Tag Archives: arnold schwarzenegger

“The Last Stand” – 3.5 STARS

by

11

LAST STAND POSTER

It only took a couple of cameos to get Arnold Schwarzenegger back in form and now he’s back (yes I just said that) in “The Last Stand”. You would never doubt that this is a standard Schwarzenegger picture except for the fact that the days of the one-man-army seem to be gone. But don’t misunderstand me, Arnie still pumps a ton of lead, fires the one-liners, and kicks plenty of bad guy butt. It’s just that he’s older, he knows it, and the movie takes that into account. In fact, the movie has a lot of fun with it which is just one of the reasons why it works as a whole.

First off, this is an old school action picture and that will automatically turn off some people. Some will dismiss it as retro cheese while others will dismiss it as simply mindless entertainment. I can’t argue with either of those assessments other than to say it shouldn’t be dismissed. “The Last Stand” has its share of cheesiness but intentionally so. And it’s certainly not stimulating, thought-provoking cinema but it never pretends to be. It’s a simple, straightforward movie without an ounce of pretension and it.

LAST STAND2

Schwarzenegger plays the sheriff of a small Arizona town named Sommerton which sits near the Mexican border. It’s a quiet little town and nothing happens there, that is until a local farmer (played by Harry Dean Stanton in a wonderful cameo) is found shot to death. It turns out his murder is connected to the escape of a powerful drug cartel boss in Las Vegas. The drug lord, named Cortez, is heading to the Mexican border and Sommerton is the only town that stands in his way. Needless to say, Arnie and company use the town as the last stand between Mexico and this murderous kingpin.

There’s a good supporting cast around Schwarzenegger even though no one goes to one of his films expecting Oscar caliber performances. I loved seeing Forest Whitaker in a prominent role. He plays the FBI agent who Cortez escaped from. The normally obnoxious Johnny Knoxville plays the village idiot and manages to keep his goofball schtick under control. The lovely Jaimie Alexander and Genesis Rodriguez both get moments to flex their tough girl muscles. Eduardo Noriega is a perfectly detestable villain and Peter Stormare has a blast as one of his hired hands. And then you have the always entertaining Luis Guzmán who is a a lot of fun and delivers several good laughs. None of these performances will knock your socks off, but were you really expecting them to? They go as far as the material allows them and for this kind of story that’s more than adequate.

Last STand 1

But c’mon, this is all about the action right? Director Kim Ji-woon brings a slick and stylish eye for action sequences. But what I like best is how he keeps his camera under control. So many of today’s action movies overuse quick cuts and herky-jerky cameras which makes impossible to see what’s going on. Ji-woon uses these techniques some but they never muddle the scene. Weather it’s a massive firefight or a 150 mph car chase through a corn field, he’s always in command of his camera. Now he does go heavy with the blood and some kills aren’t for the squeamish, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to letting out a “wow” or two.

The days of Arnold walking around shirtless with bowling ball biceps and taking out full armies by himself may be over but “The Last Stand” shows he’s still the king of the action flick. Look, this movie is exactly what it sets out to be and nothing else. The plot is pretty basic and there’s not one single surprise in the entire movie. But it’s also one wild ride and the perfect vehicle for Schwarzenegger. You get plenty of bangs, plenty of bullets, and plenty of bodies. You also get some pretty good laughs along the way. I don’t know about you, but that’s exactly what I want from a Schwarzenegger movie. Mission accomplished.

REVIEW: “Conan the Barbarian” (2011)

by

10

For the past few years Hollywood has been consumed with remaking movies from the 1980’s. I have to admit, “Conan the Barbarian” was one I could see being remade with satisfying results. I’m a fan of the original 1982 fantasy film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a gritty and violent movie jammed with swordplay and sorcery. This time Jason Momoa takes on the role of Conan and while he does a good job channeling the Barbarian’s grunts, growls, and muscle flexes, ultimately the movie’s story runs out of gas and the special effects don’t live up to what you would expect from a 2011 movie.

We’re introduced to Conan at the time of his birth on the battlefield during an intense attack. His mother dies and he is raised by his father Corin (Ron Perlman), the leader of a tribe of barbarians. Conan grows into a young boy who’s agility and skills with the blade are beyond his years. It’s during this time that his village is attacked by an evil warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) who is seeking the pieces to an ancient mask he believes will resurrect his deceased wife and eventually lead to his rule over Hyboria. Doesn’t it always come down to that?

