Movie Preview: The Expendables

Sometimes a movie is just what you expect it to be. With the Expendables the promise is action, explosions, and a few snappy lines. I see no reason for the film to fail to deliver on all 3.

This is an action movie first and foremost. It's a combination of the stars of the 80's and the latest action movies. Stallone, Lungdren, Rourke, Statham, Li, and Austin. What a combination of testosterone, with enough bullets and explosiuons to level a mid-sized city. Which is pretty much the plan of the film.

The plot is simple enough. A group of mostly older mecenaries is hired to take out a South American dictator. Along the way they get double crossed by former associates, and have to fight to survive. Cliche but it works.

If you were going to see this film with the hope of understanding the greater meaning film can bring to the inhumanity of war and combat, wrong film.



The fight scenes look good (and they should since Stone Cold Austin would up fracturing Slyvester Stallone's neck in their fight scene). Obviously the stars of this film all will get their moment to show off their particular talents and style. But we can also see that plenty of money was spent to ensure the battles would look huge and devastating. Because in an action film there is no such thing as overkill.

Plus there looks to be more than a few well timed and funny one-liners and situational jokes. Likely there will be other attempts that will fail, but as long as the writers didn't try to fill every scene with a hoped for catchy phrase (Like in Running Man with the Governator) it should work more often than not.

Also keep an eye out for the rest of the 80's stars. Which includes Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. Forest Whitaker had a role written for him, but had to drop out, initially to be replaced by 50 Cent (the thought sends a chill down my spine), and ultimately filled by Terry Crews who should fill in well. Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Kurt Russell all turned down roles in the film. Which is a shame as they really would have completed the mix of 80's to current action film stars.

This won't win Oscars, or likely any award other than from Spike TV or MTV. But this will almost certainly be one of the biggest money makers of the year. The real question is who out of the entire cast will have the best fight scene? My money goes on Jason Statham. Best one liner will almost definitely go to Stallone - it is his movie after all.


**Spoiler Alert**
Not everyone on the team will survive (Li and Crews are the likely victims). But there is already talk that those who do, will be in a sequel. Seagal and Russell might make it yet.

"Because I may suddenly feel the need to."

With all the closed door meetings in Congress, the idea of Universal Voter Registration, and now the C-SPAN deal I was reminded of one of the better monologues I've seen in movies.

It's made by Dennis Leary - whom I think is a great comedian - from the mediocre movie Demolition Man starring Sylvester Stallone.



You can substitute various politician's names in, depending on your political view. But ultimately I think you have to agree with the point made.

The Expendables: Cast growing with action movie icons

In a bit of a quick update there is the news that the 2010 film, The Expendables, has increased the large and famous cast. The latest addition to the film will include yet another major icon of the 1980’s action movies.

Yes the Guvernator himself will be taking a role in Sylvester Stallone’s latest film. But this will not be a major part, just a cameo. And he will be playing a role that will involve little acting – he will play the Governor of California. How embarrassing might it be if his role is done poorly?

Still the Expendables movie is continuing to look like a must see film. The cast of Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (an old nemesis of Stallone and Schwarzenegger) , Mickey Rourke, and Forest Whitaker is compelling. The addition of the Governator just adds a bit of flair.

By the way, here are some of the match-ups from the past with this cast.

Stallone has been in films with:
Mickey Rourke – Get Carter (remake)
Dolph Lundgren – Rocky 4

Jason Statham has been in films with:
Jet Li – War and The One
Mickey Rourke – 13 (filming now - remake)

Mickey Rourke has been in films with:
Eric Roberts – Pope of Greenwich Village

Forest Whitaker has been in films with:
Ben Kingsley – Species

And oddly enough, Christopher Walken (who is not in the film) has been in movies with:
Mickey Rourke – Dominoe, Man on Fire
Arnold Schwarzenegger - The Rundown (the Governator had an uncredited role, did you notice?)
Sylvester Stallone – Antz
Eric Roberts – Prophesy 2
Dolph Lundgren – A View To A Kill

Just thought I’d add that.

The Expendables - 2010 movie

Now here is a concept that I am looking forward to seeing trailers for. A movie with action as its complete drive. Plot be damned, this will be fast-paced and sure to provide a pounding.

