Ghosts of Mars (2001)

John Carpenter is one of those weird directors I can't determine if I like or not. On one hand, "The Thing" is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I love "Escape From L.A." in all its campy insanity. On the other hand I actually wasn't a huge fan of some of his other classics like "They Live" or even "Halloween." I think the problem with the later was that I just don't like slasher films that much. They bore me. Anyway, that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that I never know what to expect when watching a Carpenter movie for the first time, which is nice but at the same time makes watching his films a bit dicey.

"Ghosts of Mars" is widely considered as displaying Carpenter at his absolute worst, and while I went into it with an open mind, it's difficult for me to imagine him topping it in terms of badness. I mean, "The Ward" was crap, but "Ghosts of Mars" is one of those films that just kind of hurts you while you watch it. It's not an instant, excruciating pain, but it is a slow turn of a screw that keeps digging something into your back, making the sit more and more uncomfortable the longer it goes on. And by the end you're just wishing it would stop and put itself out of your misery.

The film stars Natasha Henstridge as a cop on Mars who is sent with her unit to transport a murder suspect back to town from an outlying mining colony. Her unit contains both Pam Grier and Jason Statham in one of his earlier roles, so there is a bit of star power at work. True it's also got Clea DuVall acting like she's on quaaludes dragging down the talent, but any movie that stars both Foxy Brown and Turkish has at least a little bit going for it.

Wot's 'appening wiff dem sausages, Foxy?

And then they reach the town, which is deserted sans the mutilated dead bodies hanging all over the place as if they've wandered onto the set of "Predator." Going to the jail, they meet their assignment, a man by the name of Desolation Williams (snicker) played by the Master of Scowling himself, Ice Cube. Believe it or not I have found Ice Cube to be entertaining on occasion, but this was not one of those moments. In "Ghosts of Mars" he's pretty much checked all of his limited acting talent at the door and gives a performance that you'd expect from a rapper turned actor. I don't know if he wasn't having a good time on set or something, but there's nothing to him except just being a guy who sneers a lot, shoots guns and says every line like a jock who was cast in a high school play and is really pissed about it.

Desolation and the cops are quickly accosted by a large mob of colonists who have gone insane, as we find out that spirits of alien beings have possessed them, and have been killing everything in sight. There's an interesting element to them, since once the body they're inhabiting is killed, they are free to move to another host and possess them. This means that generally speaking, killing them is a bad idea since their spirit can still get you afterwards. But then again these incorporeal beings apparently can't move through walls or doors or glass and can only move very slowly so I'm not sure how the crap that all works. The important thing to remember is that for some reason the spirits turn people into Uruk-Hai.

"Whom do you serve?"

"Sarumaaaaaaan!"

That's a fine enough setup I suppose, and it could have made for an entertaining film, but there are a number of factors at work with prevent that from happening. First and foremost is the fact that "Ghost of Mars" looks unbelievably cheap. I'm serious, you have no idea how chintzy this movie looks. I'm all for actual sets and whatnot, but not when they're done so poorly and lit so as to look like everything around the actors is made of cardboard. It's difficult to describe without you having seen it, but whenever they're outside there's no depth to anything on screen, and it looks like you're watching the characters faff about on the "Ghosts of Mars" Action Playset. Or maybe a better way to put it is that it looks like you're watching a taped production of a stage play. It's really bad.

Apart from the bad sets and the TERRIBLE CG they had going on, which are bad for even 90's CG standards, there are some truly bizarre choices that were made in the editing room which makes the entire film teeth-grindingly aggravating to watch. Nearly every single transition between scenes - NEARLY EVERY SINGLE ONE - is a dissolve fade, an edit which is normally associated with some passage of time. However the passage of time between edits in the film is sometimes as little as a couple of seconds, like when characters move from one room to another.

 Get used to this.

On top of that the film makes heavy use of using a dissolve fade when most films would simply use a normal cut within the scene itself. So you'll have situations when you're watching a character walking from one end of the room to the other via two or three of these dissolves, giving off the impression that he is fading in and out to move. I have never seen this technique used before to that extent, but I tell you I hope to never see it used like this again. It's horrendously distracting and completely asinine, and the guy who edited this film needs to be punched in the face.

