Special Features - Computer Games vs Movies

James Ellis explores the influence of cinema on the video game industry...
A very demanding title I’ll admit. This is not an ever lasting debate over which is more entertaining. It is not a bout of two major media giants ready to exchange blows like King Kong and Godzilla. But rather a look at how games have started to converge on film storytelling prowess. It is a bit self indulgent I admit but as a massive film fan and avid games player I want to put down how games have started to up their ante in the world of storytelling and character development and how Hollywood blockbusters have started to forget theirs. I want to make it completely clear that when I’m talking about films I am mainly talking about mainstream movies; please do not comment with how character development within some Lebanese film is beyond anything a computer game could muster, the point is moot. I want to look at mainstream entertainment the stuff that News of the World always give five stars and on the poster you see “A thrilling ride from start to finish”.

Firstly I am and will always be a lover and bitcher of films but I also enjoy playing games. Games have always had flimsy plots and a lot still do, they were all about the action, it was previously seen that you don’t need a story to make a good game, you just need an action hero and stuff to shoot at. Or an interesting puzzle or a load of simulated life humans that you can spend time torturing. And its right you don’t need a story to make a good game. Take Vanquish, the recent output by Japanese developer Platinum Games - it had such a dire plot and no real interesting characters that even after completing it I can’t remember or care what it is because you got to shoot huge robots in slow motion while sliding along the floor. Who needs a plot after that? The game structure was based on one giant set piece after another. I didn’t really care about the person I was playing as because basically it felt like it was me doing that. It was me that decided to run up to the drill wielding robot, kick him then in slow motion shoot a shotgun in his face. The problem is, with the recent slew of action blockbusters Hollywood feels it can do the same. But it can’t. Games have an interesting wild card that you control the protagonist. Films cannot have that instant immersion. What pulls you into a great blockbuster, what provides you with that escapism we all need is character and plot.

Lets take a few recent releases from the golden coast. A terrible addition the Hollywood hacks churned out was the remake of Clash of the Titans. It looked great; the effects had all the gloss and glamour that you have come to expect from a movie with this budget. The quality of the cast was up there with any major film: Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton and Sam Worthington. I mean Sam Worthington, who had just come off the massive, mega, multi-billion dollar earning monster Avatar, filled the lead of Perseus. So with star quality and great effects we are well on our way to a great film. Problem is that the writers forgot to install any plot or character to think of. At the beginning Perseus is with his family whom all subsequently die, but they have had so little screen time or have any characteristics that you don’t really care. Perseus never seemed that bothered either. Secondly, and I apologise for my lazy writing, the reason that our hero and his motley crew venture forth was so thin and confusing that I can’t even remember it. I should look it up, but I remember nearly all plots to other films, I’ve just forgotten this one because its rubbish. So I’m not even going to bother as I feel my memory, which is usually pretty good, has obviously blocked it out for a good reason and replaced it with a bad taste in my mouth. The film jumped from one set piece of action to the next, characters fought and died, CGI monsters attacked and retreated and the Gods did things that you just couldn’t be bothered with. Each set piece held no peril because the characters were so boring and plain that it was hard to care if anything happened to them. Characters are important to the plot as their motivation and plight help the story along, as an audience you either cheer the hero along or boo the villain. When films like this forget to put in interesting relatable characters all you have is a hollow shell of events, which is boring. I mean Disney made subsequent Pirates of the Caribbean films because of Jonny Depp’s Jack Sparrow, we the masses wanted to see that character in different situations. This audience interaction is very important, as I said before games get away with not having any plot because the character is controlled by you so immersion is a given. But with films watching a character we love in a thrilling plot is what lets us escape the mundane real world. Hollywood used to stand tall where dreams and imagination could come to life but now with reconstituted jism like Prince of Persia, G.I. Joe and Clash of the Titans (all films based on existing ideas and all shit); Hollywood has become the McDonalds of the film world. They took original ideas and butcher the crap out of it till there is no goodness left, and then they hide it in a nicely presented box and charge too much for it.

