775 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

I've sent that to all of my friends, who originally thought the film was going to be a joke. Even I am surprised at how ridiculously cool that looks. Bravo Sly!

[Jackanaples]

Wow. That trailer looks phenomenal. This is the first Stallone movie I've been excited about seeing in something like twenty years. The dialogue sounds like it could use a little work, but wasn't that true of most of the action movies of the 1980's as well?

I was expecting THE EXPENDABLES to be pretty cool, but it looks like Sly batted it right out of the park. If the movie is as great as the trailer makes it out to be, I'm thinking it's gonna get a lot of repeat business among adult men. I'm definitely going to see it twice.

[JimmyBond]

After seeing that trailer, I don't even care if the movie ends up with a PG-13 rating. Sure a R would be better, but it looks like it's going to be an action fest no matter what the rating ends up being.

[dinovelvet]

I dunno, a lot of individual shots in there were pretty R-rated.

And good to see Eric Roberts has cranked up the ham-o-meter to 11.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

If it wasn't for Li and Statham, I would have been convinced this was a movie made in 1985, which would only be released now somehow.

Looks great in every way. I have missed this kind of action movie for a long time (you know, FUN action movies that are not based on some ing toy or features MTV-editing), and I'll see The Expendables opening day.

Wish they would have shown glimpses of Arnold and Willis in the trailer, though.

Oh, and I'm the only one excited about seeing Dolph Lundgren in a cool movie again? Guy is basically the Swedish Schwarzenegger, and should have had a better career than he has right now.

[Loomis]

Wow. That trailer looks phenomenal. This is the first Stallone movie I've been excited about seeing in something like twenty years.

Did you not think much of ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO?

I'm not sure that THE EXPENDABLES will be as good as those two (although for all I know it may be), and some of the "hilarious" dialogue falls flat. Also, there's a serious question mark over the quality of the story.

What's more, this isn't cut together very well as a trailer* - seems pretty haphazard and, while this may seem a bizarre criticism from someone who's looking forward to the film, a trifle overlong.

All of which nitpicking aside, there are some wonderful visuals in this trailer, much of the action looks terrific (making up for a cringe-inducing CGI fireball), and Stallone's in incredible shape. At the very least, this seems like one helluva movie, and who could ask for anything more?

*Not that it is a trailer, of course - it's actually a short promo piece for film festivals.

[dinovelvet]

Wow. That trailer looks phenomenal. This is the first Stallone movie I've been excited about seeing in something like twenty years.

Did you not think much of ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO?

I'm not sure that THE EXPENDABLES will be as good as those two (although for all I know it may be), and some of the "hilarious" dialogue falls flat. Also, there's a serious question mark over the quality of the story.

What's more, this isn't cut together very well as a trailer* - seems pretty haphazard and, while this may seem a bizarre criticism from someone who's looking forward to the film, a trifle overlong.

All of which nitpicking aside, there are some wonderful visuals in this trailer, much of the action looks terrific (making up for a cringe-inducing CGI fireball), and Stallone's in incredible shape. At the very least, this seems like one helluva movie, and who could ask for anything more?

*Not that it is a trailer, of course - it's actually a short promo piece for film festivals.

Yeah this is similar to that "John Rambo" promo reel that hit the internet months before any official trailer.
What's great is that the combat looks incredibly fluid, and brutal, with none of the 90s/00 gimmicks like slo-mo or shaky cam. Just dudes showing off their stuff. And I love that scene of Sly firing a revolver 'wild west' style. The whole thing just looks...fun!

[Matt_13]

That absolutely looked better than BALBOA and RAMBO. A lot more spectacle, more humor, and some fun looking performances. BALBOA had a strong story and for the first time since II some fleshed out characters, but the film was a chore to get through and the final fight was a huge letdown. RAMBO was OTT with the gore and action which made it far funnier than it should have been. EXPENDABLES looks like a totally self aware action film for the ages. Most of the humor does fall flat, but for some reason when I look at everything else that's going on I just don't care. It's absolutely an 80's action flick, and I can't wait.

[Harmsway]

I think it looks fun, but I'm not blown away or anything (I can't help but disagree with with Matt_13; there's nothing "for the ages" about anything we're presented in that footage). THE EXPENDABLES appears to be a decent meat-and-potatoes "manly men" action flick with a number of recognizable old faces and some questionable one-liners.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

THE EXPENDABLES appears to be a decent meat-and-potatoes "manly men" action flick with a number of recognizable old faces and some questionable one-liners.

...which is all I wanted from it.