And don't get me started on the chronology which is as fractured as season four of "Arrested Development." The entire story is told in flashbacks, being narrated by a person who could not possibly be relating the events to anyone considering she was not present during many of them, and the people who did experience them are all dead. So how could she be describing what they saw or did? I guess the character had a copy of the script.

You know what this movie is? This is an Uwe Boll film. I'm dead serious. This is something you'd see from Uwe Boll. And not even more recent "slightly competent" Uwe Boll. This is "Bloodrayne" or "House of The Dead" or "Alone In The Dark" here. This is amateur, cheap, lazy, cheesy, "I did this for the tax write-off" schlock. And it was made by the same guy who did "The Thing." I am saddened and stunned by that revelation.

This was just a test-run for "In The Name of The King."

This summer...in a world...where trailer cliches are king...one man...will make a stand...unlike anything you've ever seen before...

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Ghosts of Mars" is terrible. It's cheap looking, it's boring, and it's poorly acted despite having a handful of legitimate talent. About the only decent thing is the Anthrax penned soundtrack, which manages to be fairly metal. It doesn't make the movie work, but it's nice to know the band got a paycheck.

Parker (2013)

Did you know Parker is the main character from over 20 novels by Donald Westlake (under the name Richard Stark) starting in the 60's, and that there's been like seven or so movies about him? Most would probably know him from "Payback" when he was played by Mel Gibson, and he was even played once by Robert Duvall, but the arguably more famous example was the first American film about him, 1967's "Point Blank," when he was called Walker and was portrayed by Lee Marvin. That's a solid film, as is "Payback," depending on which cut of it you watch (Director's Cut is way better).

Now we have "Parker," which seems like a horrible title when you consider it's the only film that's ever used the character's name. That would be like calling the next James Bond movie "007" or just "Bond." Of course now that I've said that, that's exactly what will happen some years from now when Daniel Craig is done and they decide to reboot the damn series. I really shouldn't even throw those ideas out there.

With Jason Statham portraying the character now, there was a decent chance that this would prove to be a solid flick. After all, Statham is, by all logical and mathematical calculations, A Mack Daddy, and can be tremendously entertaining even when saddled with sub-par material. You know, material that is kind of boring, or doesn't make a whole lot of sense and has some bad acting and characters that shouldn't even be there because they're pointless...

See what I did? I was implying in that last sentence that "Parker" contains all those above things because it's sub-par. That's just good writing right there.

And yes, Jason Statham DOES wear that stupid hat for most of the film. Because I take him more seriously that way.

The story is the standard "thief with morals" one, where the main character is predictably betrayed by his crew after a job and left for dead but is obviously still alive because the bad guys are freaking idiots. He decides to revenge himself upon them by stealing from his former crew, and then killing them. And that's the movie. It's not complicated, and if you've ever seen a movie featuring robbers in your life, or something direct-to-DVD starring Nicolas Cage lately, you will undoubtedly be able to call it shot-for-shot.

And you know what? That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If it's an entertaining film, by all means do the cliche stuff, because it can still be fun. This is doubly so when you've got a badass like Jason Statham doing his thing. In fact there are some things about it which would, under normal circumstances, relegate "Parker" to being merely one of Statham's acceptable but somewhat forgettable solo efforts like "Blitz" or "The Mechanic." That meaning it's not great, but is fine for what it is. "Parker" would have fit that bill were it not for the presence of one Ms. Jennifer Lopez, upon whose well-tanned shoulders most of the blame for the crap-factor can be placed.

I could think of more useless characters in movies given enough time, but Jennifer Lopez has to be one of the most egregious examples of "albatross around a film's neck" I've seen in a long time. She's a real-estate agent who becomes Parker's "partner." She doesn't do anything in finding Parker's former crew that Parker couldn't have easily done himself. She doesn't do anything with Parker getting his revenge that he couldn't have done himself. In fact she only gets in the way of that. Even the romantic angle between she and Parker goes nowhere because it can't go anywhere since Parker is taken and isn't interested in her. In fact that revelation is the last line Lopez has in the film.