Zym and his army destroy young Conan’s village and leaving the boy to witness his father’s death. The story then catapults ahead to an adult Conan working as a mercenary. Still thirsty for revenge, he finds a trail that he hopes will lead to Zym. Zym still hasn’t figured the mask out and now is seeking a monastery that houses a pure-blood descendant (Rachel Nichols), blah, blah, blah. Conan ventures from location to location before tracking Zym down, falling for the descendant, and getting caught between saving her and carrying out his revenge.

The story has promise especially for those who love these types of fantasy films. It has moments that captures what made the original film a cult favorite particularly during the first half. But it hits a point where it begins to lose steam, turning into becomes a conventional and predictable fantasy tale. There are plenty of action scenes featuring snarls, sword twirling, and blood splatters. Some of them work well, but much of the action lacked context and seemed like nothing more than dressing. And I also found the finale to be as underwhelming as the buildup to it.

It’s also surprising to see how bland the special effects turned out to be. Many of the location shots look like hazy paintings instead of lived-in lands. There is also a creature battle close to the end that certainly doesn’t stand up to the visual accomplishments of today’s effects. But there is a really good effects-driven sequence where Conan is battling a group of sand warriors conjured up by Zym’s witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). It’s clearly the best the movie offers.

As I mentioned, Momoa is a soild Conan and Nichols is a good match for him on the screen. Perlman is a nice choice for Conan’s father even though it’s a relatively small role. Stephen Lang isn’t as bad as he was in “Avatar” but once again he seems to be following the “How to Play a Movie Villain” handbook. He overplays several scenes and he’s never the slightest bit menacing. McGowan, his co-antagonist, feels like a bigger threat even though her character is pretty shallow and forgettable.

Forgettable is also a good way to describe “Conan the Barbarian”. It’s not a terrible movie but it squanders a lot of potential. It does do a few things right especially in the first half. There are also moments that made me reflect back to the original film and how I responded to it as a kid. Unfortunately this one can’t sustain a compelling story and the visuals don’t feel like a worthy enough upgrade. This was one remake that I expected a lot more from.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2-stars

THE THROWDOWN : Stallone vs. Schwarzenegger

by

22

Wednesday is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects, pit them against each other, and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and more. I’ll make a case for each and then see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new Throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

*Last week Christian Bale (74%) manhandled Michael Keaton (26%) in a Batman battle to the death.*

This week it’s an action movie face-off between the two biggest names of the 80’s. The 80’s and early 90’s were the glory days of the action genre and no one was bigger than Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Forget the critical acclaim, the stuffy Academy Awards, and the overrated importance of good acting. These guys were all about biceps, blood, and bullets. Before they teamed up in the recent “The Expendables” movies, these two had a huge box office rivalry that lasted several years. Now it’s time to settle the big question. Which of these action movie icons is truly the best? Their guns are loaded, their knives are sharpened, and their muscles are flexed. But it’s your votes that will decide the outcome.

STALLONE vs. SCHWARZENEGGER

At 66-years old, Sly Stallone is still kicking bad guy’s butts on the big screen. But then again, he’s been doing it for almost 40 years. His career really took off in 1976 with “Rocky”. But it was “First Blood” and “Rambo: First Blood Part 2” that laid the foundation for what would become an amazing action movie career. He would go on to clean up a psycho cult in “Cobra”, team up with Kurt Russell in “Tango & Cash”, hang from mountain cliffs in “Cliffhanger”, battle baddies in the future with “Demolition Man” and “Judge Dredd”, and rescue survivors trapped in a collapsed tunnel in “Daylight”. He’s also made several more “Rocky” pictures and two more “Rambo” films. He has several new projects ahead but he’ll always be remembered for his incredible run that helped make the action genre so popular.

Arnold Schwarzenegger may have more memorable scenes and memorable one-liners than anyone in cinema history. He also has an action movie resume that’s as impressive as any you will see. This one-time Austrian bodybuilder made a name for himself in the early 80’s with his “Conan” films. But his career really took off when he traded his sword for a gun in the sci-fi classic “The Terminator”. He then cemented his one-man-army status in “Commando” and “Raw Deal”. He would battle an alien threat in the spectacular military sci-fi film “Predator”. He also ventured into the future with “The Running Man” and “Total Recall” before making what is one of the best sequels of all time, “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”. He mad several more action films including “True Lies” and another successful “Terminator” flick. This 65-year old has no plans on slowing down and you’ll see him plenty in 2013.

