The new word in redundancy

While the first film had its retro-charms by paying homage to the conservative political simplicity of 1980s action cinema, The Expendables 2 is a rambling mess. It’s even more self-aware than the first film, with even worse CGI visual effects, and without Mickey Rourke to add some redneck gravitas. Instead, we have painful-to-watch scenes where Dolph Lundgren’s Gunnar Jensen attempts to flirt with sole female addition Maggie (Nan Yu); paternal bonding between Sylvester Stallone’s Barney and newcomer Liam Hemsworth’s sniper Bill the Kid; and villainous Jean-Clade van Damme looking, in one particular close-up, like he belongs in formaldehyde in Roswell.

Back in slightly larger roles this time are Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, which sees them quoting each other’s movies. Instead of knowing and funny, it comes across as sad and desperate. Jet Li disappears after the action front loaded opening scenes, but Chuck Norris pops up (literally) once or twice at opportune moments, a familiar piece of music indicating his presence. The decision to play the theme from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to introduce Norris is a mystery – he’s no Clint Eastwood, and no Man With No Name either.

Norris looks so cheerful in the midst of the tedious mayhem that he makes the rest of cast seem comatose, especially Jason Statham’s Lee Christmas, who often speaks to his love interest over the phone, much to the irritation of both Barney and the viewer. There seems to be a suggestion that something will come of Barney’s notion that Christmas should not become involved with someone who’s been unfaithful to him, but all it does is serve as an indication of male insecurity in matters where grenades and mortar attacks aren’t helpful. While machismo and testosterone-driven male banter was at the centre of much of the first film, at least it never distracted one from the main plot. 

Speaking of which: The Expendables are on a mission that goes wrong, and then they want revenge on those involved. Something like that. It’s a simple set-up for action overload, but much of the action is badly staged, and CGI blood has seldom seemed more obvious. The Expendables 2 continues the American Saviour motif present in 1980s action cinema but doesn’t have the decency to have ironic fun with the notion. On the good side: Terry Crews’s Hale Caeser returns with more to do this time, as does Randy Couture, who has the good sense to keep his mouth shut for nearly the entire film. Between the blood, smoke, stiff limbs and aging egos, The Expendables 2 is a grating bore.

Stallone. Statham. Lundgren. Li. Explosions. Fists.

There’s no point in deceiving myself: I like 1980s style action cinema, the kind I grew up with (Big Trouble in Little China, Missing in Action, Die Hard, the Rambo movies, the Lethal Weapons). These films have a tangibility about their action, where much contemporary action cinema feels too polished, too clean. Also, I admire Sylvester Stallone. He’s liberated third world countries and fought a one-man Vietnam, and he usually exits these battles stronger and meaner than before (even if said third world country is left in ruin). Over the past thirty five years, he has built an image of unrestrained machismo where muscles are many and dialogue is limited. But Stallone has gotten old, and his macho style is long since out dated, replaced by the brooding vacuousness of many male teen idols. That doesn’t seem to bother Stallone.

For his directorial effort The Expendables, Stallone gathers some of B-cinemadom’s most familiar names: Jason Statham (arguably the current king of B-action cinema); Chinese export Jet Li; Dolph Lundgren (another 1980s behemoth long past his prime, memorable in 1992’s Universal Soldier and Preacher from Johnny Mnemonic); Mickey Rourke (Johnny Handsome), looking freshly tenderised as always; perpetual bad guy Eric Roberts; and entertainer-athletes such as Randy Couture and Stone Cold “Beer Me!” Steve Austin. These men all adhere to Stallone-esque notions of masculinity, where the size of your first determines social standing as well as who is standing.

Stallone’s team is sent on a dangerous mission into South America to root out a drug problem; things get complicated, stunts get ridiculous and fights get loud. In between are some badly rendered explosions, some adequate bare fist fighting, and some delightful jokes about how small Jet Li is. All in all, The Expendables hearkens back to a time where a small group of Americans could save a country while eradicating some social evil (such as obliterating drug dealers). I have to admit to enjoying the cheesiness of the dialogue, and the warm feeling in my heart seeing Stallone and some other 1980s icons share an all-too-brief scene in a church. I also appreciated that the film was edited like a Tony Scott movie, even if some scenes are too kinetically cut.

The Expendables is what is often referred to as a “guilty pleasure”. But why feel guilty about something that you like? And really, who doesn’t like Stallone? The Expendables 2, featuring Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme, will be released in 2012. I’ll be there. 

Note: Peter Berg’s superior The Rundown playfully addressed similar content, but with less cheese, and more Rock.

Inertia in action

Having seen a number of heavy films, I opted to watch a straightforward action vehicle starring one of the few action heroes I can tolerate as a means of compensating for the mental atomisation that the other films had incurred. Although I subscribe to Ebert’s dictum that a good movie can never be depressing, overdosing on such films do exert a toll, often manifesting, at least for me, in a strange feeling of mental fatigue. With this motivation I justified watching Olivier Megaton’s (!) “The Transporter 3”, featuring Jason Statham as franchise protagonist and Audi aficionado Frank Martin.

This time, Martin is forced into transporting precious cargo by an American villain (Robert Knepper) intent on forcing a Russian politician to sign a document that will result in great financial benefit to certain people and certain ecological doom for others.

“The Transporter 3” is easily the worst Besson-scripted film I’ve yet seen. From the opening sequence which is later nearly forgotten by the film to the men on the boat catching fish to the bizarre and embarrassing love story between Martin and his travelling companion (who is also a stunningly bad actress), the film has plot holes large enough to double flip a black Audi on the back of a speeding train through.

Halfway through the film I reflected on the possibility that the action sequences should be interesting enough to keep my interest from waning, but no – like many other action films in the post-“Bourne” era, “T3” also shows us fistfights where you’re never quite sure who’s doing what to whom. You see an arm extending, a leg flailing; yet, you seldom seem to witness actual contact, or to hear bones crack.

This is a low for Statham (keep in mind I have not seen his turn in Boll’s “In the Name of the King”, which I intend to watch as part of a 'suicide combo' paired with “Dragonball: Evolution” and “Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li” towards the end of the year) who does his best to do his macho man-thing but an actor is only as strong his material, and Statham has barely anything to stand on. I could go on and on discussing the numerous glaring flaws in this film – and here I don’t even omment on the physics of the Bessoniverse – but I can’t see why. No-one will remember this Eurotrash action rubbish by 2010, if they haven’t already forgotten it. Hopefully Statham, who really deserves better, gets a gig for Guy Ritchie soon. From what I've heard, "Crank 2: High Voltage" isn't much of a step up (and, for the record, I despised the first "Crank").

Also, here’s hoping Besson, who hasn’t directed anything noteworthy in a decade and released his best film a whole 15 years ago, moves on to interior design. He may be a profitable French export, but his movies are terrible.