"I never had a shot, did I?"

To be a decent character? No. No you didn't.

Whenever the film starts to get interesting with the former crew (headed by Michael Chiklis) doing a heist or Parker kicking a random mob hitman's ass or something that actually means something to the plot, the film seems to think that the best course of action would then be to spend 10 minutes going through Lopez's boring life dealing with her catty co-workers and soap-opera obsessed mother and her mother's annoying little dog. Great, movie. Thanks for that. After seeing Jason Statham bash a guy's head in before throwing him off a 30-story building, I really wanted to know about Cathy from the cubicle across the way stealing that commission from J-Lo. Because Cathy is who I'm concerned about in that situation.

The only thing Jennifer Lopez does which was of any kind of value is to hide the stolen property at the end of the movie. And she hides it in a place that Parker could have easily gotten into by himself. Great, that's great. Now will somebody PLEASE explain to me why she's even here?

Oh great. It's the "Alice Eve Effect" from "Star Trek Into Darkness" - Bad actresses stripping for no damn reason. Wonderful.

It's not even that Lopez was necessarily bad I suppose, but she's such an uninteresting and pointless character that you could have gotten Charlize Theron or Noomi Rapace for it and she still would have sucked as a character, and she still would have pulled the rip-chord on the film's momentum every time she showed up. Acting chops has little to do with it, although Lopez is certainly no prize catch for the casting department.

The villains in "Parker" didn't do much to inspire any kind of fear either. Micheal Chiklis and his crew come off as so inept and stupid that there's never much to imply that there is any way that Parker isn't going to absolutely wreck them. There's no tension here, because if the bad guys are too dumb to manage to finish off a totally immobile, horrifically injured man laying on the side of the road when they have at their disposal both a gun and a body of water deep enough to drown someone in, there is no reason for me to ever believe that they pose a threat to the hero.

 "Now, my most freaked out, cowardly and untrustworthy teammate - Go kill him! I'll just stand over here and not verify that you've done the job I've sent you to do, even though I know you'd have a difficult time doing it, and that repercussions will be severe if we don't kill this guy. I'm just going to take your word that you did it, because you're untrustworthy and kind of make a big mess of everything you try to do. That's how we professionals roll."

And if they were going for the "Parker is a cat toying with a mouse" angle, that would have been fine, but suddenly at the end there's a standoff and we're supposed to take these chuckle-heads seriously? Really? They're not even bright enough to notice their front door had been broken into. Then during the middle of the climactic fight where Parker is picking them off one by one, the very first thing one of them does when told to watch Jennifer Lopez is to put a hand down her blouse. Because there's never a time when being a creepy rapist isn't appropriate. And yes, he pretty much immediately gets shot to hell.

I'm more concerned about getting the timing on Bald Bull's charge right than I am of these chumps.

On top of everything else, there was a plethora of obnoxious flashbacks to things from 2 minutes ago that kept popping up throughout the film, and a lot of really, REALLY terrible dialogue that Statham was forced to recite. This is particularly notable in the beginning when Parker is reciting his "rules" to people he had no business giving a monologue to. Lopez also had one of those speeches later in the movie where she spills her guts to Parker in a scene which, like all her scenes, ended up being pointless. These weren't deal-breakers in of themselves, but they were just more little things to showcase the fact that this is just a poorly written and put together film.

Although there is ONE good line which I liked a lot, which can be seen at the very end of the trailer.

I can't say I'm totally disappointed here, considering I didn't expect much to begin with, but "Parker" was such a waste of time that it's just kind of sad. I know Statham can do better. Hell, I've seen him do better on numerous occasions. This movie needed a "Phantom Edit" to erase Jennifer Lopez like Jar Jar Binks. Then it'd be 40 minutes shorter and be merely mildly average.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There are so many movies better than "Parker" to watch. Pretty much go to Jason Statham's IMDB page and pick one at random. Unless you land on "In The Name of The King" you'll probably come out ahead. The most entertaining thing about "Parker" is hearing Nick Nolte talking like he's seconds away from 3 heartattacks and a stroke all at once.