The Expendables is a film featuring Sylvester Stallone, Mickey Rourke, and Dolph Lungdren. With just that part of the cast you might think this is a return to the action movies of the 1980's. Which is not an entirely bad thing. But hold on.

Add to this group of oldies but goodies Jet Li and Jason Statham. And for a bit of dramatic flair there is also Ben Kingsley and Forest Whitaker. Now that is a cast of standing. You can stage a film about almost anything with this group of actors.

This film will focus on mercenaries that are hired to take down a South American dictator (might he have a last name sounding like Chavez?). It doesn't need to get much deeper than that.

Likely good guys are Statham, Li, and Stallone. Probable bad guys are Rourke, Lungdren, and Kingsley.

While I don't expect this to be an Oscar winner, I do expect massive amounts of explosions and kicking ass. There will be big guns a plenty. So if you enjoy art house films this will not be for you most likely.

One thing I would really enjoy in the film would be a fight scene between Li and Statham. I am sure the film has to have that, if only for a few minutes. That would be a great action sequence. That will make the film for sure.

There is no video yet, but be confident that once there is I will be getting it out to you all. Expect this in 2010.

Death Race - mixing old and new with a kick

I may have missed what will become the underground hit film of the summer season in all my reviews of 2008 movies. Now by no means will this be an Oscar Award winning film (which means someone in America will see it). This is a simple action driven, fast paced, plot as an excuse for explosions kind of film.

The film is called Death Race and it will star Jason Statham. Now obviously the man can drive (or at least look cool acting like he can) as seen in his Transporter films (the 3rd coming out shortly). He’s definitely one of the better action stars able to do his own stunts.

Death Race is a simple movie, the brainchild of someone who grew up in the late-70’s to early-80's. I say this because there are a few things that seem to be the inspiration of this film. And each of them are things that I personally enjoy.

It may be a bit esoteric but Car Wars, by Steve Jackson Games, seems to be one influence. The game is a simple map, with each player selecting a car, motorcycle or truck cardboard piece. On a piece of paper various armaments for the car are written down. The players then proceed to destroy each other until only one is left. Simple and fun.

Another influence is Mad Max. The film that made Mel Gibson a star, its best seen in the original Australian accents (then you will understand why Fifi has his name). Cars are the weapons and speed is a function of exposition. There are no good guys in white, and everything crosses some line at some point.

Lastly is perhaps the biggest influence. Death Race 2000.



The film clip explains it all, almost. It’s a cross-country race, with no rules beyond winning and points for killing people along the way. Devised as a means of population control, you can see why the elderly are the highest points. David Carradine is the star, Dr. Frankenstein, and Sylvester Stallone is in there too. It’s a fun movie.

This film coming out shortly has much of the elements above. But unlike most retreaded ideas (that I hate) where the whole point of the movie is thrown out the window, this one keeps focus, from what I can see. Our hero is a famous NASCAR driver (of course) that gets framed. He’s thrown into a jail where the inmates compete in a race to the death, similar to Running Man now that I think about it. People watch and the winner goes free – supposedly. The cars are souped up, decked out, and raw – much like the various drivers.

Now I don’t know but I guess Jason Statham’s character will win the race and live at the end. No doubt this will be the cause of a Death Race 2, just as there will be a Cranked 2.

But enough of my analysis, here is the video. (If the film gets a wide release I will get a review as soon as possible).

The Hillary Clinton boxing connection - repost

**Repost from VASS, my political blog. But it has multiple boxing and movie references.**

So was it just me or did anyone else find humor in the comments of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday? If you don’t recall the comment it was

“Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.”

Now as I recall, wasn’t the first Rocky movie that she references (about running up the stairs in center city Philadelphia) the first time that Rocky loses to Apollo Creed the champion that was Black? Are we to take it that she too is in a battle that she won’t win? [And in the real world Sylvester Stallone is a Republican that backs Senator John McCain]

In fact, Rocky lost multiple times to better stronger Black men. Actually Rocky was constantly losing and getting his head beat in. I recall a Rocky movie (just before the most recent, I think it was 5) where the pugilist lost everything and was back in the poverty he started from due to the fact he wasn’t smart enough to manage his finances and make a proper plan for the future.

