyone died pretty, is that death is a violent and violating thing, and you don’t ever want to be shot if you can avoid it.

Because flesh wounds in Stallone’s films, more often than not, take off limbs. I think it is a truth about violence that was often missing in the throwback video-game like films of the 80s. And here that violence, of the School of Spielberg’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and since adopted in films as diverse as TAE GUK, RAMBO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, DISTRICT 9, is in full effect here. Death not as Pekinpah or Woo’s Blood Ballets, but death as meat grinder.

That aesthetic is in full effect here in THE EXPENDABLES, done in a manner somewhere between that aforementioned exhilaration and castigation.

I’m always a little conflicted by these action sequences, and I think that conflict, that sense of horror, is the point. However in films like DISTRICT 9 and to a certain extent here, I see that violence used less as something to horrify, something to remind you life has weight, and more as just something to entertain you.

And that’s an odd and uncomfortable line for me as I get older, this violence as entertainment. I like to hold fast to this idea, old-fashioned I agree, of violence as a last resort… to save maiden’s from dragons, and the weak from the wrong.

But if we are honest this querulous occupation/obsession with the deification of the gun and the men who wield it is ingrained into the early days of our cinema and beyond. Past the Penny-Dreadfuls of the wild-west, past the cobblestoned tales of Victorian England, past the campfire myths and warrior songs, past gunfire’s birth, past the forging of iron, or the wielding of a bow, past perhaps even fire’s spark. Always the glorification of those who live by war.

All to say that we are a caustic and tragic tribe, that at its heart believes, perhaps too fervently, in the efficacy of the blood of heroes.

And for moments fleeting Stallone’s picture touches, perhaps only haphazardly on this, dark dichotomy of our age. Warriors devoid of any clean or simple or justifiable war.

It could be laid against me that I am reading too much into a simple action flick/ DIRTY DOZEN take-off (down to even the setup of the Generalisimo’s fortress), giving Stallone too much credit as a writer (the original story/script being product of Dave Callaham) but I think not. Stallone has proven himself quite an adept and manipulative writer throughout his career, and a fixer of ‘untrue’ scripts, ROCKY and FIRST BLOOD sensations of their time because they exhibit a very deep understanding of what moves us, of what… galvanizes us on an almost instinctual level. I don’t think there’s a more insightful writer/director working. He understands the human heart in a way that very few people do, and he understands the oft querulous nature— of hero. And I see his later films as a questioning of what becomes the hero, in an age where we have all (nations, and nation-states)… to some extent… embraced villainy.

But my concerns about the depiction of violence to the side, THE EXPENDABLES is a film that beneath the wall to wall action, manages to let each character shine, never an easy thing to do with a large cast, and more imbues the characters and the film, with real heart. It is an inarguably well made film, that hits all the notes, and I believe, even all the conflict it hopes for. A great film that I look forward to the director’s commentary, and making-of-specials, and adding to my DVD shelf. As well as interest in the already under preparation sequel. Highly Recommended. B+/A-.


The Expendables (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy)

Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION : The RevieW

Well I see there is some interest in my previous post on INCEPTION. Several hundred distinct visits in less than 24 hours.

Well as promised… the review.

I just came from the film, a matinee showing, non-imax, but a very good, high-end local theater. They serve crabcakes at the concession stand for goodness sake.

So a pretty darn impressive theater, a full crowd, just about every seat was taken, and a good, erudite, respectful crowd. Large screen, clean theater, impressive sound system…. and all there to see Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION.

The film starts off with waves lapping an uncertain shore, and in many ways ends the same way.

I thought the movie looked very nice, was well shot, had some really effective use of special effects, and had a smart premise. It seemed well performed by the principals, I liked the sometimes humorous interplay between them, and… I think Dicaprio continues his evolution as a solid, bankable leading man.

All that’s on the surface. The problem with the film, a film about going layer upon layer down below the surface, ironically enough, is it never, really engages on an emotional level… on any level beyond the surface. Its very premise, puts the viewer on guard against real and unreal, and therefore makes the film off-putting, and cold and slightly distant.

You are always outside of the film aware of various layers of unreality, which while sound in theory, in practice it means you are always slightly outside of the jeopardy or concern necessary to make you care or concerned about the characters. It means you are always very aware that you are in a theater watching a film, rather than being in any way immersed in that film. At the heart of the film it should be a love story, I mean at its core it should be a tale of loss love, and one man’s obsession with it.

