Normally I'd be glad,
since this seems like and "homage" to the '80s actions movies. But
considering the guys in those movies are the same as in this one.
Hey, HeadRazz, sorry for the late response, I was pointing out that Rourke and Roberts had given more than one good performance, because I thought I read that someone had posted that every actor in the film has "Only" given one good performance, sorry about the confusion. I still haven't seen the movie yet, as money is tight and I'm waiting for Machete.
Here's Wikipedia's take on action movie sub-genres:
Action comedy
A sub-genre involving action and humor.[2] The sub-genre became a popular trend in the 1980s when actors who were known for their background in comedy such as Eddie Murphy, began to take roles in action films. The action scenes within the genre are generally lighthearted and rarely involve death or serious injury.[3] Comedy films such as Dumb & Dumber and Big Momma's House that contain action-laden sub-plots are not considered part of the genre as the action scenes have a more integral role in action comedies.[2] Examples of action comedies include The Blues Brothers (1980), 48 Hrs. (1982), Midnight Run (1988), Bad Boys (1995), Rush Hour (1998), and Charlie's Angels (2000).[2][3]
Die Hard scenario
The story takes place in limited location - a single building, plane, or vessel - which is seized or under threat by enemy agents, but are opposed by a single hero who fights an extended battle within the location using stealth and cunning to attempt to defeat them. This sub-genre began with the film Die Hard but has become popular in Hollywood movie making both because of its crowd appeal and the relative simplicity of building sets for such a constrained piece. These films are sometimes described as "Die Hard on a...".[4][5] Among the many films that have copied this formula are Under Siege[6] (terrorists take over a ship), Speed[7] (Die Hard on a bus), Under Siege 2: Dark Territory[8] and Derailed (hostages are trapped on a train), Sudden Death[9] (terrorists take over an Ice Hockey stadium), Passenger 57,[6]Executive Decision[9] and Air Force One[6] (hostages are trapped on a plane), Con Air (criminals take over a transport plane), and Half Past Dead and The Rock[9] (criminals or terrorists take over a prison). Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a recent spoof of these movies.
This Hong Kong sub-genre revolves around dramatic themes such as brotherhood, honor, redemption and the effects of violence on the individual and society at large. It often features stylized shootouts with slow-motion scenes of barrages of gun fire with large-caliber automatic pistols.
Of course, each sub-genres has its strengths and weaknesses, and can be broken down into the three types of action movies that Galbert mentioned.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
It seems most of the people who post on this board have moved on from The Expendables. It looked at first like it would be a Razzie gift from heaven, but it turned out to just not be bad enough. So, don't worry about it. We've got other movies to fry.
Or is it we've got other movies that are fried? I could never keep these things straight. . . .
To be honest, I don't see why The Expendables should even be nominated... of course, it isn't a good movie by any means, and compared to something like Inception it definitely falls behind. But, to be honest, just because there is no plot doesn't mean it's the worst that could have happened: I prefer Steven Seagal brawling mooks for reasons of his own over Steven Seagal
preaching about the environment, and although I like Bruce Willis
killing terrorists because "he's in the wrong place at the wrong time", I
cannot stand him digging a hole to set off a nuclear device on an
asteroid.
As far as I'm concerned, there are three categories of action-movie plots:
1.) Some action movies manage to actually come up with a fairly intelligent story that does not only serve as an excuse for special effects orgies, but drives the whole film as a consistent and stringent way to connect one scene and another. The action serves the dramaturgy, not the other way around. A good recent example for this would be Inception.
2.) Some action movies don't bother with a plot. "Arnie gets angry and invades a third-world-country" or "Jackie enters a martial arts tournament" is as deep as it gets. While this kind of story is just a lousy excuse for explosions and ass-kicking, it has such a minimum of impact on the movie that at least it doesn't disturb the violence. This is the category of movies like The Expendables.
3.) Finally, there are action movies that try hard to come up with a storyline, but fail miserably. Even though there is a plot, it is so obscure that it's intellectually insulting. Although a majority of the screen-time is devoted to explaining the how, the audience never stops wondering why. This category currently is in the firm grip of Michael Bay...
In a perfect world, every action movie would fall in the first category. But since the second category movies are merely shallow, while the third type movies bear the risk of severe brain damage, how about reserving the razzies for those?
Yeah, you pretty much listed what I consider the six major contenders so far.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
So far, a measly three action movies (The Stale Air Bender, Jonah HeX, and Killers) have set the standard for suckage in 2010. Bad comedies (Grown-Ups, Vampires Suck) and particularly the romantic ones (including the "anti-romantic" comedy The Bounty Hunter) will shape the 2010 RAZZIES most, from what I can tell.
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
If the comedies aren't being funny, but the action movies are delivering the action, I guess the former failed in their goals, and the latter did what they set out to do. So yeah, the comedies are setting the pace for the next Razzies.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
As far as receiving a Worst Picture nomination, this film is almost certainly out of danger. I could forsee Head Razz including it in a few acting categories on the preliminary ballot, but it is probably going to be overwhelmed by the competition.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Seriously guys...when the time comes you can't vote this as one of The Razzies' Worst Picture nominees for 2010. At least this movie isn't pretending to be something it's not.
A few movies that have classed themselves as "comedies" and not come close:
"The Bounty Hunter," "Killers," "Furry Vengance," "Vampires Suck" & "Death at a Funeral" (the remake).
So please guys don't vote for it just because you should there are far more deserving movies out there.
I know it isn't a comedy but you get where I am coming from here.
This film promises to be an action movie like we remembered from the 80's, and you guys and gals
remember how much we liked those?
Try to remember the films that promised something and did not deliver.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: a.k.a. THE RAZZIE® DIRTY HALF-DOZEN, PLUS...
