Universal Soldier (1992)

There is something to be said for the pure entertainment factor of the over-the-top action movie, particularly of the 80's/early 90's persuasion. There's just something about how awesome something can be when it's portrayed in the flippant, irrelevant manner that is the mainstay of those kinds of movies. Whenever you can get a smirk and a one-liner from your hero, it's a good time, provided that the source material and acting is at least worth the cocaine-saturated paper it was printed on.

And it doesn't take much. Just make sure the good guy is a badass and the villain is scary. And if possible, it helps if the comic relief sidekick and love interest story is kept to a minimum, if not cut out all together. And for the love of all that is holy, whatever you do, don't have a sassy kid in the film. That is a death sentence. But as long as the rest of it is at least passable, it's going to be a fun time.

That brings me to "Universal Soldier," a film from 1992 that sadly passed me by back in the day. Although I really like Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren, I somehow never got to watching this action staple from the early 90's. And looking back, it's a shame because I missed out on some great cheesiness starring two very underrated action titans.

You know, normally I'd be ticked over being shot by a guy named "Dolph," but for some reason, I'm okay with this.

The idea of "Universal Soldier" is that back in the Vietnam war, two American soliders, Van Damme and Lundgren, ended up killing each other after Lundgren snapped and went all "Platoon" on a village of civilians. This introductory scene, while looking absurdly like a set, is actually quite effective and did a lot to really get me invested in the characters, because where they were mentally at that moment is where they are mentally throughout the rest of the film, so it's almost like this opening scene is taking place throughout the entire film.

After their bodies are recovered, there is a lot that isn't explained, but we are told just enough to know that they were selected to become part of an experimental program which took the corpses of dead soldiers and reanimates them in order to make what is essentially a brainless drone without morals who is capable only of following orders. How they possess the technology to do this is left a mystery, as is the wisdom of creating a soldier incapable of making decisions on their own, but that really doesn't take away from the entertainment value of the film.

There is also something to be said about the soldiers being Vietnam veterans, and the correlation between mindlessly following orders being the preferred mindset, particularly in that conflict which saw a lot of questionable things happen. I don't think it's a coincidence that they chose that war to be the origin of these characters. The whole film could really be seen as a big anti-Vietnam protest. Only made in 1992.

After Vietnam the film flash-forwards to "Present Day" (whenever that is), where Van Damme, playing Luc, or as he is otherwise known GR-44, gets his circuits crossed as his memories begin flooding back to him when during a mission, Lundgren, or Scott aka GR-13, begins taking people out in a similar manner that he did back when they killed each other. This finally comes to a boiling point during an incident with a reporter played by Ally Walker, when Luc absconds with the only slightly irritating female co-star (every movie back then had to have one of those), and is pursued across the country by Scott and the rest of the soldiers.

So at its core, "Universal Soldier" is a chase film, but it's a good one. This isn't like "Terminator 3" or anything. This time the chasing and tension and action is actually pretty entertaining. And a lot of the credit in regards to that has to be given to Van Damme, who is, as I keep telling everyone, a very good actor when given something to chew on. As Luc, he plays it very low key and is essentially a blank slate, since he has nearly no free will of his own. So it's a bit unnerving watching a guy go through all this excitement and barely change the expression on his face. One could make fun of a guy like Van Damme having no expressions on his face, but believe me when I say he does it well.

For Luc, this is a reaction. No seriously, this is the equivalent of steam shooting out his ears.

As the film goes on, however, both Van Damme and Lundgren become more and more expressive as their minds start coming back to them from the haze of simply doing what they're told, but like I mentioned earlier, they are mentally unchanged from their state at the time of their death, which is a cool little thing. Lundgren wants to kill everyone he considers a "traitor" and make a necklace with their ears (nice!), and all Van Damme wants is to go home. But despite this one-track mind they've got going on, it really does add to their characterization.