Now computer games are hot on their heels with how to tell a story, and they also have all the rest of the ingredients too: I mean Liam Neeson was in CotT and in Bethesda’s Fallout 3. As a case study lets look at Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption, a game where you played as a cowboy. Amazing. Every boy (and girls) dream. The game had everything: cascading beige shaded vistas, dark snowy forests with bears ready to tear you limb from limb and prairie lands with migrating bison. Proper ladies and gentlemen populated this pixel paradise as well as down right drunken scoundrels and mysterious hard edged cowboys which of whom you were one. Of course! Your character was a grizzly gun wielder, authentically named John Marston, who had left his violent rough and tumble bank robbing gang and was being coerced by federal agents into hunting them down. And with his family at stake John Marston had no choice. I mean for a plot its fantastic; it reeks of a western classic like those of John Ford, Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood. You could do everything that you would expect and want to do in the Wild West, but the most important thing was that John Marston was a great character and all the people you met throughout the game were as endearing and accurate as any classic western film. The plot was epic as well as personal with all the twists and turns that you would hope for. At the end I was genuinely moved as my actions had led to a terrifying climax. This was a western for all western lovers. The script was just perfect the writers had done their research to make sure that players really felt that the people you met along the way were a part of the world. Red Dead Redemption was not an anomaly; there are quite a few games out there where story and character have obviously been a prevalent component in the creation of the game.

A recent and revolutionary game was Heavy Rain by Sony developers Quantic Dream. The game has you play multiple characters that were affected by a homicidal maniac called the Origami Killer. It was drenched with imagery and characters influenced from films such as Se7en, Zodiac and basically any David Fincher film. The critics lauded it has a bold and brave game, with the writing that seemed like it was straight from the silver screen. That was where the problem lies all of these great games with great stories were just ripped straight from the long canon of genre films that Hollywood had been producing for years. Red Dead Redemption was a fantastic game because it made you feel like you were John Wayne himself, but would I replace John Wayne's “acting” for his pixel doppelganger: Of course not. Hollywood in the years gone by has set a very high standard of which games are striving for. Game designers reproduce their heroes that were ingrained into their minds. And fair play to them, why isn’t Hollywood trying to maintain that goal by furthering the standard of the stories that they tell. Well folks that’s our fault as entertainment junkies; we buy games in their millions and all they do is replicate what has been told, we demand sequels and with the internet's freedom of speech bitch about what they did wrong on this film/game and what they can do better next time. This sort of behaviour basically tells Hollywood big wigs to keep churning out the same stuff. Whereas games are striving to get the recognition they deserve, but are never going to get it because they keep replicating what they have seen. They need to make strides into the unknown because they will always have their own wild card that you are the hero or villain. So it’s a case of should we give the masses what they want which is basically the same as we had before, or should we be brave and bold and risk all for something new? That’s up to us really!

The only thing that concerns me is why don’t game designers look to Britain’s long history of films to build titles around? I can’t wait for My Beautiful Laundrette: The Game. Just imagine online multiplayer for that!!!!

Here are some games where the stories are just fantastic, if you know any others please tell me.:

Both Uncharted games
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Mass Effect 1 and 2
Dragon Age: Origins
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed

James Ellis

Where Did All The Good Spoofs Go?

James Ellis on the demise of the spoof...

I wanted to start this article all contrived describing to all the uninformed masses what a spoof was. Literally what the spoof dictionary definition was. I was even going to add all the silly abbreviations one finds in a dictionary, make the start of the article look really cool and give myself off as some quasi-cosmic film critic: Universally intelligent and wise beyond his years (basically Kim Newman sans hair). If I did that you would probably skip to somewhere else realising everyone knows what a spoof is. What I really want to talk to you about is the recent fall of this once great, well-funny genre.

The spoof genre is often confused with satire; spoof is a light-hearted mockery of a subject (often other films), whereas satire is the exaggeration of story, characters, language etc to the point of the ridiculous. This can be extremely dark subject matter - for instance American Psycho is a very dark satire. The reason I talk of this fall of the spoof is recently while perusing some magazine I spotted on the back cover a full-page advert for the new spoof film Vampires Suck. Looking at the bouncy bold and instantly recognisable font of the poster I knew it was by the terrible twosome of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. This dynamic duo that brought us the superbly awful and unfunny Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans... you know the ones. These two men have really ripped the heart out of the spoof genre and whored it round looking for any pimp studio looking to make a quick buck. They take whichever films are popular and then they take at random any celebrity that has particularly caused any commotion in the press and try to shoe horn them all in together in a vain hope that some sort of humour might come of this. The stories are usually non-existent, the characters are either disgustingly inappropriate cameos of lookalikes, or clichéd mash up of main protagonists from other films; neither likable nor memorable but always boring, stupid and inconsistent. What I worry about is that the younger generation will only have this franchise of films as reference to what a spoof film is and all it can be. That will produce two results firstly we going to have a generation of people who are ignorant to how well a spoof can be made and intrinsically hate them. Secondly we will have a league of cretins, the cretins that keep these films a bankable asset, that love these films and carry on creating movies constantly get worse and more infantile until they release the Spoof Movie movie.

