Action Heroes Die Hard
It's been two weeks now, but I'm still reeling from the travesty that was Die Hard 5. Under any other title, it could barely even be described as a mediocre action flick, a genre which whilst entertaining is hardly known for it's quality plot lines and character acting. But, as part of the Die Hard franchise, it's an unsightly blot on the action movie landscape.
In fairness, if I'd done my homework before watching it I would have been less surprised. This shameful entry to one of the best action movie franchises of the past 30 years was written by Skip Woods, the man best known for bringing us Swordfish, as well as helping to destroy the X-Men reputation with the woeful Wolverine spin-off.
The one-dimensional Russian bad guys seem better suited to a Rocky and Bullwinkle movie. Or perhaps an intro scene from a video game. The car chases are yawn-inducing, the family scenes are cringeworthy, the plot is tedious at best, and what is going on with the sinister tap-dancing villain?
There was a time when John McClane was a genuine tough guy. Over the past 25 years though, the Die Hard franchise has fallen further than Hans Gruber fell from the Nakatomi Plaza. In this fifth installment, it seems to have landed with a bone-crunching splat on the pavement of Hollywood, and should be left now to die in peace.
Assuming this is now the end of the Die Hard series, I can't help but wonder who will fill the shoes left behind by Bruce Willis. The actors who defined the idea of the action star since the days of my childhood are mostly old enough to be collecting a pension and it's time those who are still clinging on, to hang up their guns.
Van Damme is one of the youngest, at a mere 52. Seagal is now 60 years old, Stallone is 66, Schwarznegger is 65, Mickey Rourke is 60. Chuck Norris is 73. He should be retired in Florida by now, yelling at kids to get off his lawn and taking naps in the afternoon. Not starring in The Expendables 2.
There seems to be a worrying trend in Hollywood for older action stars. Sean Connery was 73 before he finally retired, after the embarrassment of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Clint Eastwood was 78 when he made Gran Torino, and it still isn't clear whether he has permanently retired from an acting career.
Liam Neeson is 60 now, but in the past five years seems to have found a new lease of life as an action star who is raking in the big bucks at the box office.
Given the advancing years of all these aging actors, there can only be a few years left in their limited shelf life.
It makes me wonder who are the upcoming actors prepared to take over the mantle. Sure, there are plenty of great leading men under the age of 40. But few that can really be described as pure action heroes, made in the same mould as those who are nearing (or have passed) retirement age.
The only name that immediately springs to mind is Jason Statham. You know exactly what to expect from a movie that stars 'The Stath'! Who else will join him though? Let me know in the comments.
Clint Eastwood: Better Actor or Director?
I've been enjoying something of a Clint Eastwood movie marathon lately. Not just the films he acted in, but also a good selection of movies where Clint stepped behind the camera to direct.
As a longtime fan of Mr. Eastwood, I'm trying to decide whether I prefer him as actor or director.
Clint as an Actor?
First up - Clint's acting. He started work way back in the '50s as a jobbing actor (mostly supplementing his income by digging swimming pools) and never attended film school. Even after signing his first contract, way back in 1954, his acting was criticised by director/producer Arthur Lubin, who thought he squinted too much, hissed his lines, and his manner was too stiff. Ironically, these would be the very traits which made his acting style so distinctive over the next few decades. But is that such a good thing?
Don't get me wrong, I love almost any film in which Clint stars. And that includes Every Which Way But Loose, one of my guilty pleasure movies. I enjoy his style, but the very fact that he has a recognisable style counts against his reputation as an actor, since it brings into question whether or not he is actually acting. In other words, is Clint just playing a version of himself.
Compare him to any of the following actors: Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman, Philip Seymour Hoffman. These are just three example of some of my favourite character actors. Pick any two of their films, and you'll find two utterly different characters. As actors, they disappear completely into the role, and become their character.
When I'm watching a Clint Eastwood movie though, I'm thoroughly entertained, but I know that I'm watching Clint. The character he is playing becomes almost incidental, as it is subservient to his own superstar status.
He is arguably one of the best at what he does. An interesting side story is that an armourer who spent decades working on films, claims that he only ever encountered two actors in the entire industry who never blinked when firing their weapons. One of these was Clint Eastwood (the other being Yul Brynner). Truly, he is a badass, on-screen or off-screen. But is there really any distinction between his on-screen persona from one movie to the next.
It reminds me a little of the British sitcom, Blackadder. In each series, the lead character Edmund Blackadder turns up at a different point in history, as a reincarnation of the same person. He starts in the Middle Ages, progresses in the second series to the Elizabethan period, before moving on to the English Regency of the early 19th century, and finally finishes up during the fourth and final series in the trenches of World War I.
The same could be said for many of Clint's films. Give Harry Callahan a poncho and place him in the Old West, he is still the same basic person. Jump him forward to 1990s L.A. and make him a Secret Service agent and he still hasn't changed much.
Clint as a Director?
It's a whole different story though when it comes to his skills as a director.
Here, he is almost exponentially more versatile. There is a much greater diversity in the stories being told, and in the characters being featured.