So if Senator Clinton is just like Rocky, as she says, then she is a loser without the sense to know when to stop fighting, can’t manage money, and willing to risk the livelihood of family and friends just to prove a point. Not the inspiring image that she intended, perhaps a Freudian slip on her part?

But I won’t beat up on her about this. I’ll just highlight the similarities. Senator Clinton has lost the popular vote, trails virtually 2-1 on state victories (27 – 14) and is losing on the delegate count. There is almost no way that she can avoid a decision and the odds are decidedly against her as her own supporters are acknowledging Senator Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

And she has thrown more low blows than Gerry Cooney, hitting below the belt with a campaign staff that has either been following instructions or is so without supervision they have been caught repeatedly using race as a means of personal attack. Spreading emails that claim Senator Obama is a secret Muslim, highlighting his middle name to draw on the Muslim fears/prejudice of America, alleging that Senator Obama was a drug dealer, insulting African Americans that voted for him by dismissing his victory in South Carolina, attempting to circumvent every rule and plan that she agreed to back when she thought she would win easily in 2007, and the list goes on.

That says nothing of her Leon Spinks-esque brown bag equivalent of trying to ignore the fact that one of her larger fund raisers was known, wanted fugitive Norman Hsu, who happened to give her $1 million that he stole and she did not want to return.

If anything, I would equate Senator Clinton with James ‘Buster’ Douglas. Like the little boxer that could she won a Senate seat in New York State, and has gone up against a heavyweight she was not prepared for. She was under prepared and got knocked on her butt in the early rounds. But she made a comeback, and thought she was stronger than she in fact was. She’s been knocked back and down repeatedly and too many want her to throw in the towel. She’s even taking late hits (from herself) with the truth of her own actions hitting her as hard as the fact that she has no experience has. [Bosnia and Ireland if I was too obscure]

So let me ask this. If you had a choice, and you do, why would you want to back a fighter that loses repeatedly, trips over their own legs, is overconfident to the point of embarrassment, and seems more than a bit punch-drunk?

Why bust on Tyler Perry? - 6.13.2007.1

Have you heard about the apparent controversy with Mr. Tyler Perry? I had not heard of it previously, but it seems the Houston Press is right on top of it. Honestly I just don’t get it.

It would seem that Mr. Perry has caused a bit of outrage with his new cable television show Tyler Perry’s House of Payne on TBS. Not that Mr. Perry has never been attacked for his material before.

"[It] generates contempt for and ridicule of and erasure of black women as complex and substantive”

All of this drama and yet Mr. Perry made $110 million dollars in his latest films, Diary of a Mad Black Woman and Madea's Family Reunion, and garnered a television show contract. I have to believe that some are watching the program. Thus I can’t understand why anyone would be upset with the man. He makes play, movies and now television programs that target an audience, what’s wrong with that?

I realize that Mr. Perry is not making films the quality of say Mr. Spike Lee, or Kasi Lemmons, Mr. Stanley Nelson, or Mr. John Singleton but why does he have too? Every movie, television show, or anything for that matter does not need to be critically acclaimed and award winning in quality. It simply needs to entertain. That’s it. If people like what you make you get to make more. How much money have actors like Mr. Sylvester Stallone, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mr. Wesley Snipes, made on films that were weak on plot, long on action and had guns that NEVER needed reloading.


If Mr. Perry can make money with his gospel-heavy, southern-styled, and perhaps stereotypical projects, good for him. I say that for 2 reasons. The first is that few other groups besides African Americans have any interest in the material he covers. It’s just too specific to experiences we either live or know about. Obviously many African Americans have no objection to the material. The other reason is that without Mr. Perry how many qualified Black actors and actresses would not be working today? I would never take food and opportunities out of the mouths of anyone on the basis of something as trivial as ‘I don’t like the work you do’.

For those that don’t like the work of Mr. Perry, do as Ms. Vivica Fox and I have done. Don’t see his work. It’s like when I was young, I recall ads on television in the Bronx for You’re Arms Are Too Short To Box With God [why are the Black theatre play’s titles so long?]. I had zero interest in seeing it, but I was glad that it was out there. To treat Mr. Tyler any different is wrong.