Safe (2012)

Jason Statham has already well established himself as one of the best action stars of the 00's, and it's not hard to see why. The man has got an incredible presence, he can kick copious amounts of ass (himself, by the way, he hardly ever uses a stunt double), he can genuinely act as far as action movie standards goes, and he's got a fantastic sense of comedic timing and deadpan delivery which is just plain charming.

He reminds me a lot of Bruce Willis, actually, now that I think about it. Maybe it's the baldness but Statham does have a little Bruce in every performance he gives. He's like if John McClaine knew how to kick-box, which would have been admittedly handy for him to know. And like Bruce, I wouldn't be surprised, and indeed I would expect, that Jason Statham is going to go down in film history as one of the all-time greats in the action movie department.

His biggest problem is that his movies aren't stone cold classics like "Die Hard." I mean, they can be good, but I don't think a movie like "Crank," as entertaining as it was, is going to be brought up in 20 years to be placed alongside some of the best of the genre. I could be wrong, and maybe it's just the curmudgeon in me talking, but he needs a "Predator" or a "Terminator" or an "Aliens." He needs something that's going to still be talked about and be influential 20 years from now. Then he'll be set.

Tell me you can't see him saying "If it bleeds...we can kill it."

"Safe" is certainly not going to be remembered in 20 years, nor is it one of Statham's best movies, but it's far from his worst, or even bad. In fact it's an acceptably decent crime thriller that manages to be entertaining and full of enough surprises and overall feeling of "what the crap is going on here" that it never gets boring or dull. It's another Jason Statham vehicle that knows the strengths of its lead, and plays to them. What people came to see is Statham wrecking people like a freight train, and damn it, that's what "Safe" gives you. It's not that complicated.

Well, in actually it is slightly complicated, since the story is twisty-turny enough to force you to occasionally blindly accept what's happening on screen as something that makes sense, even when you have no idea what's going on. It's that same problem all movies involving crime syndicates and crooked cops have - which is that everyone is out to double-cross everyone else, everyone has a hidden agenda, and none of them can talk about it in anything other than confusing "cop talk" that drops names and connections quicker and denser than a neutron star traveling twice the speed of light.

Alright, it's not that bad. I think "The Departed" just traumatized me so much with the "I don't know what's happening" that I'm still suffering PTS syndrome. The setup is that a young Chinese girl, Mei, played by newcomer Catherine Chan, is a math prodigy with a true photographic memory. She is kidnapped by the Chinese mafia and used as a sort of walking calculator/information storage unit. Jason Statham is Luke, a guy with a mysterious but violent past who has run afoul of the mob.

I don't really want to give away much of Statham's past, because that is something that is uncovered as "Safe" progresses, and it's handled in a good way and keeps the narrative moving as more is revealed. I especially don't want to say more since it would give away a very disturbing and powerful scene early in the film which shows what the mafia did to Luke, and why he has to basically become a bum and never be friends with or even talk to anyone. I won't say what exactly it is, but it's messed up.

He's either a bum or auditioning for "Rocky 7."

When Mei is given a long, very important number to memorize, she becomes a target of another mob who tries to capture her. Running away, she is rescued by Luke, who happened to be in the right place at the right time. While keeping her safe, Luke works to bring down both mobs, and the people responsible for his past, using the information in Mei's head.

There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the basic idea. Any more would be giving too much away. And honestly I'm not sure if I could accurately describe the series of events that go down. I'm not too good with the plots of gang related movies. It eventually boils down to "these guys are shooting these guys because why not" with me. It doesn't mean it's bad or stupid. I just suck at following the double-crosses. Besides, everyone in this movie is basically a criminal, so it's near impossible to judge who's a good guy based on their actions.