So there’s a case for both. Now you decide who’s the winner. The action movie genre wouldn’t be what it is without the contributions of these two icons. So vote now. Who’s the heavier hitter, Arnie or Sly? You decide!

“THE EXPENDABLES 2” – 4 STARS

by

7

Ok, let’s get one thing out of the way first. Anyone who is going into “The Expendables 2” expecting a deep, penetrating narrative and Oscar caliber performances are clearly going for all the wrong reasons. This sequel to Sylvester Stallone’s 2010 film is bigger, louder, and for my money better than the first picture and it’s an unashamed 80’s action movie homage that had me hooked from the first moment. Is this an exercise in challenging and complex filmmaking? Far from it. But it is an honest and unapologetic movie that knows exactly what target it’s aiming for and hits it dead center. Does that mean it’s a perfect movie? Most certainly not. But it’s a ton of fun for those knowing what to expect and I defy fans of these “Who’s Who” of action movie heroes to walk out without a smile on your face.

Sly Stallone co-wrote and stars in “The Expendables 2” but this time he passes the directing duties to Simon West. This contributes to what I think is one of the biggest differences between this and the first film. The first movie had its share of salutes to the classic action pictures but overall its tone was much more serious. The sequel is much lighter with lots of playful camaraderie, intentional cheesy one-liners, and a self-deprecating humor that’s woven from start to finish. What’s really great is that all of this works so well. The movie and it’s actors constantly poke fun at themselves and at many of the things that were commonplace during the 80’s action craze. The old guys constantly makes fun of their age. They spoof each other’s famous one-liners. Even Chuck Norris tells a Chuck Norris joke. And their names are a hoot. Aside from Stallone’s rather tame Barney Ross, you have Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Booker (Norris), Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger), Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), Toll Road (Randy Couture), and Yin Yang (Jet Li). While it sounds like a G.I. Joe roster, it classic 80’s cheese. But could any of the names be better than that of the movie’s antagonist, Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme)?

But while there is a lot of humor throughout the film, this is a straight-forward, in your face, action movie filled with bullets, blades, and blood. The movie starts out with a bang – a really, really loud bang. Director Simon West lets the audience know right away what they’re in store for. The team is reintroduced via a thundering rescue mission soaked with gunfire, huge explosions, and machismo. Afterwards, Barney is approached by the shady Mr. Church to carry out a simple retrieval mission. But things go terribly wrong when Barney and company cross paths with Jean Vilain. After Vilain gets away, the team sets out on a revenge-fueled, save the world mission that doesn’t pull a single punch. They shoot, punch, and knife their way through hordes of baddies on their way to the big final showdown that we know from the start is coming.

The movie takes you on a ride from one extravagant action set piece to another so there’s plenty of opportunities for the huge cast to get their moment in the sun. They all kick a lot of butt each with their own unique style of buttkicking. And while the body count is huge and there is plenty of blood, West keeps the extremely graphic violence seen in the first film mostly in check. But action movie junkies get more than their money’s worth. The action sequences are furious and intense and while they do dabble in the absurd, it never goes off the rails enough to lose the audience. In fact, it’s those few moments of absurdity that were for me the most nostalgic. The action scenes are cleverly constructed and edited and they’re clearly the film’s bread and butter.

I’ve mentioned a couple of times already that the cast is having a lot of fun. Everyone fits in nicely and the back and forth banter and old school “I got your back” virility never grows old. The characters each have their own personalities that we get to enjoy despite the almost nonexistent character development. Stallone and Statham are best buddies. Lundgren straddles the line between heroic and insane. Crews and Couture are the muscles of the bunch. Then you have Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris who are basically…well…Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Norris. But I don’t think I enjoyed anyone more than Van Damme as the cold-blooded villain. He’s clearly having a blast and he nails his character. I loved every scene he had and yes, he can still do the flying spin kick.