Contrast Bird, his 1988 biography of jazz legend Charlie Parker, with WWII drama, Flags of our Fathers. Or compare Million Dollar Baby with The Bridges of Madison County, or Pale Rider with J. Edgar.
Without checking the credits, you might not even realise that the same director was responsible for all of these films. There's really very little weakness in his career as director. Every film I can think of is good in it's own right, distinct from all others. He has developed an impressive resume of quality character dramas, especially in the past decade, where the focus is on the people whose story he is telling, rather than reliance on the stardom of the actors involved.
As much as I will always hold a special place in my heart for classics such as the Dollars Trilogy or the Dirty Harry series (and surely these are what he will be most remembered for), I don't see there being much of an argument for not concluding that his superior talent lies as director.
Quintessentially Eighties
When is an 80s movie not an 80s movie? When it is Super 8!
After rewatching Super 8 recently, it struck me that this was not only a great movie, but was firmly rooted in what is probably my favourite decade for movies. I guess this owes a lot to it's director, who was really perfecting his craft during the eighties, and has figured out the secret to recreating the magic.
There are many films that happen to be set during the eighties, but not many necessarily feel as though that is when they were made. Initially, this just felt like an indefinable quality. But after pondering the film for a while, I started to think of specific aspects which really seem to define a film that belongs to the eighties.
After some further thought, I came up with a list of 10 key ingredients most commonly found in movies made in the 80s.
This got me to pondering whether one movie encapsulated the decade more than any other. I believe that there is one movie that does so more than any other: The Goonies.
Allow me to quickly run through the 'Ten Ingredients for an 80s Movie' then and see how many The Goonies can tick off the list. There are spoilers along the way. If you've somehow never seen it yet, go watch it now, then come back.
1. High Concept
In simple terms, the idea of a "high concept" movie is one that can be explained in a single sentence.
The Goonies can be summed up as "Four friends find a pirate treasure map and set off in search of adventure". So, that's the first box ticked.
2. Fantasy
I don't mean this strictly in terms of the Fantasy genre. Sure, there were plenty of these around: Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Willow, The Princess Bride, Conan The Barbarian, The Last Unicorn, just to name a random few.
In the eighties, it seems movies of almost any genre, even those that are ostensibly set in the 'real world' still contained some element of fantasy. Whether it was a comedy about two nerds who manage to create a woman using their computer, or a romance involving a mannequin that comes to life, or a musical starring an immortal Greek muse.
With it's swashbuckling pirate-themed adventures, there's definitely more than a touch of the fantasy element here.
3. Family-friendly and Heartwarming
The Goonies has bucket-loads of heartwarming, family friendly entertainment.
I mean they find the pirate ship, bring back enough treasure to save everybody's family homes, and even poor old Sloth finds a new home. Everybody lives happily ever after.
4. Childhood Innocence
Another commonly recurring theme in so many great eighties movies. Just think of E.T, Stand By Me, Big, The Neverending Story, Flight of the Navigator. The list goes on, but The Goonies has to be right up there near the top when it comes to eighties-style childhood innocence.
5. Steven Spielberg
OK, some might pick John Hughes as being a better representation. My take is that a typical John Hughes movie merely manages to place a movie as belonging to the 80s. Spielberg took things a step further and somehow both defines the decade as well as transcending it.
So many of the best movies saw him involved in one way or the other, as director, producer, or writer: E.T, Gremlins, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones. And of course, The Goonies.
6. Stereotypes
In the eighties, there was something of a trend for using crude, slightly offensive stereotypes in place of genuine character development.
The Goonies has, amongst others, a fat kid, a brainy/geeky asian, a jock, a damsel in distress. Chalk up another tick in the box.
7. Inexplicably Bad Fashion
Does this need any more explanation? Skintight jeans, leg warmers, shoulder pads, parachute pants, pastel suits, popped collars, acid wash jeans. What on earth were we all thinking?
Somehow though, The Goonies seems to emerge relatively unscathed on this point. I mean, it was still the eighties, so a things do look dated, but on the whole I can't recall any horrendous fashion faux pas.
8. Quotable One-Liners
This was something that action movie stars were guilty of more than anyone else.
But in order to demonstrate The Goonies credentials, I need just three words. Hey You Guys!
9. Someone Named Corey
Seriously, it seems as though this was the decade that was officially supported by 'The Two Coreys'. Their closest rival in helping to define the period was Molly Ringwald.
Mr Feldman shows up here in fine form, and increments the count yet again.
10. Coming Of Age
Distinct from the 'childhood innocence' aspect listed above, this final point refers to the journey that the lead characters must take. A kid (or group of kids) might start off a film as innocent, but by the time the credits roll, they will have undergone some kind of adventure and emerged on the other side as a bit wiser and older.
The Goonies has this in spades.
A quick rundown of the ten points listed above, and The Goonies manages to really only escape on a single point. But as Meatloaf once never said 'Nine out of ten ain't bad'.