But it is not.

The thing is you come into the film with that love being a ghost, a dead thing, and it never comes alive in the movie. I never really buy or feel the passion between DiCaprio or Marion Cotillard (who plays that lost love). And without that connection, without the viewer feeling that Casablanca level of love, a man’s sacrifice for that love becomes… understood by the mind but not recognized by the heart.

The film keeps what is real at bay, becomes an exercise in philosphy/metaphysics, rather than ever really becoming what all great or even good films desperately need to be… a wrenching, involving aria to the soul.

I can see the beats that Nolan is going for, but the very structure of his film sabotages any real identification with his characters. Any real sense of their peril and their passions.

It has been compared to the MATRIX (though perhaps a more apt comparison, considering the lead, would be to Scorsese’s superior SHUTTER ISLAND, that uses the same crux of that dead love… but in Scorsese’s film you do feel the connection that could fuel such obsession), but that’s just a crude nod to its style and its premise, INCEPTION is a far more sophisticated film than the MATRIX. But it is also a far emptier film. I just wasn’t engaged, it lacked, from first frame to last… heart.

Heart.

That is not to say the film is bad, like I previously stated it looks very good, has some interesting scenes (One thing I really like about Christopher Nolan’s films, is the cast. Is the fact that he peoples his films with not just ‘hot’ actors, but great actors who may no longer be in the limelight or who never got their due, Tom Berenger in the former case and Eric Roberts in the latter), but utimately style without substance is… forgettable.

No, not forgettable… dismissible.

I found the movie, here it has been only a few hours, oddly dismissible.

And if my packed matinee audience is any barometer (“okay”, “exhausting”, “disappointing” being some of the comments I heard from the mostly sedate (sedated?) crowd upon leaving) others found the film perhaps a bit… lacking.

One glaring minus… Ken Watanabe’s dialogue is often very difficult to make out. A lot of the movie hinges on caring about him, so having his dialog clear probably should have been a directorial high point. Nolan has done this in other films, where the dialogue is unintelligible (Batman anyone?) but the explosions sure sound good. 🙂 . Again it comes back to that failing of style over substance. “Who cares what the actors are saying, or if they mumble their lines! Man wasn’t that shot pretty!”

It’s a slightly sloppy work ethic, and unnecessarily sabotages Nolan’s films.

For myself. I’m extremely happy I didn’t pay full price for this film ($8 matinee price) and it is not one I’ll be rewatching in the theater, or picking up the DVD or remembering much after this review. I mean there are things a repeated viewing will give you, but those are just clarifications of the what (discussions of the totem, etc.) but without the emotional impetus of the why, I’m not really interested in exploring the what.

Ultimately the massive hype machine, and massive amount of theaters this is opening in, will make it a money maker (not to the levels of DARK KNIGHT, not even close. I was not a fan of DARK KNIGHT, but I do acknowledge it had some fantastic moments. INCEPTION… not so much), people curious about the insane hype (‘best film of the decade’ ‘INCEPTION may become a religion’ ‘Masterpiece’ ‘Instant Classic’) will plunk down their change.

My recommendation, if like me you don’t drink the Koolaid when it comes to previous Nolan films, is (I’m not going to say not to see the film, curiosity alone dictates you make up your own mind) go for the Matinee, and save yourself a few bucks. And then if you do want to deem it a religion feel free to go back for the ‘IMAX EXPERIENCE’. 🙂 .

But I think most of you reading this will find one viewing more than enough.

Final thoughts? Nolan is a filmmaker who is always trying to challenge the viewing experience, make of it a puzzle, a stepping stone to something other… and that is a worthy goal. I just don’t think he pulls it off. He can craft the puzzle, but bereft of passion, they are excercises rather than films, pitstops rather than destinations.

I almost think Nolan would be a, for me, more satisfying filmmaker if he stopped trying for the “gee! see how clever I am!” gotcha moments (he’s not early Fincher or Shyamalan, he can’t pull it off) and instead just tried to tell a story with heart. I’d rather a filmmaker tell a simple story brilliantly, than a complex story sedately.

Final rating? C-/C+.