[dodge]

Thanks a heap, guys. By the time I get to the link, it's been removed for "copyright infringement." Bummer and major drag. I can only take heart from the excitement of the lucky some who've seen it. Sounds great. Its light will shine at least as bright as Rocky's and Rambo's.

[Judo chop]

Yeah, I got bounced at the door too. Shucks!

[dodge]

Update: was able to retrieve it from here. Try quickly before it disappears!

Note: go to the second link that says Try here if you can't see it on the first:

http://www.ropeofsil...explodes-online

[Harmsway]

Well, to be fair, "dark" material does seem to bring out the best in Spielberg. AI, MINORITY REPORT and MUNICH, flawed though they are, showcase him as a far more interesting, risk-taking, sensitive and accomplished director than you'd be forgiven for thinking if you saw only his more commercial work.

MUNICH, in particular, is pretty bleak stuff (with some astonishingly brutal moments; I never thought that I'd see Spielberg give us a scene like the brutal murder of the female assassin). Also, let's not forget that the darkest section of A.I.--the flesh fair--came not from Kubrick's pen but from Spielberg's. And even A.I.'s ending, which many accused of sentimentality, is very bittersweet if you're paying close attention.

Even though, in principle, I find the OLDBOY remake very gratuitous, it may very well be that Spielberg could do reasonably well with its darker waters. That said, I doubt it will be as astonishingly unique as the original, and the fact that it's derived from the source material rather than Park's adaptation means that one of the most interesting story elements will be, sadly, left out of the film. I'm also not at all happy with his selection of Will Smith as the lead, though I hope he delivers a surprisingly potent turn.

[Loomis]

And even A.I.'s ending, which many accused of sentimentality, is very bittersweet if you're paying close attention.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (and, like yourself, I admire the film), but it may be that I failed to notice the bittersweetness you refer to.

Even though, in principle, I find the OLDBOY remake very gratuitous, it may very well be that Spielberg could do reasonably well with its darker waters.

Indeed. And things could be far, far worse. Better, after all, to have Spielberg as the director of the remake than many, many other directors. And I don't just mean derided directors like Paul W.S. Anderson - if it were between Scorsese and Spielberg as the director of OLDBOY U.S., I'd plump for Spielberg in a heartbeat (after THE DEPARTED, Scorsese should be banned from ever remaking anything again).

And, of course, Spielberg's OLDBOY will provide publicity for the original.

[Matt_13]

I think it looks fun, but I'm not blown away or anything (I can't help but disagree with with Matt_13; there's nothing "for the ages" about anything we're presented in that footage). THE EXPENDABLES appears to be a decent meat-and-potatoes "manly men" action flick with a number of recognizable old faces and some questionable one-liners.

Yeah I was being slightly hyperbolic, but nonetheless it looks relentlessly fun!

[Tybre]

And good to see Eric Roberts has cranked up the ham-o-meter to 11.

Has he ever not hammed it up?

[Loomis]

I think it looks fun, but I'm not blown away or anything (I can't help but disagree with with Matt_13; there's nothing "for the ages" about anything we're presented in that footage). THE EXPENDABLES appears to be a decent meat-and-potatoes "manly men" action flick with a number of recognizable old faces and some questionable one-liners.

Sure. And, broadly speaking, I agree.

But name me a non-Bond action movie trailer more exciting than this one.

[JimmyBond]

I thought Shoot Em' Up had a pretty good trailer, but then again that was just the type of movie it was, stupid action scenes with a threadbare plot tying them together.

[Harmsway]

And even A.I.'s ending, which many accused of sentimentality, is very bittersweet if you're paying close attention.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (and, like yourself, I admire the film), but it may be that I failed to notice the bittersweetness you refer to.

I quote Tim Kreider's superb essay on the film:

What [the super-evolved future mechas] give David, inevitably, is a kindly lie, like the lies we tell our own children--that we’ll never leave them, that we will never die—or the lies we demand from our popular storytellers—that the hero will find his heart’s desire, that love will prevail. "All problems seemed to have disappeared from his mommy’s mind," marvels the narrator, trying to pass off as a miraculous gifthorse, a change that is in fact ominous and telling. This new Monica is utterly unlike the one we remember, who was ambivalent, conflicted and distant, alternately affectionate and freaked out by her fiercely clinging "son," given to evasions and betrayal. In other words, it isn’t the real Monica. She’s a fantasy figure, custom-designed to answer David’s desires--no different from the robot prostitutes who could fine-tune their looks and personalities to suit the tastes of their customers. But it doesn’t matter to David, who can’t distinguish image from reality. (Remember how Gigolo Joe had to explain that the animated Blue Fairy hologram "was an example of her.") "There was no Henry, no Martin," the narrator continues, "just the two of them." It’s the ultimate Oedipal wish fulfillment, a dream date with Mommy without rivals or distractions. She’s been reconstructed for him as a perfect reflection of his desire, just as he was for her.

