Category Archives: action

Skip’s Quips: I Want a Hero … Just Not ‘Super’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Movies that start promisingly yet end up mundane are a pet peeve of mine.

Super, director James Gunn’s pre-Guardians of the Galaxy flick about an ordinary man who dons a homemade superhero outfit in a quest to win back his wife from drug dealers, falls into this category. Featuring a host of satiric elements (including some pointed attacks on organized religion), the film collapses into dull, hyperviolent shoot-’em-up mode toward the end, which negates its previous appeal. The enthusiastic presence of Ellen Page as a sidekick wannabe gives the picture a boost, but even she can’t save it.

That’s too bad. Gunn has a distinct style and carefree sensibility that can be infectious, as proven by the success of GotG. Super, however, ultimately offers little to differentiate it from the average bloody man-with-a-mission actioner. This is strange considering the peculiarity of its protagonist, a withdrawn fellow (played by Rainn Wilson) who has religious visions and may be mistaking them for his heroic calling. The movie should be more interesting or at least comic, right? – especially since the only skill this character seems to have is the ability to cook eggs well. Perhaps something along the lines of The Greatest American Hero, no?

No. I expect better things to come from Gunn and have high hopes. Super was a misfire, but every director has those. I’m assuming Gunn has learned from his mistakes, as all heroes do.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Ah, ‘Commando,’ How I Missed Ya

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Sometimes being away from a movie for a long time inspires nostalgia. Sometimes it makes you like the movie more.

I kinda felt that way about Commando, the ridiculous, absurdly high-body-count 1985 “action” film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as human tank John Matrix. This is a junky picture, with all-too-quick editing, poor cinematography and a script that can euphemistically be said to need work. Plus, it’s bloody as all hell, with a ludicrous amount of violence as Matrix kills baddies while searching for his daughter.

Yet for some reason, despite all of these faults, I dig the movie. It’s a guilty pleasure. You can watch it while using your smartphone or doing the dishes. You can go to the bathroom without stopping it and not feel like you’ve missed anything. It’s the perfect thing to put on when you’re just casually viewing.

Which I was doing last night. I didn’t feel like seeing a quality picture. I wanted something crummy. And I hadn’t seen Commando in a long time, so yesterday was a good day to watch it. I know: This is coming from someone who loves Kurosawa and all kinds of high-falutin’ pictures, so what gives? All I can say is that sometimes I have to slum a little. I don’t do it all the time. It’s reserved for special occasions.

This was one of them. So Commando, thanks for the evening. And as John Matrix might say: “Grunt.”

Skip’s Quips: Having Another Go at ‘Conan the Barbarian’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Why, I asked myself last night, am I watching the original 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian again?

Isn’t once enough for this film? It doesn’t have great cinematography. Much of the acting – except for stalwarts such as James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow – is atrocious. And the special effects are pretty poor by today’s or even yesteryear’s standards.

Oh, yeah: And the blood squibs are gloppy. Really gloppy.

Well, parts of it are watchable, for some reason. I’ve read one of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories, “The People of the Black Circle,” and the film stays true to the tale’s sensibilities. You know: blood, gore, lust and all that. Plus, there’s the much-lauded score by Basil Poledouris, which is somewhat bombastic but definitely works.

Then there’s the script, courtesy of director John Milius and Oliver Stone. Pretty simple stuff, but at least it’s not verbose and pretentious. I was grateful for that.

There were also a number of seemingly derivative moments that may have been “inspired” by classic films such as Kwaidan (the scene in which the wizard writes runes on Conan’s body to protect him from demons) and The Seven Samurai (the stake-adorned defense against Thulsa Doom’s cohorts). Surprisingly erudite stuff for a film such as this. I did see part of an interview a long time ago in which Milius lauded Kwaidan as being “dreamlike,” so perhaps he was mining that movie for Conan. Nevertheless, it made for strong viewing.

So all in all: kind of a sloppy film, with dull moments and some very good ones. I may end up watching it again in the future and asking myself, once more, why I’m doing so. Hopefully, I’ll be able to answer myself the same way.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Does the World Really Need ‘Iron Man 3’?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I don’t. I can safely say that after seeing it yesterday.

It had little of the wit and charm of the original Iron Man. Lots of confused, slam-bang “action,” though. Not as much heart.

There were some reliably good turns in Iron Man 3: Robert Downey Jr. as the titular superhero, Gwyneth Paltrow as girlfriend Pepper Potts, Ben Kingsley (who nearly steals the show) as an evil terrorist who’s not what he seems. But it all felt like stuff I’ve seen before, and there wasn’t as much of a focus on Downey’s character’s own demons … his alcoholism, for example. So there’s no real growth or arc. He doesn’t really change.

OK, I’m not expecting a kind of Shakespearean transformation here. It is a superhero movie, after all. Still, the strength and smarts of the first Iron Man made me expect something a bit larger-scale, from a psychological perspective, than what Iron Man 3 turned out to be – which was merely modest entertainment. A good superhero flick can transcend its genre. This one didn’t.

I’m assuming this franchise will continue to churn out additional installments. So be it. Do we need them, though? I say: Only if they approach the quality of the original. And I’m not sanguine about the prospects of that.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: It’s ‘The World’s End’ as We Know It … Big Whoop

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Ever get the feeling while watching a movie that the actors enjoyed it a lot more than you?

That was exactly my response to The World’s End, the third in the “Cornetto” trilogy of silly, hyper-violent cinematic spoofs starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. (The previous two were Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.) I’m not a huge fan of the other films in this loose series, though they’re diverting enough on a rainy day when nothing else is on. The World’s End, however, felt more slapdash and cobbled together, as if the script – which has something to do with robotic aliens taking over the world as a stuck-in-the-’80s loser attempts to make a final, epic pub crawl with his now-grown-up buddies – was devised on the fly over brewskis. Ultimately, there were a lot fewer laughs in this flick than I hoped for, despite a strong cast (Martin Freeman plays one of the pals) and what was probably an immense amount of money spent on blue, extraterrestrial blood.