There is one final thing I'd like to bring up, as long as we're on the subject of "good actors." I'll come right out and say it: Dolph Lundgren is amazing. Had I seen this movie back in the day I would have been a fan of his far longer than I have been already. His character of Scott is freaking crazy scary, and is one of the best examples of scene chewing over-the-top 90's villainy that I've seen, right up there with Travolta's Vic Deakins and Cage's Castor Troy. They really don't make them like that anymore. The difference between them and Lundgren though, is that Dolph is physically FAR more intimidating, and the man looks like he could use you for dental floss.

Also, despite the fact that I've not seen him do an American accent since, Dolph could have fooled me. The man's accent is pretty solid, especially compared to Van Damme who didn't even try. Although that's probably for the best. After all, part of the Van Damme experience is hearing lines like "Aye jus wan ta gah hum." It's like syrup on my pancakes.

This all culminates in an hysterical exchange between Van Damme and Ally Walker where she says:

"I figured you had to be French or something because of your accent."

  "Wott ak-CENT?"

That's funny.

Aside from that, there's really not much more to "Universal Soldier." It's a well made, exciting example of how they did action back in the early 90's and late 80's. You're going to get a lot of shooting, a lot of diving through windows (and walls), car explosions, poofy hair, moments of tremendous violence without being overly graphic about it, and a smattering of zaniness thrown in, plus a one-liner or two. There's nothing too complicated about it.

THE BOTTOM LINE - If you're in the mood for some nostalgic action from back in the day, you could do far worse than "Universal Soldier." While it may not be as instantly memorable as "Predator" or "Demolition Man" or "Die Hard," it certainly belongs among the best the era had to offer. They don't make 'em like this anymore. Recommended.

The Expendables 2 (2012)

What do you think of when the word "awesome" is said? Webster's defines it as:

awe·some (adj.) - 1. Extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear 2. Extremely good; excellent.
 

But there's more to it than that, isn't there? When faced with something that is truly, unequivocally awesome, it's more of a mindset, a state of being, almost a form of ecstasy bordering on enlightenment. To know it is to reach a state of Nirvana as your feeble, mortal vessel puts out a hand, slips the surely bonds of Earth and touches the face of God.

One would imagine hang gliding from the top of Mt. Everest, swimming with a 30 foot Great White Shark, witnessing the birth of a star, or seeing that really big weird cylinder thingy from "Star Trek IV" up close and personal as valid examples of things that are awesome in the textbook definition of the word. And these would be perfectly acceptable answers, but for me there's really only one thing that comes to mind when I think of "awesome."

Reb Brown is known to be so manly that the mere act of watching him can cause your eyeballs to grow beards.

That's right. See that beefy slab of meat up there one-arming an M-60 like it was a pool toy? That's Reb Brown, one of the great unsung 80's action deities. He's a man so macho, so badass, and so indescribably hardcore that he once used a dead 10-foot bat-monster as a hang glider in order to dropkick a caveman in the face. That's not a lie, that is a note of record. He was also Captain America. Twice.

Anyways, the point is that for me, Reb Brown is so awe-inspiring with his aura of awesomeness that it's almost transcendent watching him. It's not that he's a great actor (he's at best just okay) or even that he was in good movies (they're at best enjoyably bad), but he's having such a good time, and he's so unbelievably pure and sincere about what he's doing that you can't help but have a smile on your face. And come on, anybody packing enough ridiculous heat to kill the entire world, something Reb does on a daily basis, is pretty much demanding of your respect, envy and undivided attention.

It also helps when little robots are calling him things like "Big McLargehuge," "Slab Bulkhead," and "Punch Rockgroin."

Which brings me to "The Expendables 2." Why isn't Reb Brown in this movie? At this point they've gotten nearly everyone else. Why not him? I know that the most mainstream he ever got was being featured on an episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," one of the best episodes ever by the way, but why not? I thought the whole point of "The Expendables" was to have every action star they could find in it, and Reb does have a bit of a cult following, especially thanks to the internet. I don't care if it's just a small part, just give him a gun, have him scream "MOVE MOVE MOVE" in his shrill, raspy, womanish shriek, let him shoot something and there you go. You made the internet happy and you gave someone a paycheck. Sounds good to me.

