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.

Anonymous (2011)

The name "Shakespeare" can be intimidating. In fact, the very word tends to scare people off. In much this way, Shakespeare is not unlike Nicolas Cage. While difficult to understand at first, they are both much beloved by people versed in their body of work, and once you get past the at times cryptic exterior of the language and style, something wonderful emerges.

In much the same way that Hamlet displayed every man's uncertainty with the world, pondering and debating endlessly with his emotions and inner turmoil, only to act too swiftly and rashly in a moment of passion, thereby sowing the seeds of his own destruction despite maddening contemplation, so to does Nicolas Cage portray the duality of mankind when he punches a lady in the face while wearing a bear costume. It really makes you think.

Am I comparing Nicolas Cage to William Shakespeare? No, I have no idea where I was going with that analogy. I just really want to see Nicolas Cage play Hamlet.

"To be or NOT THE BEES!!!! AAAAAAHHH!!!!"

Hey, why not? Keanu Reeves did it.

(Seriously. Keanu played Hamlet. Look it up.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is - It's OK if you looked at "Anonymous," saw that is was about Shakespeare and said "Ew, no thanks." It's understandable. Shakespeare isn't for everyone, although everyone should at least give him a try, because it's actually really good stuff. And also, you look smart while you're doing it. So there's that, too.

What may surprise and possibly reassure you if you were on the fence about seeing it, however, is that like Shakespeare's plays, "Anonymous" is not as intimidating as you may fear. Since the plays themselves aren't a main feature of the run-time, "Anonymous" is less a study of the plays of Shakespeare and more of a fast-paced thriller set to "Ye Olde Englishe Royale Intrigue" that doesn't require a great deal of knowledge of Shakespeare, or of the time period to comprehend.

For the most part.

It does not start out like that, though. The beginning of the film is pretty scary with the amount of English history thrown at you. There are names galore, lines of succession to the throne, and all kinds of places and events about things that you think you may have remembered hearing about way back in high school but you can't be 100% sure. You'll probably spend the first bit of the film trying to keep names straight and trying to remember what the hell an "Earl" is. But by the time the main hook of the plot is set, and the names start coming easier, "Anonymous" starts getting really fascinating.

The main hook of the film is that William Shakespeare never wrote any of his plays, and were in fact the works of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. It's a conspiracy theory that's been around a while, and is understandably a touchy subject amongst scholars. Is it true? I don't know, but the movie makes a pretty convincing case for it.

Not all men can get away with the frilly collar.

De Vere is played by Rhys Ifans, who does a fantastic job in being both wounded, cocky, and quietly intimidating. He's a fascinating character, and also tragic, because he knows that his works will never be attributed to him, and he is not a character who is content to sit on the sidelines. No, this guy is a mover and a shaker. He's the guy you hated back in school - the 4.3 GPA honors classes, all-star quarterback who leads the football team to a 14-0 season while also perfectly playing the lead in every play the drama club put on, all while having the most smoking hot girlfriend in the school. We all hated him. Except for the massive circle of friends he had. But everyone else hated him!

In general all of the cast was quite good, making this historical mystery really speed along at a nice, brisk pace. Vanessa Redgrave plays an older Elizabeth I with wonderful dignity and is quite regal, and Joely Richardson does a great Vanessa Redgrave impression as a young Elizabeth in one of the films many flashback segments. Rafe Spall also deserves mention as the actor who takes on the identity of William Shakespeare. I wasn't quite as taken with him as I was with the rest of the cast, since out of all the characters, he is the biggest ham.

And once again, thank you to Russell Brand for forever ruining any man with a higher-pitched voice and London accent. First you overshadow Nigel Tufnel, and now we won't be able to look at Shakespeare without imagining you in your tight leather pants. Jerk.

"Wot's dis, ey 'guv? Yew fink Oy'm copin' Oo's stoyle? Oy'm foyve 'underd years oller 'en 'em, 'ey wot!"

I think there were only two big issues I had with "Anonymous." The first was that it really become a taxing movie to watch at times, due to the constant flashbacks that seem to occur every five minutes with no warning. It doesn't help that a younger version of certain character in flashback looks a lot like another young character in the present time, which leaves it momentarily confusing whether or not we are in a flashback or not, until someone says their name. For that reason, chronology kind of goes out the window a bit.

Another complaint I had was the very beginning and end. It begins with Derek Jacobi getting on stage and announcing the play, "Anonymous" that is about to be performed. I'm not joking - the play is called "Anonymous." It's right up there on a marquee. Try to wrap your head around that. You sit down to watch a movie, the movie starts, and the first thing you see is people sitting down to watch the movie you just sat down to watch. Cosmic.

They did the same thing in "Beastmaster 2." You stay classy, movie.

And when it ends, people just file out of the theater as the credits roll over it, because they apparently were watching the play of what we just saw a movie of. My mind has been officially blown. Why that weird shattering of the fourth wall? It served no purpose and was just jarring and distracting.

Those two issues aside, the highlights of the film were, unsurprisingly, the performances of the plays. Since this movie is not for strictly hardcore Shakespeare scholars, the selections had to be gentle and recognizable. So we have the standards: "What light through yonder window breaks," "Now is the hour of our discontent made glorious spring by the son of York," "If we shadows have offended, think on this and all is mended," "To be or not to be," you know the drill. It would have been nice to see something other than those standards that everyone knows by heart at this point, but despite that, they were very well done. Seeing a full production of a Shakespeare play with that cast would have been amazing.

What is most notable about "Anonymous" to me is that fact that it single-handedly validated director Roland Emmerich's career. This is far and away the best film he has ever made, and in what has to be a total coincidence, it's the first movie he's done that didn't involve blowing up the world. I always used to say that as juvenile as Roland's films were, the worst Roland Emmerich movie was way ahead of the best Michael Bay movie, but now that analogy doesn't even work, because I'm calling it right here, right now:

Roland Emmerich, you are no longer to be compared to Michael Bay. That is now beneath you. Congratulations!

THE BOTTOM LINE: I really liked "Anonymous." It was thrilling, mysterious, beautifully shot, and has one hell of an ending that really left me floored. Is the conspiracy theory true? I have no idea, but it's a fun ride. Grab your tin-foil hat and enjoy. Highly Recommended.