The Expendables 2 (2012) – Review

Review: The Expendables 2 is a gratuitously violent film, almost comically so, made for the entertainment of fans of 1980s/90s action films and their stars. The film is about a group of mercenaries lead by Barney Ross who are hired to retrieve a delicate item from a plane crash in hostile territory. When the mission goes wrong and a team member is killed, the team turns their sights on revenge. Director Simon West basically only cares about portraying the action in the most entertaining and even fun manner as possible. Sure, there are some characters moments (or attempts at them), but they only sort of work and serve more the purpose of giving the audience a break from the aggrandized action set pieces. The story, too, is not really important. It just puts the characters in motion so they can shoot at lots of stuff and blow up lots of stuff and murder (what seemed like thousands of) bad guys in gruesome ways. For viewers that only somewhat like violent films, do not like them at all, or even only medium like them this is not the film for you. This is only for viewers who love action films, and to that point – action films that are only about the action and extreme violence (stuff like most of the pure action films of the 80s and early 90s, and this may even be more absurd than any of those). As a film, this is entertaining (though, I do enjoy action films to a degree, growing up with these actors and their films), but also is maybe a bit too much. There is so much killing and brutality that it loses all meaning and the viewer becomes completely desensitized, which is not really a good thing, as really films should strive to interact with their viewers and make them feel something real. This is not possible here, unless you hate violence and feel utter disgust towards this film (but then why are you seeing it in the first place when it is very clear what this is going to be going in). All the action gets a little tiresome, because it is all sort of meaningless. However, the film’s saving grace is the likability of the action stars (we all know) and the fun they are having in the film – bantering, throwing around references to their past franchises and making jokes at the expense of themselves (and their age). The charisma of these action stars is what makes the film work. It is okay for films to be mindless entertainment (be it action, comedy, thriller or whatever), but they are never going to be great. The Expendables 2 is mindless entertainment (mind numbing entertainment at that) that is enjoyable, but again it was never going to be great.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Simon West specializes in action, and this is probably one of his most entertaining films to date. What he does well is capture the right tone for the film. The Expendables 2 feels light and fun, but still has enough dramatic weight (giving the good guys a sense of morality, so that the audience gets behind them organically instead of merely supporting them because they are the presented as the protagonists) to give it a hint of seriousness (though all the murder in the opening scene sort of countermands any seriousness as it is fairly ludicrous). Composer Brian Tyler, cinematographer Shelly Johnson and production designer Paul Cross all get what the film is supposed to be, and their work goes into supporting West and the film’s tone. The film is filled with glorified visual staples of the genre, and it all works. Cross has probably the standout work of the bunch, however, with his fantastic Soviet Base set replicating a section of New York. As stated above, it is the film’s stars that really make The Expendables 2 fun. Dolph Lundgren and Terry Crews (unsurprisingly) have some of the best side-kick material, while Jason Statham, Jet Li and Bruce Willis are good too. Liam Hemsworth is not very good in the film. His dramatic scenes are clunky and forced, and he just feels out of place in general. Nan Yu, also new to the team, is somewhat awkward, but still works overall. Her chemistry with Sylvester Stallone is one of the better things in the film. Chuck Norris shows up, seems out of place, but makes maybe the best joke of the film (him being there is nothing more than a novelty). Jean-Claude Van Damme is a decent villain, and the sheer nostalgic aspect of his appearance is great. Arnold Schwarzenegger just commands the screen whenever he is on it. He sort of steals the movie. Stallone is good as well, playing the tough as nails soldier of fortune who looks back on his life with regrets but cannot do anything else.

Summary & score: You get exactly what you expect and what you want with The Expendables 2: a fun and entertaining highly violent action film filled with all the stars you love from the 1980s and 1990s (plus Jason Statham). 6/10