When talking about "The Expendables 2" it is probably worthwhile to mention what my impressions of the first film were. To be perfectly frank, I found "The Expendables" to be pretty lackluster. I was pretty let down in fact, since it was near impossible to look at the talent involved and not assume that "The Expendables" was going to be roughly the greatest thing ever made. And I don't care if they cast some WWE guys - they cast Dolph Lundgren. And that is hardcore.

Here's Dolph looking for someone to break.

And then I saw the movie and realized that it had its priorities completely whacked out, and instead of Jet Li, Jason Statham and Sly killing everything that moved, we got roughly an hour and a half of action stars monologing. It was a yak-fest with the same plot as the new "Rambo," except with more people and less action. And as much as I love these guys, let's face it, forming words with their mouths is not top on the list of things most of them are good at. Now, ask them to drive their fist through the brain-pan of a bad guy and they're all over it, but that other thing is just asking a lot.

That's not to say "The Expendables" was a bad movie. It just could have been so much more. And fortunately it would not be an exceedingly difficult fix to pull off. All they would have to do is cut way, WAY down on the talking and just have these guys do what they do best: Kill Things. That and have Bruce Willis and Schwarzenegger in it for longer than 2 minutes. That's all it would take.

I have to tell you, it's quite the nice surprise when a franchise comes along that recognizes the problems of the first film, and instead of repeating them fixes everything that was wrong. "The Expendables 2" was superior to the first film in nearly every possible way you could have it be superior.

Pictured above: Fixing problems.

The first thing I have to praise it on was how much better filmed the action was in this film than it was in the first one. The first film had action that was lit way too dark, was edited way too choppy, and filmed in such nauseatingly close and incomprehensible shaky-cam that it was borderline amateur. "The Expendables 2," in contrast, has the camera (usually) pulled back far enough to see everything, is kept only minimally shaky, and has shots that last for longer than 14 milliseconds. It's still very intense but far less frenetic, making it seem wild and brutal but always in control, like a laser guided missile shot right down a chimney.

And while there is time spent on a bit of character, mostly on Liam Hemsworth's character of Billy, it doesn't overstay it's welcome. It's generally the same amount of character development you'd get in an 80's action flick, which generally equates to being able to recognize their particular stereotype, if they're close to retirement, and whether or not they have a girl waiting for them back home. Those last two, by the way, are pretty good indicators on their chances of dying. If the answers are both "yes," I wouldn't advice them to step outside without wearing at least 7 bullet proof vests and a tank.

As a result of this "down to business" attitude that "The Expendables 2" has, it succeeds in being what the first film was trying to be to a far greater extent, and what it's trying to be is an old school 80's action movie. That's why it cast a bunch of 80's action stars. The pacing, the large amount of action, the humor, and it must be said, the cheesiness comes through gloriously. The only thing that really makes it not seem like an actual 80's action flick is CGI blood and the lack of keyboard in the soundtrack. Other than that, this could be a double feature with "Delta Force" or "Red Dawn."

So the action was great, which means that it wasn't disappointing, but the real attraction here is the cast. Of course it's got some of the greatest action movie heroes ever the grace the screen. Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li and Jason Statham are amazing. And then there's Randy Coulture and Terry Crews. They are not the greatest. Honestly, if you wanted to cast wrestlers, I would have gone with Rowdy Roddy Piper, but that's just me. Crews and Coulture do their jobs I guess. I just still am trying to figure out what they're doing here.

Of course the exclusion of Mickey Rourke sucks, but he didn't really have much to do in the first movie anyways, so his absence isn't felt too much. Instead we have a LOT more Bruce Willis and Arnold, which I was hoping for so hard since their 2 minute cameos in the first film wasn't nearly enough. True, they're not in a majority of the film but they do come back for the final battle and provide some of the best moments in it.