It’s been a lot of fun reading critics guiltily try to explain why they enjoyed “The Expendables 2”. Me, on the other hand, I’m not ashamed to give a movie praise that entertained and excited me. And look, I could easily spend time harping on the plot points that didn’t work, it’s extreme predictability, and some of the sub par performances. But instead, I recognize exactly what “The Expendables 2” intends to be. It clearly won’t be a movie for everyone. Those with no connection to or interest in the 80’s action genre or the actors probably won’t connect or be interested in this picture. But I get back to one key thing – I had a lot of FUN. I grew up on these guys and this movie took me back. I laughed, I was wow’d, but most of all I left the theater knowing I had gotten what I came for. Maybe that’s why the flaws are so easy for me to overlook.

REVIEW: “Total Recall” (2012)

by

8

I don’t often consider the “is it necessary” question when approaching a movie remake. While too many remakes can become tiresome and many result in terrible movies, a good writer and director can provide a unique and fresh take on older material. That’s what I was hoping for from Len Wiseman’s remake of “Total Recall”, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1990 sci-fi action flick. Unfortunately, Wiseman’s film isn’t nearly as fun or engaging as the original. It takes away some of the more entertaining elements of the original and replaces them with a nice new glossy coat of paint.

The original “Total Recall” featured some great action and some genuinely funny moments. But it was also a relative to that great 80’s action genre so it had its share of cheese (which I love). This new version has some good action but it loses its punch thanks to its simple and lackluster story. Colin Farrell plays Quaid, an assembly line worker who has grown tired of his mundane life. About the only excitement he finds are in his reoccurring violent dreams. He decides to visit Rekall, a memory implant company who gives people exciting experiences by injecting them with artificial memories. Quaid chooses the secret agent implants but as the process begins Rekall is stormed by armed troops from the corrupt local Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston). Quaid shoots his way out revealing a skill he never knew he had. He rushes home and tells his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale), but she tries to kill him. Confused and no longer sure who he is, Quaid goes on the run chased by an army led by his one-time wife.

Most of the movie consists of one big chase. Quaid jumps from rooftop to rooftop, dangles from ledges, and dodges bullets while every once in a while stopping to get a little information about who he really is. Now I love good action but I eventually began to lose interest due to the lack of any real substance. Quaid does run across Melina (Jessica Biel), a girl who appeared in his nightmares, and you would expect her to add a little more to the story. But for the most part, she’s fairly shallow and basically just joins Quaid in being chased. Her character in the original film had considerable more depth. Beckinsale’s Lori gives the action scenes most of their life. She’s tough, mean, and persistent and she’s a strong female antagonist.  But the writing let’s her down as well and even she is one-dimensional.

One thing that I did like about the story was the sci-fi world it created. A chemical holocaust has ravaged earth and there are only two superpowers remaining, The United Federation of Britain which is essentially Europe and “The Colony” which is Australia. The two are connected by a massive elevator transport than runs through the Earth’s core. There’s a political tension between the two and it’s fueled by a strong resistance movement which Cohaagen is desperate to squash regardless of the cost. The special effects and CGI deliver a visually sharp and creative world. The UFB is a fancy, upscale region while “The Colony” has a dirty, over populated, inner-city look to it. Both locations are distinctly different but futuristic in their own unique ways. There are also several technologies that should make sci-fi geeks drool including a cool  hand phone implant and a wild electronic rope gun. I loved the environment and the visuals are truly impressive.

There’s little else to say about the “Total Recall” remake. Farrell tries to keep things interesting but in the end all he’s asked to do is run, jump, and look confused. I mentioned that Beckinsale was fairly fun but no other character really stands out. Even the always good Bryan Cranston is your typical cookie-cutter villain and he’s nowhere near as devious and evil as Ronny Cox’s Cohaagen in the original film. There are a few other things that keep the movie from being a complete wash-out. The special effects are dazzling, there are some good futuristic action sequences, and there are several fun little salutes to the original movie. But in the end there’s just not enough here to make this a worthwhile remake or anything more than a mediocre movie. And that’s disappointing, especially from a sci-fi fan like me.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

5 PHENOMENALLY AWFUL SUPERHERO MOVIES

by

10

In honor of this Friday’s release of “The Avengers”, I’m spending the week looking at comic book/ superhero movies. Yesterday we listed 5 Phenomenal Superhero Movies. Well, just like every other genre, you have good movies and you have some real stinkers. Today I’m listing 5 Phenomenally Awful Superhero Movies. As with yesterday’s list, this one stays within the comic book arena. The main difference is that these films simply got it all wrong. Unfortunately there were plenty to pick between and I found it a little difficult narrowing it down to five. Nonetheless here they are. As always I wouldn’t call this the definitive list, but there’s no denying that these 5 superhero movies are most certainly not phenomenal!