Part of the reason why I’m not a “Cornetto” series fan is the insistence on frustratingly kinetic editing that typifies many of the “action” scenes. I realize this is all part of the idea – that this is spoofery and it’s all very lighthearted – but it makes for dull viewing when done over and over again. And though I feel that Hot Fuzz is the best of the lot, I think they all smack of missed opportunities, as if too many jokes fell by the wayside. If you’re going to spoof something, go all the way, à la Airplane! or Blazing Saddles. I’m not sure what the creators of The World’s End were thinking, but there were some semi-serious moments that didn’t really work in such a wild and woolly context.

Once again, I’m in the minority on this; the Cornetto trilogy is a popular one, and I seem to be, oftentimes, at odds with popular cinematic taste. I stand by my perspective on The World’s End, though, with the end result being that on the whole, I’d rather have an ice cream than watch this movie again.

Skip’s Quips: Hey, ‘The Long Kiss Goodnight’ Isn’t Terrible!

~

Blog Sketch 082813I admit: I was convinced to watch this movie by my wife, who emphasized how good it is.

But I was skeptical. Trudi and I have different tastes in film, though we do share some opinions. (For instance: We both agree that Manos: The Hands of Fate is awful, though that’s like agreeing that the sun is hot.)

The Long Kiss Goodnight, however, didn’t seem like a movie she’d like. It has fight scenes, which is a no-go in her book. It’s an action film: double-yuck.

Needless to say, I was puzzled. I sat down to watch it with trepidation. Then I enjoyed it … with no trepidation. Fun escapist nonsense. Doesn’t take itself seriously. Not a bad script, with some sharp lines. Slick direction by Renny Harlin.

OK, it’s far from a masterpiece. It’s action without profundity, the antithesis of, say, The Wages of Fear. Yet it was something of a lark, and I succumbed to it. Do I have bad taste? It’s kinda out of my jurisdiction.

Nah. I have a bit of Trudi’s taste in me after all. And that’s good, because it balances me out.

I repeat after myself: I. Like. A. Trudi. Movie.

Skip’s Quips: Cameras, Trains and Automobiles

~

IBlog Sketch 082813s there a better car chase in the movies than the one in The French Connection?

The subway-centric scene even beats the famous San Francisco-set sequence in Bullitt, in my opinion, and though the riveting desert ride in Raiders of the Lost Ark comes close, the originality of the shots in Connection makes it tops. A camera mounted on the hood so you can see where the car is speeding—superb, risky work.

And to think it was all done without CGI, huh? How did we live?

Well, I think, is the answer, with scenes such as these.

Skip’s Quips: Reflections on ‘The Terminator’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I wish The Terminator were an enjoyable film.

Sure, it’s kinetic. Action-packed. Exciting. But enjoyable?

Frankly, I find flat, warm cream soda more appealing.

These ruminations popped up while I was watching the film recently on TV. And yes, I sat through the entire flick … which I hadn’t done in ages. I admired the snappy editing, the fierce car chases. Even the crisp dialogue seems tailored to speed things along. It’s a fast-moving, zippy movie.

But again: not enjoyable. Downbeat. Unpleasant. I guess that’s the point—it does, after all, concern the possibility of a post-apocalyptic future where unstoppable machines roam the earth killing humans. Yet there’s something dreary about the whole thing, even when you factor in the idea that it’s not completely hopeless … that those terminators can be beat. I don’t get that feeling while watching another seminal, dark sci-fi picture, Blade Runner, which has a more positive outlook. In that film, machines have a human side. They seek life, while the construct in The Terminator wants death.

That, in my opinion, is a big reason why I enjoy watching Blade Runner. The characters are more complex, and the antagonist isn’t evil. He, like Pinocchio, has humanity. The terminator doesn’t.

It’s easier, I think, to create film villains without nuance. You can drop sneering, classical music and other standard ingredients into the blender and mix. A three-dimensional villain, however, is a lot more difficult … but can add more flavor. Yes, that’s beside the point in The Terminator, but this missing ingredient makes it less entertaining.

And I just think of replicant Roy Batty’s final speech in Blade Runner to prove it.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Modest Small-Screen Proposal

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Any reason why we can’t have the all-Kurosawa channel?

We have action on demand. Drama on call.

Well, I want to snap my fingers and have The Seven Samurai appear on my TV instantly.

I get hankerings all the time for this glorious, seminal movie. And it seems to be rarely on. When it is, it’s often at a time when I’m not available–like at three in the morning or 18 billion, trillion o’clock in the afternoon.

Why don’t I just get the DVD and stop complaining? OK, I’ll tell you. There’s something really organic about turning on the telly and finding a movie you like. It’s satisfying.

Satisfying in the way that getting up to put a DVD in the player isn’t.

Fine, I’m lazy. But it doesn’t change the fact that I adore this Kurosawa classic. Which means I also scoff at the 1960 American remake, a poor imitation that removes the vital class distinctions pervading the original (samurai versus farmers) while adding more guns–weapons that make such a difference in its Japanese progenitor–and subtracting most of the character development.

If I could have The Seven Samurai broadcast to my brain personally on a 24-hour basis, I’d do it.

An all-Kurosawa channel, admittedly, might not make financial sense. But maybe … an all-jidai geki station? Bring me the popcorn.

I know I wouldn’t be the only audience member.

Let’s Get Our Definitions Straight, OK?