Seriously, this is one of the greatest things I've ever seen. It is glorious.

But everyone was talking about only 2 people: Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris. I'm going to talk about both, but with varying degrees of detail.

Van Damme plays the bad guy in this, and it is amazing. I'll come right out and say it, I loved him in this movie. And it was almost to the point where during the final confrontation during him and Stallone, which was a very good fight by the way, I gotta say I was almost routing for Van Damme, not because Stallone was bad but because Van Damme was so freaking awesome. I think it had less to do with his character, because it really was a nothing character, and more to do with how completely badass he is while doing it.

It takes a true villain to pull of sunglasses like that.

And like any Van Damme movie there is much entertainment to be had from hearing "The Muscles from Brussels" butchering the English language like a hog. One of the reasons I love Van Damme is listening to him putting emphasis in the most bizarre places within words. My friends and me were laughing close to tears as he sneered and said in his very Belgian way "Dew nawt chall-AN-ge me." I instantly knew that was a new catch phrase for us to abuse. And that is why you get Van Damme.

It's best if you didn't know that much about the Chuck Norris role going into it, because let's face it, the whole thing is essentially a joke, and you don't want to ruin the punchline. The only reason he's in this movie is because his fame on the internet is legendary to such a mythical extent that I'm not sure if it's praise or mockery. Maybe a bit of both. And yes, his role is essentially that of an indestructible walking stereotype to the point where they actually make a "Chuck Norris Fact" joke, but it's perfectly in line with everything else going on. And like everything else, it was badass.

And yes, the "Chuck Norris Fact" joke is pretty damn funny.

The only thing Chuck did to that car behind him was pee in the gas tank.

Honestly, there were only a few problems I had with "The Expendables 2." The first one was that Jet Li is in it for all of 25 minutes. If that. I don't know if he only had a week to film or something, but he's out of there pretty damn fast. That was a disappointment.

Also, this is probably the absolute worst introduction in an action hero movie I've ever seen. Usually there's a dramatic reveal, or a big explosion followed by a closeup and a snarky one-liner. Look at any random Bond movie. They know how to unveil the hero. In any case, there needs to be at least a little bit of a buildup and tease to get the audience invested a little bit to show that the movie is at least trying to get you excited. "The Expendables 2" literally just cuts to Stallone and company driving towards an enemy base. No buildup, no reveal, no tease. Just straight cut to Sly driving a truck, wearing some really silly goggles. Pretty weak intro.

Lastly, while I was glad Arnold was in it a lot more, there were 4 occasions in this movie where I face-palmed, and they were all due to one liners involving him.

Now, don't get me wrong. One-liners as said by Arnold Schwarzenegger get me more excited than any heterosexual man has the right to be, but these just did nothing for me because of the fact that none of them were new. They were all recycled, and that just isn't cool. This film has him making an "I'll be back" joke twice. They also use the phrase "terminate" in regards to Arnold. And I'm pretty sure there's a "Total Recall" reference there, too. Oh also, he says "Yippie Ki Ay." Because you know, that was in "Die Hard." Which he wasn't in. It's just so lazy.

"Sorry. Have to SPLIT!!!" See? It's not that hard.

All I'm saying is that if you get the undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World for Action Movie One-Liners in your movie, give him one liners! Don't have him recycle the old ones! That's boring! Thinking up bad puns and one-liners is not that difficult. Thinking up immortal classics like "See you at the party, Richter" or "Enough talk!" is, but it's not that hard to crank out a C+ quip. That's why you have Arnold, because he can take that and turn it into an A-!

That aside, this is exactly what I was hoping it was going to be. It was a big, dumb, absurdly fun action movie harkening back to the 80's. We can only hope that "The Expendables 3" will get made, because after the disappointing first film, it seems they've found their formula. Now they just need Reb Brown!

THE BOTTOM LINE - I really liked "The Expendables 2." For action packed awesomeness with a dream team of action gods, this is the money right here. Props to everyone involved for improving on the first film in every possible way. Recommended.