I want to write about the spoof of yore, the one that was a study and observation of films that were ripe for mockery and were done with wit and heart. What all these Date Movie-esque movies miss is a love and respect for the subject that they are mocking. They place celebrity pop culture junk randomly and unintelligently into each of these films. Real spoofs, like Airplane! (1980), take a subject matter or a series of films and make fun of each and every part in such a silly and ridiculous way that you almost fall for it instantly. The plot often takes back seat to the silliness but the characters are always endearing and always hilarious. They also use certain traits in genres and maximise as much hilarity from them. For instance on the aforementioned film Airplane! the plane in question is full of stereotypical characters that have been inspired from watching a slew of disaster films. Take the black characters that talk so much jive that you can barely understand them. Then there is Leslie Nielsen's Doctor - over confident and under competent as well as being stupid and hilarious in equal amounts. The Zucker brothers who created Airplane! and other fabulous spoofs write with such wit and deliver such a barrage of ideas and jokes it takes multiple views just to catch all of them. They have sight slapstick gags, rude and violent gags, as well as playing with words and meanings of how people talk: everyone remembers:

“Surely you cannot be serious”
“I am serious and don’t call me Shirley”

It’s this inspired silliness mixed with wit and cleverness that makes a quality and memorable spoof. The Zucker brothers obviously loved these B-movie disaster films, or at least watched a lot of them, and decided to make a homage by making fun of them. From all of these older films; spoofing has even become a verb, when a character is obviously mimicking something so much he is spoofing it.

There are two camps from whom have made spoof films an art; they are the previously mentioned Zucker Brothers and the Godfather: Mel Brooks. I have talked a little about the Zuckers and will get back to them but this paragraph is dedicated to Mel Brooks who really took this type of witty silliness to another level and one particular film is to account for that: Young Frankenstein (1974). Now please all of those punters that have screamed “but what about The Producers”, do not get me wrong that film is amazing but it isn’t a spoof, it's an out and out comedy. Its absolutely quintessential Mel Brooks but it doesn’t really spoof existing films. So its out. Young Frankenstein or Fronk-en-schtein as its pronounced, is all spoof and its fabulous. First commendations go to the writing. It is so quick witted and so silly that it takes you back to being a teenager and laughing about cocks and boobs. It really is that juvenile but taken to the next level by its level of intelligence. Just because its silly doesn’t mean it doesn’t take an intelligent person to write them, which is where Friedberg and Seltzer always go wrong.

Second commendation go to the actors, once again where the Friedberg and Seltzer seem to fall short, good comedy actors are needed and you cannot get better than Gene Wilder who plays the lead as Young Frankenstein. Gene Wilder has an ability to give off an anxious anger that borders on insanity and sadness. He done this in Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (1971) and See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989), playing a character who has a real sense of pathos, that life has beaten him down and he has all but given up and trying to fight it at the same time. Just to watch his jittery nervousness spill into a visible shaking of rage, his voice squeaking and raising in intensity, makes the most mundane of situation an absolute riot. In Young Frankenstein he is the grandson of the famous Victor Frankenstein trying to get out from under of his shadow and put himself forward as a viable scientist. As always Gene Wilder is perfect putting his spin on the proud but mad scientist and applying himself completely to Mel Brooks script. The other stand out actor is Marty Feldman - his Igor is the sarcastic and objective observer that most spoofs need. As easily the silliest looking character its natural that he is the one that sees through all story elements and drama. He winks and nods to the camera making sure that he is on the audiences side and is just enjoying the ride like the rest of us. He also delivers some of the best lines with such a dry dead pan that it barely registers as a joke until you really listen. Once again multiple views are a must to get the full effect of this movie.

Mel Brooks has delivered a good canon of spoof movies; he has also made some ones that have missed the target a little. Titles such as Blazing Saddles (1974) reach the dizzy heights of quality that Young Frankenstein touches but others such as Spaceballs (1987) and Silent Movie (1976) do have their moments but are essentially flawed. The current spoofs are not so much lacking in flaws but rather lacking in any quality and respect for what can be achieved with the mockery of popular culture and a film genre.