#5 – “X-MEN: THE LAST STAND” (2006)

It’s a shame that a franchise that started so good could fall so far in such a short time. “X-Men: The Last Stand” was the third X-Men movie and by far the worst. Bryan Singer, the director of the first two films, left and Brent Ratner took over. But the biggest problem was with the story. The ridiculous liberties that were taken with the team were simply unforgivable. The series went from being about a superhero team to being a Wolverine and Jean Grey love story. The special effects are really good and the production value is fine. But X3 turned the series on its head. “X-Men: The Last Stand” severed its ties to its comic book roots and proved to be a franchise killer.

#4 – “JONAH HEX” (2010)

Talk about a great example of a missed opportunity. Jonah Hex has more than enough wonderful source material to make a great movie. Why on earth did the movie stray so far off course? “Jonah Hex” is an absurd and often times incoherent mess than only gives the audience brief glimpses into what makes the character great. What’s even worse is that Josh Brolin is perfect as Jonah Hex. The makeup combined with Brolin’s portrayal is right on target. Unfortunately the material is so ridiculous and lame that it’s impossible to enjoy what he’s doing on-screen. Then you have the casting of Megan Fox who offers up one cringe-worthy line after another. Even the often times reliable John Malkovich is like fingernails on a chalk board. “Jonah Hex” is one of the most poorly written movies I have ever seen and even at only 81 minutes, it drags on forever.

#3- “THE SPIRIT” (2008)

Acclaimed comic book and graphic novel writer Frank Miller wrote and directed “The Spirit” and I have to say he should stick to books. “The Spirit” is an absolute mess right from the start. The movie is a lifeless and emotionless film that is a good example of style over substance. Miller’s over-the-top style works visually but the material is so flat and grating. Miller’s self-indulgence make some scenes seem to go on forever and it’s truly a laborious task to make it through the picture. The actors drudge along never developing a single character worth caring about. It’s almost as if Miller simply forgot the difference between print media and cinema. Whatever the reason, “The Spirit” is a movie that I pray I never have to see again.

#2- “CATWOMAN” (2004)

I’m not alone in calling “Catwoman” a terrible movie. It’s one of those rare movies that I honestly wasn’t able to make it through. I struggled with leaving it off this list simply because I never finished it. But then I asked myself WHY I never finished it? Oh yes, because it was absolutely horrible. Loaded with ludicrous and cheesy dialogue and a paper-thin story, “Catwoman” takes a great DC Comics character and butchers her all for the sake of putting Halle Berry in a cat suit. Both Berry and Sharon Stone are laughably bad and the material is no better. The direction, the special effects, the character development, all of it is subpar and the result is a disaster that some have said derailed Berry’s once promising career. If you’ve seen “Catwoman” (or if you’ve tried to see it), you know exactly why it’s on this list.

#1- “BATMAN AND ROBIN” (1997)

The first Batman movie franchise wasn’t the best. The first film starring Michael Keeton and Jack Nicholson was a lot of fun but after that it slowly started going downhill. The series hit rock bottom with Joel Schumacher’s abhorrent “Batman and Robin”. Schumacher’s film was a catastrophe and was the ultimate death knell for the franchise. Nothing in “Batman and Robin” works. It takes such a flippant and arrogant approach to Batman and his universe. It’s never as funny or as clever as it thinks it is and Schumacher seems more interested in clowning around than making a quality film. George Clooney is a fine actor but he was a terrible Batman and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Mr. Freeze is one of the worst characters in film history. I have a laundry list of faults associated with “Batman and Robin”. Maybe it’s my affection for the source material, but it doesn’t take much to see that this is a poorly made movie on almost every level. It’s absurdity is off the charts and it’s lazy, unfunny attempts at humor never let up. I hate “Batman and Robin” and there is a reason why it’s accused of killing the Batman series.

So there they are. Do you agree or disagree with my list. See something I may have left off? Please share you comments below.