But who gives a rip about story, am I right? Why care about story when you've got Jason Statham kicking butt? "Safe" does contain the prerequisite amount of Statham soul-punching awesomeness, which is what one would expect. It's just as silly and over-the-top as the standard action movie fare, but the one thing that did strike me as interesting was the occasional sudden out-of-nowhere violence that occurs.

 "D' yew know wot dey cool a Quarta Pounda 'n Fronce?" #youtotallyreadthatinhisvoice

There were two occasions that I recall which made me sit back and say "Whoa! Didn't see that one coming." And while it was jarring and on occasion ever so slightly disappointing, it made sense so I can't really be mad at it. I mean, if someone were in a shootout and went around a corner without properly checking it first, then yes, there is a measurable probability that a bad guy he didn't see might come up beside him and shoot him right in the head. That's what happens to one of the "good guys," and you know what? It makes sense. Should have cleared those corners better.

Something out-of-nowhere also happens during the final confrontation, but it still made perfect sense, and made me wonder why you don't see more of that. "That" in this case meaning "characters acting intelligently." It may be a tad anti-climatic, but it's certainly keeping in character. It's actually quite Tarantino.

I wasn't 100% fired up about watching "Safe," but in the end I had a surprisingly good time with it. What I thought was going to be painfully standard and by-the-numbers turned out to be a unexpectedly thoughtful and emotionally carried action film. The last lines of the movie actually got me to say "Awww, that's so sweet," and I was dead serious. It's a very touching moment between Luke and Mei which was heartwarming, and very well acted all around.

And I also got to see Jason Statham stab someone in the neck with a fork. Bon anniversaire.

It's about to get so badass in that bar...

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Safe" is a fun action film with unexpected depth to its characters, which keeps you invested throughout its slightly overly-complex narrative. It's a solid Jason Statham entry, however not one of his best or most entertaining, but fans of his will be pleased. 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.

Killer Elite

I have a theory about Robert De Niro. I believe that his mole is actually a sentient life form, born of some malicious other-worldly dark deity. It spreads its minions among us in order for it to sow despair and sorrow, and De Niro has become an unwilling victim of its whims. Every night, the mole whispers horrible secrets, Lovecraftian in nature, of the coldness and insanity-provoking terrors of the universe, and urges him to go out and spread these horrible truths, thereby doing its bidding. This endless torment has caused him to become corrupted and worn, hanging on the brink of insanity every minute of every day -- a dessicated husk held together only by the machinations of his new Dark God.

And that's why Robert De Niro scowls all the time.

That's also why people with big moles on their faces creep me out. I'm always waiting for them to scream "Cthulhu f'tagen!!!" and stab me to death with ceremonial daggers. And before you call me on it, no, Val Kilmer doesn't count. In fact, the reason why I'm such a big Val Kilmer fan is because he has been the only person able to combat the Dark God's power! His mole may make the attempt to corrupt him, but Val's shear bad-assery stops it cold every time. It's more like a trophy Val Kilmer allows to stay on his face, so that he can mock the Dark God's impotence. And the Dark God knows better than to push the issue further, because like any self respecting life form, he's seen "Top Gun," and after that, he knows that to combat the awesomeness that is The Val is useless. He's our only hope, people! We need Val Kilmer back!!!

Our first and last line of defense...

Going into "Killer Elite," I was...hesitant. It was like a mix and match of things I like and things I don't like. Jason Statham is pretty sweet, but although he's a national treasure I just can't get excited about seeing Robert De Niro again. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The man has been doing an impression of himself for some 30 years now. Just squint your eyes, scowl, shrug a lot, and repeat yourself when you are being intense. That's the De Niro Method at work. The worst part is that it's considered light treason if you don't worship the ground the guy walks on. Is it just me? I can't be the only one who is annoyed by Robert De Niro, can I? Don't get me wrong, if I met the dude I'd tell him "You was the bomb in "The Godfather Part II"...in 1974" but I probably couldn't bring myself to say anything else.