The last good spoof was the Austin Powers (1997) series of films, it was obvious to all that Mike Myers had a great love for James Bond and all other spy films and the series were successful by being exceptionally silly and brilliantly scathing. Once again Austin Powers is so loved because it is cleverly written, brilliantly acted, with good knowledge and love of the subject matter.

What I particularly loved was that spoofs were exceptionally rewarding to me personally. As a huge film fan I get a lot of the jokes and realised that spoofs were a kind of prize for being a loyal follower of movies and the industry in general. I felt it was like they had made a film of all the silly things you say when watching a film with your fellow film lovers. Often starting saying “wouldn’t it be funny if…..”. The essential part of creating a good spoof is to firstly be a fan of the films you are sending up and then creatively taking and mocking them to ridicule but never disrespecting them. The Friedberg and Seltzer approach only really responds to a scathing hatred and exceptionally childish approach to humour, which constantly falls so flat. They have forgotten to be fond of the things they are making fun of. They have forgotten to watch these films properly and really understand them. They have forgotten to get decent comedic actors but most of all they have forgotten to be funny and respectful.

As the saying goes, imitation is a form of flattery and if so then Mel Brooks and the Zucker Brothers have paid the most extravagant of all compliments.

James Ellis

The Unsung Heroes of Film: The Editor

James Ellis on the unsung heroes of film...

Most people don’t realise what goes into making the films we love and adore. There is pre-production - all the writing of scripts and getting everything and everybody together. Then there is the production – all the shooting and explosions and arty bits. Finally there is the post-production – that’s the editing, CGI and music etc. Now while the infamous director holds most of these together, sometimes directors are just brought on for the shooting and leave. But auteurs on the other hand have a passion and style that needs to be satiated. Most directors like to work with the same people, people they can trust and depend on to fulfil their masterful vision. Before I drift into talking about the genius of some directors I want to sing the song of the unsung hero of filmmaking:

The editor.

The editor is the person that takes all the footage and ‘cuts’ it together to create an understandable film. It has often been forgotten amongst audience how much work and craft goes into this, the pacing and tone can all be changed through the editing. Editing has be claimed to be the sculpting of the stone (footage). Greg S. Faller said that an editor should be invisible, the cuts should move seamlessly from one to another creating the least amount jarring for the audience. There are rules to follow - trust me there are a shit load - I have a book called ‘The Grammar of the Edit’ that sets them out. Editors do need to follow these rules but like with any art when they are broken and broken right it makes for such a powerful impact, they can make the film their own.

One of these ‘unsung’ heroes is Thelma Schoonmaker, the long time editor for Martin Scorsese. Now every one knows the explosive directorial style of Scorsese, but ever since their first collaboration on Raging Bull (1980), Thelma Schoonmaker has consistently made sure her style is original, creative and that she pushes the boundaries of editing convention each time. Scorsese and her make a perfect couple. A match made in Heaven some would say. Now put her name into Google and you can get plenty of in depth analysis of her style and life story. I just want to make sure all of you readers just realise what goes into her work, and give her the credit she deserves.

Lets take her first feature film, which was Woodstock (1969) (not with Scorsese), a phenomenal documentary. Editing in documentary is a large part of crafting of the story, especially as I can only imagine what the footage was like from an LSD fuelled festival (don’t quote me on that please, I have no proof I am only speculating). Schoonmaker constantly plays with our expectations of a documentary cross fading between dreamy images of rock stars, instruments and the addled audience. Using the space of the frame intelligently splitting them up into multiple screens so we can see all parts of the performance and festival. With this piece of work we can see a glimmer of Schoonmaker’s brilliant talent, she changed how documentaries could be edited, how they could be sculpted to dictate the subjects tone and makes sure the audience feel like they are there and relating with the legendary atmosphere of the festival. She also earned an Oscar nomination for her efforts.