Most tellingly of all, every episode in David and Monica’s "perfect" day together-- the giggly game of hide-and-seek, the haircut, the birthday party--is a happy distortion of some ugly incident from their real life together. The only games of "hide-and-seek" they ever played were when Monica shut him up in the hall closet so he’d quit spooking her, and, later, when she deserted him in the woods. She never gave him a haircut in real life--although he, memorably, did once cut hers. And the only birthday party he ever attended was the disastrous one that ended with his expulsion from the family. What in real life was marred by Oedipal tension and trauma here becomes unambiguously innocent. It’s David’s defective fantasy of what a happy mother and son should be like. This is what he wanted—a fairy tale, not the messy, painful reality of human relationships. David’s carefully censored, Disneyfied re-creation mimics the way in which our own selective memories—and our movies--falsify the past.

[...]

But the illusion is a tenuous one. "David had been told not to try to explain to Monica," says the narrator. "Otherwise she would become frightened and everything would be spoiled." "Spoiled," indeed; imagine Mommy’s reaction if she were to understand that she’s actually a clone of the person she thinks she is, a two-thousand year-old corpse resurrected for only twelve hours in a world empty of any other human beings. She finally succumbs to an everlasting sleep murmuring the words David has waited two millennia to hear: "I love you, David. I do love you. I have always loved you." The real Monica, of course, never spoke such words. The tenderest moment we saw the two of them share was at his imprinting: "Who am I, David?" she begged him. Gigolo Joe was right; she loved him only for what he did for her.

Thus the narrator gives the kids a happy ending to his fairy-tale, David contentedly drifting off to "the place where dreams are born"—presumably that magical realm of love and metaphor of which Dr. Hobby spoke. Even positive reviewers rolled their eyes over this ending, calling it typically sappy and sentimental. (The Village Voice, anxious as always not to be taken in, warned that some hip and cynical viewers might weep “tears of mirth.”) But this closing image of David falling asleep in his Mother’s arms is neither mawkish nor ridiculous. It is utterly desolate. John Williams’ wordless lullaby is no more soothing than the one the French nanny mecha sang to David as they were borne away in a net. David is still as much a captive as he was then, or when he was buried under the ice; the only difference is that now he is content. David is trapped in his "one perfect moment," the only moment of happiness possible for him. At his "birthday party" he admitted that he has no more wishes to make. He will lie beside the dead form of his mother for eternity, just as he sat imploring the Blue Fairy for two millennia, still and silent and utterly at peace. Dr. Hobby designed him to be "caught in a freeze-frame," and so he is; Spielberg’s visual metaphor for love is being caged, frozen.

David has been given a comforting illusion, like the one Spielberg’s narrator offers us in this ending, if, like children, we choose to believe it. An illusion is all David has been chasing for twenty centuries: an idealized image of a mother who never existed, a fairy-tale angel like the Blue Fairy. His gaze fixed on this goal, he remains blind to his own cynical exploitation, to the death of his family and friends, even to the end of the world. Like a child, or a credulous audience, he is content with the mere image, with a story. But, as the real Monica tried to tell him long ago, "stories aren’t real." In reality, he’s asleep in an artificial fantasy, alone in an empty, icebound world. He’s like Jack Torrance as we last see him in The Shining, grinning out at us from that photograph on the wall of The Overlook Hotel—happy and fulfilled, finally home, frozen forever in Hell. And we, watching this ending with tears in our eyes, are like those soldiers in the final scene of Paths of Glory, who finally break down crying not over the carnage they’ve seen or for their unjustly executed comrades, but over a schmaltzy lullaby, mourning the memory of their own lost mothers."

Now, I don't think the ending is quite as bleak as Kreider is trying to sell it, but he does a fantastic job of extrapolating what's actually there. As he suggests, the finale is indeed a "kindly lie," one David accepts, that we, the viewers, are capable of seeing through. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE does indeed grant a happy ending for David, what he has received in the end is the illusion of love, not love itself. It's love created only in an entirely artificial scenario. And even if one could consider what "Monica" offers there as love, it's love thousands of years too late.

Another detail worth mentioning is that the narrator, far from an "objective" observer, is revealed to be one of the Mechas himself in an earlier moment, so his interpretation of the finale must be regarded with a bit of skepticism.

[dinovelvet]

I thought Shoot Em' Up had a pretty good trailer, but then again that was just the type of movie it was, stupid action scenes with a threadbare plot tying them together.