Overcoming Adversity
A few weeks ago, I saw 'The Diving Bell & The Butterfly', a tremendously inspirational film. It tells the true-life story of a man suffering from 'Locked-In Syndrome' - he is completely paralysed with the exception of his left eye.
That's not the subject of this post though. I mention it because at the time I watched it, I felt it would be difficult for any film to be more inspirational. I'm happy to report that I was wrong, since today I finally got around to watching the critically acclaimed 'My Left Foot'. I may be nearly 25 years late to the party, but better late than never.
These two films have drawn comparisons since both deal with individuals who face incredibly difficult circumstances. Both demonstrate the capability of the human spirit to overcome adversity and achieve greatness.
After watching both films, a quote kept coming to mind: "Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain."
In other words, we may or may not eventually emerge on the other side of whatever difficulties we face, the key is not to sit around feeling sorry for ourselves awaiting some potential future happiness, but to find a way to take enjoyment even in the midst of our troubles.
Watching a film such as 'My Left Foot' is inspirational for demonstrating the possibility of embracing this kind of attitude. In my life, I have known more than one person with chronic illnesses. One friend in particular has suffered with Parkinsons for over 25 years now, and every day is a struggle to achieve the simplest basic functions, but I rarely ever see him without an infectious grin on his face. He has a wry sense of humour, and always has a joke at the ready.
I find myself constantly amazed by some individuals who face more difficulties than most of us have ever known, yet achieve more than we ever have.
To be clear, I don't place such people on a pedestal. I know that all of them have their weak moments as well. Daniel Day-Lewis does a great job here in portraying a man who is not always likable He is even occasionally shown as being a little on the pretentious side, and manages to make enemies along the way, as well friends.
Like everyone else on this planet, those with any kind of disability are as flawed as the rest of us. But when they learn how to "dance in the rain" they inspire the rest of us to put our own problems into perspective.
I don't confess to know the secret. But two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul may have provided a part of the answer when he wrote "We also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; and perseverance, character".
Some powerful words to dwell on. So whatever you may be facing in your life right now, please don't give up.
And maybe watch 'My Left Foot'.
The Woodsman
I've just finished watching a little known film called The Woodsman and was blown away by the power of this film. That Kevin Bacon didn't even receive a Best Actor nomination should be a matter of shame to the industry.
In a single line, this is the story of a child molester who is released from a 12 year prison sentence and his struggle to fit into society. Firstly, I should quickly make it clear that this film is in no way gratuitous. So for anyone who is put off by the subject matter, there are no graphic scenes here involving children, nor does it attempt to condone his actions.
What you will find is a stunning and gripping portrayal of a man tormented by internal conflict. I'd encourage anyone to check it out. In fact, watch it twice. There is some fascinating symbolism in the supporting roles, which is easy to miss on an initial viewing.
But what really stood out for me is how accurately the movie chronicles such a controversial topic. If there is one sexual perversion that stirs up feelings of hatred and condemnation, it is surely pedophilia. Other forms of sexual immorality tend to divide opinion, but I have never yet heard of anyone who would argue the case for pedophilia. And rightly so.
Yet, here we manage to see something quite rare, as we're given an incredible insight into the viewpoint of the molester, prompting a fresh understanding without ever condoning.
After mulling this over, I've concluded that this only works because Bacon's character is painfully aware of how twisted his feelings are, and desperately wants to be rid of them - to feel 'normal' again. As a society, we're often quick to judge others for sins that we could never picture ourselves committing. I've done it myself before, but realise it's rather hypocritical. Most of us never have sexual feelings towards children, so we view that small minority who have such a perversion as worse than ourselves.
What is overlooked by that kind of attitude though is that every one of us has the potential to do wrong. Every one of us faces different temptations to do wrong. When you really start to examine the nature of humanity and it's potential for depravity, it's not the things we are tempted by that count, but how we react to them.
In 'The Woodsman', we see a man who previously gave into those things that tempted him, but since then appears to have undergone a genuine reform, and although the desires still plague him, he now despises them and is fighting hard to not yield to the path he previously trod. That is to be applauded.
On the other hand, if someone else has only ever been tempted by things that are generally seen within our current society as more acceptable, we are unlikely to ever make the effort to resist those things. So, who is really the better person - the one who faces demons that most of us never do but battles them with every ounce of strength, or the one who only faces 'acceptable' sins and gives in to them every time?
As a much more renowned film critic has pithily observed: "It is not that we are capable of transgression that condemns us, but that we are willing".
The Start of a Blogging Journey
This is my first blog post, so hello and welcome.
I've been a writer over on Squidoo for a while now, where I write on a number of topics, including book reviews, for which I have won a few awards, and various product reviews.
And of course I also write on movies. My Squidoo articles (known as lenses) have been focused on film reviews, and some Top 10 lists such as Ten Favourite Foreign Language Movies of the 21st Century, Top 80s Movies or Ten Great Movies You've Probably Never Seen.
But occasionally, I have random thoughts on a movie I've seen, but don't want to do a full blown review. It's these intermittent thoughts that have prompted me to start this blog.
Keep your eyes peeled in the next 24 hours for my first post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