Her next Oscar nomination was the beautiful-but-brutal Raging Bull (1980), the biopic that would follow the violent life of middleweight boxing champion Jake La Motta. Here I feel is when she showed how a film could really be edited. She would mix classic Hollywood editing with a modern unstoppable staccato of images that cannot be compared and would lead the way for a montage style that is still used today. Her managing of scenes involving Jake La Motta and his family could be seen as a perfect by the book editing of shot reverse shot, letting the actors work the screen, holding on to images so the performances can really shine through. Then when the fight scenes came around her editing knife really starts to slice up the action. She would cut between images of blood, fists, sweat, tears and ropes of the ring and making sure the audience could never get out of fight. Taking Scorsese’s legions of footage; twisting them and turning them so the audience can’t get away from the barrage of punishment that Jake La Motta gives out or takes depending on the fight. I remember watching this film and realising how an editor can put their mark on a film so powerfully. It was here that at the end credits I burned her name to my memory and took a keen eye to her career. Scorsese is a master director picking shots that some times need to be held on to and some that need to be shown but for but the briefest of times. She, unlike the director, won the Oscar for Best Editing. Just one of three she would later earn.

If you are reading this then I would be right to assume that you have a vested interest in films and probably watch more than the average punter. If you have been inspired or intrigued by what I write then please go out and watch or re-watch Scorsese’s film back catalogue from Raging Bull. Look at the time she stays on long takes and when she ups the pace with a tirade of rapid images cut together so cleanly. I see her as the perfect serial killer cutting up her victims perfectly and guiltlessly. Her editing will often mimic Scorsese’s characters emphasising their ability to suddenly shock and eviscerate into violence.

Her last Oscar was also awarded the same time that Scorsese won his first in 2007 for The Departed. Here was the first time, in a feature film, I witnessed non-linear editing. Non-linear editing is when inexplicably action from the same shot is skipped to forward on the movements of the character. Now remember generally in films when a character is doing an action a cut further on of the same shot is a big no-no especially in the ‘Grammar of the Edit”. But to do it right is so effective, the first time it is prevalent in The Departed is when Leonardo Di Caprio’s character is packing to leave his life of under cover police work. The pressure for the character has built up so much that on the one shot of him packing the bag, we see multiple cuts of this shot; almost seamlessly speeding up the action and creating an utter urgency for this character. He needs to leave and this is completely embraced by Schoonmaker utilising a new convention of editing.

I love that this lady of 66 years old, who even in her later years is still breaking rules and making sure she will not be forgotten. Changing how editing and the depiction of images can be conceived so differently when placed together in different ways. Sergei Eisenstein may have created montage editing with The Battleship Potemkin (1925) but Thelma Schoonmaker regularly takes it to the next level.

These films are an essential watch if you want to see how this master sculptor works her stone...

Raging Bull (1980)
The Color Of Money (1986)
GoodFellas (1990)
Cape Fear (1991)
The Departed (2006)
Shutter Island (2010)

James Ellis

Thoughts on... The Expendables (2010)

The Expendables, 2010.

Directed by Sylvester Stallone.
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Terry Crews, Eric Roberts, Gary Daniels, Charisma Carpenter and Arnold Schwarzenegger.


SYNOPSIS:

The ultimate mercenary crew embark on the ultimate mission.


I love action films. It’s a grand statement I know to actually have love for a genre. But I really love action films, almost romantic love; I get excited when I’m going to see a new one, I plan evenings to watch a few of them and look forward to such an event. I love classics like Akira Kuwrosawa’s Seven Samurai as much as I love fan-boy wet dream flicks like Universal Soldier Regeneration, which for the uninitiated is Universal Soldier 3 (yes you read that right and its really good, Dolph and Jean Claude are in it too). So imagine my excitement when The Expendables marketing vehicle started to brazen itself across You-tube and our humble cinemas. Yes a little bit of wee came out!

I remember the trailer in detail and I remember loving the action. It was just like any other action trailer; the classic gritty growling voice mentioned something about an unimportant plot of people being expendable with flashing images of big guns and big muscles carried by big men. Now you are probably thinking that this sounds like nothing more than a classic 80’s action film. You could not be more right because as these muscled mountains revealed themselves it dawned on me that this was my dream cast. My everything: Sylvester Stallone (who wrote and directed), Jason Statham, Jet Li, Randy Couture, Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke and, wait for this, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This cast had real action history. I’m not sure I need to tell you of the classics of Universal Soldier (Dolph Lundgren), Die Hard (Bruce Willis), The Terminator ( I’m not looking up how to spell it again), First Blood (Sylvester Stallone) and even modern gems like The Transporter (Jason Statham) and The Condemned (Steve Austin).