I’ll even go one better. For those that dislike his work enough to complain, go out and make your own film/play/movie/television show. It won’t be easy, you may not make money, but at least you will be doing something. And I’ll be happy to know you did it, whether or not I see it.

This is what I think, what do you think?

What about Rocky? - 12.28.2006.1

Have you seen the latest Rocky movie? I haven’t, and I will probably pick it up as a DVD or from a bootleg. Given that I was watching a couple of programs and noticed a couple of things about the Rocky movies I started to wonder. The movies have been successful, and I have seen the first 4 in the series. I have enjoyed the ones I’ve seen. That said there are some things that I wonder about.

When I look at the latest movie trailers and I consider that there has not been a champion boxer that has been White in decades, is part of the success due to the dream (or wish) that it was true for the white patrons viewing the film? Is the entire Rocky series just wishful fulfillment for the millions of White Americans that have lost a connection with the boxers that have held titles for years now? It’s a deeper question than is seems to be. I think it also may be more accurate than it appears on the surface.

The ultimate way to view this is to ask ‘would Rocky still be the success it is if the lead character was black’? On top of that would the movies work if the black lead were fighting a white champion? Do either of these things change the movies?

To answer the first question the answer should be it makes no difference. But that answer would be rhetoric and untrue. It does make a difference. Envisioning the movies and placing a black lead does not fit, and it’s not because Mr. Sylvester Stallone was so great. There are many movies that anyone can envision another actor portraying as well if not better than the actual actor in the film. Only truly classic films, like It’s a Wonderful Life or The Godfather are examples of movies where either the acting or the storyline (or a combination of both) prevent seeing another in that role. Rocky is not a classic film, good but not classic and there are other actors that could have done it.

So why does that make a difference? Because it wouldn’t be an underdog story. If this were a movie done in the era of the 1930’s or so it wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t work with a black champion or lead. It’s just too unbelievable. Which is sad because it should be able to work.

Yet I cab understand the need to feel connected. I would imagine millions of Black Americans have no connection to most of the programs on television, like I do. While there are good shows out there I’ve noticed that shows where there is some type of diversity tend to attract my attention more than others. The Blade series, the Shield, Eureka, House, CSI and other shows have character(s) that I can empathize with more and in part I want to see how those character fare in those series. Shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Will & Grace did not, and I viewed them occasionally but never felt a connection to them. [Shows like Cheer, Frasier, Moonlighting and others were favorites without connection to similar characters.]

This also feeds into the desire of connection with the film. An audience needs to feel connected to the characters and/or the situation. While there is no denying that fans of all races and nationalities enjoy boxing today, there is also no denying that many would like to see a White champion. It’s natural. They can connect with that character. It’s no different than the millions of African Americans that connected with Mr. Muhammad Ali, or Mr. Tiger Woods as they took the world stage by storm. Even in basketball this is true, though to a lesser extent, and in football with quarterbacks like Mr. Warren Moon and others. The fans can see themselves as that figure and can connect more completely with their success. It’s wish fulfillment.

In terms of Rocky, the success of non-White athletes is not an underdog story but somewhat of a given as there have been decades of champions without a White contender. I think the last real shot was Mr. Cooney some time ago. I could be wrong and please let me know if I am.

So Is Rocky really a great series of films, or a good film propelled by the desires that are unrealized in the real world? And what does that mean about the psyche of America? Does that mean a White champion would make more money just because of his skin color? That a so-so contender would be paid more, and propelled up the ranks faster just to give fans a new dream?

Given that there is no direct connection between reality and the movies, it’s interesting how close the character of Apollo is to Mr. Ali and Mr. Joe Frasier. The character of Clubber Lang (the début film for former bouncer Mr. T) seems eerily like Mr. Mike Tyson, thought the release pre-dates Mr. Tyson by 4 years.

I realize that the film is regarded as a classic by many, and that it won 3 Oscar Awards. I understand that it made over 100 million dollars in profit. Even so, it is not on the caliber of the Marathon Man, The Sting, and others. The question remains in my mind what is behind the great performance of these movies (the 3rd and 4th movies were not nearly as good as the first 2 and made more money). And what does that mean if I am correct.

Or am I just letting my mind wander too much?

This is what I think, what do you think?