But that was a terrible film that tried to be all postmodern and ironic. Its as if the filmmaker/s were embarrassed to just have some good old fashioned action so they tried to throw hipness and tongue-in-cheek attitude at it, but it was still bad no matter what they were trying to sell it as.
By comparison, The Expendables is completely straight-faced (well, except for the wisecracking and such), as if the whole watering down/Bruckheimerization of action movies had never happened.

[Loomis]

And even A.I.'s ending, which many accused of sentimentality, is very bittersweet if you're paying close attention.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (and, like yourself, I admire the film), but it may be that I failed to notice the bittersweetness you refer to.

I quote Tim Kreider's superb essay on the film:

What [the super-evolved future mechas] give David, inevitably, is a kindly lie, like the lies we tell our own children--that we’ll never leave them, that we will never die—or the lies we demand from our popular storytellers—that the hero will find his heart’s desire, that love will prevail. "All problems seemed to have disappeared from his mommy’s mind," marvels the narrator, trying to pass off as a miraculous gifthorse, a change that is in fact ominous and telling. This new Monica is utterly unlike the one we remember, who was ambivalent, conflicted and distant, alternately affectionate and freaked out by her fiercely clinging "son," given to evasions and betrayal. In other words, it isn’t the real Monica. She’s a fantasy figure, custom-designed to answer David’s desires--no different from the robot prostitutes who could fine-tune their looks and personalities to suit the tastes of their customers. But it doesn’t matter to David, who can’t distinguish image from reality. (Remember how Gigolo Joe had to explain that the animated Blue Fairy hologram "was an example of her.") "There was no Henry, no Martin," the narrator continues, "just the two of them." It’s the ultimate Oedipal wish fulfillment, a dream date with Mommy without rivals or distractions. She’s been reconstructed for him as a perfect reflection of his desire, just as he was for her.

Most tellingly of all, every episode in David and Monica’s "perfect" day together-- the giggly game of hide-and-seek, the haircut, the birthday party--is a happy distortion of some ugly incident from their real life together. The only games of "hide-and-seek" they ever played were when Monica shut him up in the hall closet so he’d quit spooking her, and, later, when she deserted him in the woods. She never gave him a haircut in real life--although he, memorably, did once cut hers. And the only birthday party he ever attended was the disastrous one that ended with his expulsion from the family. What in real life was marred by Oedipal tension and trauma here becomes unambiguously innocent. It’s David’s defective fantasy of what a happy mother and son should be like. This is what he wanted—a fairy tale, not the messy, painful reality of human relationships. David’s carefully censored, Disneyfied re-creation mimics the way in which our own selective memories—and our movies--falsify the past.

[...]

But the illusion is a tenuous one. "David had been told not to try to explain to Monica," says the narrator. "Otherwise she would become frightened and everything would be spoiled." "Spoiled," indeed; imagine Mommy’s reaction if she were to understand that she’s actually a clone of the person she thinks she is, a two-thousand year-old corpse resurrected for only twelve hours in a world empty of any other human beings. She finally succumbs to an everlasting sleep murmuring the words David has waited two millennia to hear: "I love you, David. I do love you. I have always loved you." The real Monica, of course, never spoke such words. The tenderest moment we saw the two of them share was at his imprinting: "Who am I, David?" she begged him. Gigolo Joe was right; she loved him only for what he did for her.

Thus the narrator gives the kids a happy ending to his fairy-tale, David contentedly drifting off to "the place where dreams are born"—presumably that magical realm of love and metaphor of which Dr. Hobby spoke. Even positive reviewers rolled their eyes over this ending, calling it typically sappy and sentimental. (The Village Voice, anxious as always not to be taken in, warned that some hip and cynical viewers might weep “tears of mirth.”) But this closing image of David falling asleep in his Mother’s arms is neither mawkish nor ridiculous. It is utterly desolate. John Williams’ wordless lullaby is no more soothing than the one the French nanny mecha sang to David as they were borne away in a net. David is still as much a captive as he was then, or when he was buried under the ice; the only difference is that now he is content. David is trapped in his "one perfect moment," the only moment of happiness possible for him. At his "birthday party" he admitted that he has no more wishes to make. He will lie beside the dead form of his mother for eternity, just as he sat imploring the Blue Fairy for two millennia, still and silent and utterly at peace. Dr. Hobby designed him to be "caught in a freeze-frame," and so he is; Spielberg’s visual metaphor for love is being caged, frozen.