My first reaction was to scream and shout but I have been disappointed before; rehashing these old action stars could be a disaster, it could not have the action promised; trailers can be a deceptive mistress. I was not worried about story, who needs story, when you got that much bicep really who needs it? What I wanted was real action. No CGI. I wanted real explosions, real martial arts, real attitude, real hard humour and utterly loveable, recognisable characters. I wanted a film that knew what it was, knew the cast, respected what they had done and delivered on a promised film of real old school action. When I went to the cinema to see this I wanted to be able to turn my brain right off and enjoy the fireworks. I knew it wouldn’t win any Oscars, I knew there would be no heartfelt moments, no emotional speeches that would get pale faced teenagers wet. And not one vampire.. So did it deliver? The answer is…

Of course it did and if you haven’t seen the film and the thought of a giant Swede fighting a feisty Chinese man is your idea of the greatest thing ever then stop reading now and go see it. Please. The story is really unmentionable, basically the Expendables are a team of badass mercenaries, for hire who have seen and survived one too many missions. Bruce Willis’ fleeting cameo as CIA agent, Mr Church hires the team for a suicide mission against a non-descript South American dictator, whom in real life would have probably been put into power by the CIA. This dictator is cruelly abusing his position of power with the help of corrupt FBI agent Eric Roberts. So enter Sly and his multi ethnic team of super hard men, which consists of Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Backstabbings and disloyalty ensues. Apart from Randy Couture who is just an embarrassment the relationship amongst the team has a real feeling of respect and jovial camaraderie that can only be expected from seasoned veterans such as these. As an audience you get a feeling that the cast not only enjoyed making this film but they all have high admiration for each others respective career and this just adds to the fun for you and I. A specific mention should be made to Sylvester Stallone’s ‘Barney Ross’ and Jason Statham’s ‘Lee Christmas’ who as the relevant old and young ring leaders of the team really give the feeling that they are not only brothers in arms but also friends. And as they have the bulk of the screen time it is important that this relationship feels real. The two of them have very limited back story apart from a fleeting visit to Lee Christmas’ object of desire Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia from Buffy). Characterisation is restricted really to their weapons of choice they wield; Sly rocking a six shooter and the Stath flicking out knives left, right and centre. As a duo they hold up most of the screen time with banter that can occasionally be stilted and forced but it is always funny and harks back to 80’s buddy action flicks, therefore can be forgiven for its occasional bum notes. Mickey Rourke has probably the most time actually trying to act, playing ‘Tool’ the man who is left at home dealing out the jobs for the team. His one touching scene where he motivates Barney Ross to do the right thing really shows off how Mickey Rourke is a class above most of these guys when it comes to dealing the heavy emotional clout. The other members have very limited characters and are really only their for their skills with their fists and feet or ability to hold the loudest gun in the world.

This is starting to feel like a negative review but trust me its not because I’m about to get to the really good part and that’s the action. The fights are everything you would want. They match up the people that you want to have matched up and beefy guns that I’m sure do more damage than is humanly possible: Dolph, who’s character is called Gunnar, is a six foot five monster and he fights Jet Li a five foot six kung fu legend, both martial artist masters and both rock two brutal and uncompromising fights: Box one ticked. Sylvester has a back-breaking (during this stunt Sly broke a bone in his back which had to be fused) fight with Stone Cold in a cellar that doesn’t disappoint. There is also a moment with Jason Statham in a plane that cannot be forgotten ever. The cherry on top being an explosive climax, involving the whole team, really sums up the whole film. It has ridiculous men against ridiculous numbers doing, and I quote Theodore Logan, the 'Most excellent' of things. I would and could go on forever mentioning different action set pieces that litter this film adorning each of them with fabulous superlatives every one deserved. I won’t even let it escape about the greatest gun in the world, with the greatest sound known to man.

But what I loved about The Expendables is that it knows what it is: It has no story and no interesting or realistic characters. The cast has an average age older than forty-five and do stunts that I think most twenty something’s would find taxing and daunting. The dialogue can and does occasionally fall flat with Arnie and Sly's short exchange feeling very forced and if it wasn’t for the funniest final line saving the scene it would have been a little embarrassing. The thing is that this is a rubbish film and if it didn’t spend the tight 90 minute running time constantly winking and nudging to its hopefully informed audience making sure they are in on the joke and mixing this with jaw dropping, knee slapping action then it would remain so. But if you have watched most of these men grow old or emerge as fledging action stars then this film will not thwart your expectations. JCVD redeemed Jean Claude Van Damme and all is left is Steven Seagal because Sly has done it for everyone else.

James Ellis

Movie Review Archive