It is a truth universally acknowledged, that an action movie
made in the 80s and early 90s must be superior to its successors. At least,
that is the truth I universally acknowledge. They weren’t great movies by any
stretch of the imagination. The acting was often ropey at best, the plots were
half-assed and occasionally borderline nonexistent, and the special effects
owed more to Harryhausen than CGI. Despite this, they were still enjoyable.
Seagal will never (I hope!) win an Oscar. Still, Under Siege is by far the best example of the “lone soldier
fighting terrorists on a highjacked aircraft carrier” genre, with gunfights,
fistfights and a wisecracking sidekick. Likewise, Commando (1985) has everything you need: improbably named
hero, spunky sidekick, psychotic villain, and a gunfight in which one man wipes
out the standing army of a small South American nation before impaling the
antagonist on an industrial steam pipe. Don’t get me wrong, I do like modern
action movies – the Jason Bourne films are brilliant examples of the genre
updated and done right. But, even then, they’re a far cry from the over-the-top
nonsense of the 80s and 90s. Part of this is down to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. While I cannot argue that this was anything but a beneficial event in
world history, it did remove the single most convenient villain for an entire
generation of action movies.
Recently, I watched a few films that were billed as “old-fashioned”
action movies – one explicitly, one by association, and one by virtue of its
similarity to the other two! The varying enjoyment I took from each of these
films got me thinking and, inevitably, comparing them to their forebears.
First up, the explicit one: The Expendables. So, to recap, here’s the recipe behind the movie:
take every aging actor who starred in 1980s/90s action movies, whether good or
bad, then throw them into the plot of Commando (though it must be noted that what John Matrix did
on his own, it took a half-dozen men to achieve here). Add a pinch of a few of
the more recent generation of mindless action movie stars, and mix well. Season
with cameos from other faded stars, and serve up on a bed of jerkily edited
fight scenes. On paper, it sounded like fun. Absolute nonsense, of course, but
fun nevertheless – a throwback to the movies in which most of the cast made
their names; the movies I love. Sadly, Hot Fuzz was a more appropriate and loving nod to the genre
than this mess. Prior to his performance in The Wrestler, I would have said something along the lines of “it’s
a sad situation when Mickey Rourke delivers the stand-out performance in a film”,
but he’s actually really good in that, and in this, delivering solid monologue
about the horrors of war he experienced in Bosnia. It’s worth noting that the
ridiculous names of 80s action heroes are back: Lee Christmas, Toll Road, Hale
Caesar, Barney Ross… hold on. But it’s all style and no substance. Relatively
unstylish style at that. Even the much-advertised cameo showdown between Bruce
Willis (now, I’ve always liked Bruce Willis – even Hudson Hawk – he’s got a line on smug awesomeness that you just
can’t beat), Schwarzenegger and Stallone falls flat. From Arnie’s entrance
through the doorway of a church, looking like some kind of avenging
mahogany-sculpted bicep angel, to the painfully dull banter between the three,
it’s a mess. My friend said afterwards that it would have funnier if they’d
held the meeting in an abandoned, run-down Planet Hollywood restaurant. I
agree, though perhaps the producers thought that it might be too obvious a
symbol of how far these stars had fallen. All in all, a truly execrable movie.
Having watched that travesty, I re-watched another film I
had seen, wanted to like, and came away from sorely disappointed – The
A-Team. A remake of the classic show, this
one featured an updated version of the story, gunfire that was actually
effective, and Liam Neeson. So far, so alright. Much more in the vein of the
80s, this (on second viewing, anyway), was a pretty fun romp through a couple
of hours. Some good set pieces in keeping with the ridiculousness that should
accompany any such movie, some fun lines, and a remarkably solid cast made this
much more tolerable. But only on the second watching, when I had The
Excrementals for comparison. First time
through, I found the characters annoying, the “funny” moments irritatingly
overwrought (the sudden, bathetic plunge with the incompetent CIA assassins in
the back of a car is particularly painful), and the action scenes average at
best. Drawing my particular ire was Sharlto Copley as Murdoch, who, despite
maybe being the most solid actor in the main cast (he was great in District
9), seemed to have been directed to gurn
and sweat his way through the movie, contributing very little other than a
string of random accents (all of which are, it has to be said, very good). On
reflection, I think what made the A-Team work in the 80s on TV was that it was
made a) in the 80s, and b) for TV. The attitude and approach that made it work
there just doesn’t transpose well to the modern movie theatre.
Very close to the previous two films in terms of tone and
style, was The Losers. Based on a recent
comic book series, this feels like an old-fashioned action movie, but isn’t. it’s
set and written for the modern era, but everything about it (special ops team
gets betrayed and fights back, hidden agendas, secret betrayals, massive
explosions) seems as though it could be from a different time. Running through
the checklist, everything seems to fit: wisecracking sidekick(s)? Check. Banter
between characters in an Arnie-meets-Belushi-in-Red-Heat way? Check. Ridiculous pseudo-scientific weapon
MacGuffin? Check. Again, it’s by no means a perfect movie, but it never sets
out to be. With a quarter of the budget of The A-Team, and about a third of that of The
Expendables, the smaller names and less
extravagant special effects of The Losers produce a more effective result than the celebrities and CGI
monstrosities of its competitors.
I’m all for stupid action movies. That’s what the 80s and
90s did really well – unapologetic, balls-to-the-wall action. Ridiculous, but
fun. When this attitude is taken with modern movies, it still works – The
Losers is a good example. This is, I think,
what distinguishes that film from the other two – the latter is a modern film,
made with a love of the films that went before it. The other two are 80s films
made with a modern sensibility. When you set out to make a big, dumb action
movie in the mould of those 80s and 90s classics, please just make a big, dumb
action movie, and don’t be ashamed of it!