David has been given a comforting illusion, like the one Spielberg’s narrator offers us in this ending, if, like children, we choose to believe it. An illusion is all David has been chasing for twenty centuries: an idealized image of a mother who never existed, a fairy-tale angel like the Blue Fairy. His gaze fixed on this goal, he remains blind to his own cynical exploitation, to the death of his family and friends, even to the end of the world. Like a child, or a credulous audience, he is content with the mere image, with a story. But, as the real Monica tried to tell him long ago, "stories aren’t real." In reality, he’s asleep in an artificial fantasy, alone in an empty, icebound world. He’s like Jack Torrance as we last see him in The Shining, grinning out at us from that photograph on the wall of The Overlook Hotel—happy and fulfilled, finally home, frozen forever in Hell. And we, watching this ending with tears in our eyes, are like those soldiers in the final scene of Paths of Glory, who finally break down crying not over the carnage they’ve seen or for their unjustly executed comrades, but over a schmaltzy lullaby, mourning the memory of their own lost mothers."

Now, I don't think the ending is quite as bleak as Kreider is trying to sell it, but he does a fantastic job of extrapolating what's actually there. As he suggests, the finale is indeed a "kindly lie," one David accepts, that we, the viewers, are capable of seeing through. Another detail worth mentioning is that the narrator, far from an "objective" observers, is revealed to be one of the Mechas himself in an earlier moment, so his interpretation of the finale must be regarded with a bit of skepticism.

Thanks. Truth be told, I think I pretty much got all that anyway, but I did wonder whether you were referring to something I might have missed.

[dinovelvet]

My theory on AI : it was bollocks.

Now, The Expendables, anyone?

[Harmsway]

Truth be told, I think I pretty much got all that anyway, but I did wonder whether you were referring to something I might have missed.

Well, you're a very astute (and lucky) viewer. I didn't catch all that the first time around, at least, and as a result, somewhat loathed the ending. I initially, as with many viewers, thought of it much as I thought of the rather unnecessary ending of Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS. Now I love A.I.

[Loomis]

Truth be told, I think I pretty much got all that anyway, but I did wonder whether you were referring to something I might have missed.

Well, you're a very astute (and lucky) viewer. I didn't catch all that the first time around, at least, and as a result, somewhat loathed the ending.

Well, I'm not saying I caught it first time round, but I did on subsequent viewings. Like yourself, I initially thought the ending was just typical Spielbergian sentimentality, and I thought AI a very mixed bag. I remember reviewing it for a local paper and tearing into it as "a messy blend of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and E.T.", or words to that effect.

Now I love A.I.

I'll always have a soft spot for AI (can't wait for the Blu-ray version). It may not be Spielberg's best film (then again, it may), but it's almost certainly his boldest and most interesting, even more so than MUNICH.

[Harmsway]

It may not be Spielberg's best film (then again, it may), but it's almost certainly his boldest and most interesting, even more so than MUNICH.

Entirely agreed.

[00Twelve]

It may not be Spielberg's best film (then again, it may), but it's almost certainly his boldest and most interesting, even more so than MUNICH.

Entirely agreed.

I haven't ever seen A.I., but I really enjoyed (well, appreciated) MUNICH. You (both) really feel A.I. to be a superior film? Perhaps it will have to join the ranks of my Netflix queue.

[dodge]

And good to see Eric Roberts has cranked up the ham-o-meter to 11.

Has he ever not hammed it up?

Not in his earlier performances, for sure. But some of his later work has show a flair for, of all things, subtlety. A few that come to mind: THE AMBULANCE, if you're in the mood for a decent B-horror movie...IT'S MY PARTY, if you're not put off by the gay storyline--a guy dying from AIDS, who decides to check out on a high note...He's had a checkered career, to say the least, one marred by too many easy-money, straight to video flicks. But he is, for my money, one very gifted actor.

[dinovelvet]

And good to see Eric Roberts has cranked up the ham-o-meter to 11.

Has he ever not hammed it up?

Not in his earlier performances, for sure. But some of his later work has show a flair for, of all things, subtlety. A few that come to mind: THE AMBULANCE, if you're in the mood for a decent B-horror movie...IT'S MY PARTY, if you're not put off by the gay storyline--a guy dying from AIDS, who decides to check out on a high note...He's had a checkered career, to say the least, one marred by too many easy-money, straight to video flicks. But he is, for my money, one very gifted actor.

And there's his early breakthrough role in Runaway Train, I don't know if that was before or after Pope of Greenwich village, but if you watch those two together you'll get performances from him on complete opposite ends of the spectrum!

[JimmyBond]

Don't forget his recurring role on Heroes, he underplayed that part pretty well too. And also the "joke" role he had in Cable Guy. Say what you will about the movie but the subplot invovling Roberts was pretty inspired.