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) – Review

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger (hereby known as Captain America) is a lot of fun. Playing off the WWII era, its best attributes come from embracing the period – the war bonds, the bandstand music – it was an era of heroes and just works well with the Captain America story of a measly but tough guy who just wanted to do his part and becomes America’s greatest soldier. However, all that being said, director Joe Johnston (and Marvel Studios) decided not to stay within the period, instead allowing for advanced technology to make for (supposedly) cooler or more exciting action sequences, but the film lost a little of its power, emotion and era-appeal when its characters are running around shooting at each other with tech we do not even have today (and sure the source of the power is otherworldly and the tanks and planes and so on were scaled back to still somewhat fit the period, but it still hurt the vibe). But at the same time, maybe this tech was needed to make HYDRA and Red Skull the super villain it and he appears to be (I do feel stronger writing could have circumvented this however). Another issue is with the characters. While Steve Rogers is given a good amount of background and character work, all the other characters are very shallowly drawn, relying on cinema stereotypes and caricatures to inform the viewer on who these characters are, without any real emotional connection, which makes many of the dramatic moments weak. Even Johann Schmidt (Red Skull) is not given much, making their showdown sort of meaningless, relying purely on the spectacle to carry the scenes. Marvel Studios has done a good job of mandating that their productions be not only entertaining due to good action but also funny. Captain America is no different. There are a lot of great comedic moments that really (along with the Steve Rogers character) make this film work better than it otherwise should. Comedy, action and a fast moving tight narrative can often cure character and bigger narrative issues, and this is very much the case for this film. Johnston’s directing is good and bad. He gets enough right for the film to be entertaining, but some of the scenes just have a clumsy (if not goofy) feel and do not work very well. Johnston seems to try to stuff in too much (for example, I would have liked to have seen more of Captain America’s team, but there just was not time for that), only to keep the film rapidly moving forward (something many directors do, but only a few like J.J. Abrams can still get the character moments right). The lack of meaningful characters and character relationships is probably the films biggest flaw. The audience is watching the film, due to this, to partake in the spectacle and not as a part of the character(s)’s journey(ies). However, Captain America is still entertaining and enjoyable for the most part (just not great – it seems like every Marvel Studios film has a glaring flaw keeping it from being on the same level as stuff like Spider-Man 2 and X-Men: First Class, which are both dramatically engaging while still mostly keeping it light and fun).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Joe Johnston has made one of his better films with Captain America. Like with The Wolfman, he gets the look and atmosphere right (for the most part, but again I wish it were more committed to being period) and yet he again does not give enough attention to the characters, which is the most important aspect of a film. He is more concerned with the action, look and pacing (given, pacing is very important as well) and the film as a whole (and really all his films) is ultimately negatively encumbered as the result. Alan Silvestri’s score is good, but really the best music work on the film comes from Disney composer Alan Menken (the Marvel-Disney partnership paying off), whose song is great fun. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson shoots just about everything Joe Johnston does, providing really good photography to his films. Captain America is no different. Production designer Rick Heinrichs (also working with Johnston again) does good work as well, but if only the design could have been more grounded in the period. The cast, mostly given little to work with, is quite good considering. Sebastian Stan, Stanley Tucci and Hugo Weaving give good enough performances to help shape Steve Rogers, but as principal parts in his life it is a shame their characters were not developed more. Dominic Cooper and Tommy Lee Jones are both wonderful and funny, while Hayley Atwell does a fine job portraying Steve Roger’s love interest and a strong female character. Chris Evans is the best part of the film however. He commands the screen and captures the character very well.

Summary & score: The film moves so briskly and without much depth, I just wish we had more time with Steve Rogers et al in the WWII period, but what we got was a fun and entertaining. 7/10

The Wolfman (2010) – Review

The Wolfman is both good and bad, rather has both good and bad elements summing to decent overall experience. The film has a wonderful gothic atmosphere to it. The look, the sound, the ambiance of the world is perfect. Danny Elfman’s score will surely be among the best of the year. Shelly Johnson’s cinematography and Rick Heinrichs’ production design create beautiful looking (in terms of the tone of the film) Blackmoore (aka gloomy English countryside) and London sets that fit the mood of the piece and utterly, along with the score, enhance the overall fun of the experience for the audience. The principal cast is also very good. Benicio Del Toro and Emily Blunt are superb. Del Toro’s performance captures the agony of the curse that surrounds his family – he sincerely appears to be in anguish in the face of the damnation that has fallen upon him, which works quite well in juxtaposition to his father’s, Anthony Hopkins, bravado. Blunt is able to play the tragic nature of her plight, she is fabulous in the final scenes of the film, and along with Del Toro is able to emote honest emotion amongst all the special effects. The audience feels her heartbreak. This is where The Wolfman succeeds – fine acting, and astonishingly pitch perfect atmosphere. But the film falters in other places, holding it back from being a great film. Director Joe Johnston does a suitable job throughout, but in certain places trades narrative integrity (or at least opportunities for a better narrative, a more potent emotional connection) for seemly Hollywood thrills. For example, one of the main story elements is the conflict between father and son, Johnston resolves this in the Hollywood way of a werewolf versus werewolf fight, when the true conflict is between the men, thus a more effective resolution, which would resonate with the audience, would have been to have the son kill the father in human form. Also, the film, rather than being generally scary through the use of tension, takes the easy road of quick impact cuts and loud noises to make the audience jump. The CGI in the film is also not as good as it could have been at times, but this is more of a minor complaint. It is the narrative choices that hold the film back the most. All in all, The Wolfman is a fun horror movie, and a worthy addition to the classic movie monster stable of films. 7/10