I assumed that De Niro probably wasn't going to have a huge role in it, since it appears to be an action flick and De Niro couldn't out-action a rack of lamb nowadays. So Statham is was then. I then noticed that Clive Owen is in it, and my expectations sank that much lower. Ugh. Clive Owen? I do not care for him much at all. It's probably more his track record being in movies I didn't like than him as an actor but maybe this will be-

Ha. Ah ha! HA HA!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Awww. Isn't that just the cutest little mustache? Has Selleck Claus been leaving little gifts on all the good boys and girls upper lips? That's just precious and deserves a mocking ^_^. In truth, it's closer to an unrefined version of a post-2000 Burt Reynolds than the powerful Tom Selleck 'stache, but either way it's ridiculous. How can you take that seriously? And dig on this: He's the bad guy. Isn't that hilarious? During the fight scenes I kept imagining Ron Jeremy instead and it lost all sense of tension. Would have made "Killer Elite" a better movie, though.

Since I've beat around the bush long enough with this, I'll just come out and say it: I didn't care for "Killer Elite." And it wasn't so much that the movie was bad, necessarily, it was just impossible for me to care about, silly mustaches aside. I say it wasn't necessarily bad because this is more of a problem I have with the genre in general than any kind of lacking "Killer Elite" had in the way of film-making. I don't like spy thrillers. I hate to say it but I've been forced to come to that conclusion after many attempts to try and prove it to myself otherwise. I especially have an aversion to modern "serious" spy thrillers.

The problem is that they are so frigging complex. Too complex. I'm not a stupid person but I have a real problem following names, especially if there are a bunch thrown out all at once, which they always are, and that's a pretty big issue if you're trying to follow one of these movies. Maybe if these movies were allowed to take their time it wouldn't be so bad, but they always rocket forward like everyone in the audience has a photographic memory for names and faces. But I don't, and it's always thumbscrews for me to figure out who is shooting who and for what purpose. The same thing happens to me with mobster movies, and that's why I don't like them much, either. My head begins to spin, and I realize I have no idea who anybody is, or why they're doing what they're doing. And you know what happens when I reach that point? I stop caring.

I reached that point in "Killer Elite" about 30 minutes in. It's a 2 hour long film. For the last 3/4's of the movie, I had no idea what was happening, and not in a good Christopher Nolan "Memento" kind of way. It was a "I'm bored out of my mind" kind of way. It has to do with an Arabic Sheik forcing an assassin (Statham) out of retirement by kidnapping his friend, another assassin...who got caught and is helpless for some reason. He's a frigging assassin...oh wait it's De Niro. No action for him, got it. He's contracted to kill a bunch of ex-SAS officers who killed the Sheik's sons in a war, and Owen is...some kind of secret agent person or maybe SAS who is trying to stop the killings, I guess. Maybe?

See that's what I'm talking about. I never even had a clear understanding of who one of the main characters is. Is he a cop or a spy or what? Why does he care? The assassinations are made to look like accidents, why is he running around with a gun and sending scouts out to the desert to tail people who they don't even know? I'm sure the movie explains it but I feel like I need Cliffs Notes just to watch this thing. And with these kinds of movies, I can't help but think, "What's the point? The only thing I know for sure is that at some point one of the characters you least suspect is probably going to double-cross the main character, and it's going to end with him finishing the last job and retiring." Because that's how they almost all end. For as many twists and turns as they try to have, they sure are formulaic.

"If we introduce enough character names, it will make our movie seem really, really smart."

Every once in a great while there is an admittedly well filmed scene where Statham punches or shoots something, and that's cool, but I was so uninterested in the plot of "Killer Elite" that it ruined any enjoyment I may have been able to squeeze out of the film. Who are these people and what are they doing? The bigger question is: "Who cares?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and write the screenplay for my new movie where Val Kilmer battles Shoggoths...

The Bottom Line: I am no great judge of spy thrillers, since I generally don't like them anyway, but this was a boring, overly confusing mess with unfortunate facial hair. Unless you're a die-hard fan of the genre, skip it.