Skip to main content

Are we gonna fight or are you planning on boring me to death?


 Bullet to the Head
 (2013)

Stallone’s attempt to get back in the game with an original starring vehicle appeared to flounder from the first. In the last decade he’s staged something of a career comeback with sequels to his best known roles (Rocky Balboa, Rambo) and a new franchise leading an ensemble of aging action stars (The Expendables). Bullet had the veneer of a Stallone aspiring to be relevant; an adaptation of a French graphic novel, a director (Wayne Kramer) who had previously delivered a surprisingly great crime movie fairy tale (Running Scared, which even managed to make Paul Walker look good). So how did it end up as an uninspired reheat of 48 Hrs’ mismatched cop/criminal pairing, complete with Walter Hill calling the shots?

The answer most likely lies somewhere in the creative tunnel vision of its producer Joel Silver and Sly. Stallone is fairly well-recognised as a nightmare for fledgling directors (poor Danny Cannon on Judge Dredd, for example). As a writer-director he has just enough talent to make life difficult for those without clout on set and, as a star, too much ego not to be a prima donna. Kramer reportedly clashed at a fairly early stage (he wanted a darker vision), so he was mercifully spared the traumas involved with Crossing Over (at the meddling hands of the Weinsteins). Silver, not the name he one was, but in full possession of the sensibility of his ‘80s/’90s self, also needed to make his presence felt.

The plot sees Stallone's hit man team up with Sung Kang's cop to bring down the gang who double-crossed Sly and killed his partner. Pretty much any '80s buddy action movie you can think of (48 Hrs, Red Heat, Tango & Cash) is vastly superior to this. At a meagre 90 minutes it is pared-down but looks as if there was never enough story to make a more substantial version. This is a perfunctory affair, competently made but going through the motions of what Sly thinks a Stallone action movie should probably be.

He looks ridiculously ripped for a 66 year old, with the kind of body only the best steroids can buy. Sly monotones his way through the entirely leaden dialogue and has zero chemistry with the charisma-free Kang (Han from the Fast and Furious movies). I'm not sure original choice Thomas Jane would have made matters a whole lot better, but Silver's decision to recast the role with an Asian actor seems to have been predicated on the lazy idea that racial tension would serve as a replacement for fleshed-out characters. So Stallone makes dodgy references to Confucius and Odd Job; there's no reason for this other than that Silver thinks he should be a bit like Nick Nolte (but on the other side of the law).

Hill handles the action as efficiently as you'd expect, but employs annoying visual clichés (a black and white introduction, orange-hued flashes and fades). A fairly annoying bluesy score also evokes an earlier era. The gratuitous nudity and violence cement the '80s throwback vibe, but the rain of CGI blood announces its true vintage. Hill had been absent from cinemas for a decade prior to this, and this kind of pointless exercise that makes you think he shouldn’t have bothered returning. He was no doubt considered a safe pair of hands as he’d delivered on the genre for Silver several times before (48 Hrs, Red Heat), but the result only goes to underline the question of why anyone thought it would be a good idea. It would be nice if this got Hill more work, but Bullet crumpled at the box office.

There's a suitably heavy-duty fight with fire axes between Stallone and Jason Momoa at the climax, and the latter has a good time playing the bad guy. As does Christian Slater as scumbag lawyer. But the script is so clumsy that Slater is required to tell Momoa the entire plot about 20 minutes in, even though he will be aware of this information anyway. The faux hardboiled dialogue is so consistently risible that there’s a point where you begin to assume it’s intentional.

Quite possibly Sly will have to settle on co-star status for the remainder of his career; he’s has pairings with Arnie (Escape Plan) and De Niro (Grudge Match) on the way, as well as Expendables 3. And Silver has nothing to aside from the Sherlock Holmes films as a claim to latter day success. Add to the pile the failure of Arnie’s comeback vehicle and, outside of the ensemble nostalgia flick, it looks like the ‘80s action movie star is well and truly dead.

** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

We’re looking into a possible pattern of nationwide anti-Catholic hate crimes.

Vampires aka John Carpenter’s Vampires (1998) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter limps less-than-boldly onward, his desiccated cadaver no longer attentive to the filmic basics of quality, taste, discernment, rhyme or reason. Apparently, he made his pre-penultimate picture to see if his enthusiasm for the process truly had drained away, and he only went and discovered he really enjoyed himself. It doesn’t show. Vampires is as flat, lifeless, shoddily shot, framed and edited as the majority of his ’90s output, only with a repellent veneer of macho bombast spread on top to boot.

I must remind you that the scanning experience is usually a painful one.

Scanners (1981) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg has made a career – albeit, he may have “matured” a little over the past few decades, so it is now somewhat less foregrounded – from sticking up for the less edifying notions of evolution and modern scientific thought. The idea that regress is, in fact, a form of progress, and unpropitious developments are less dead ends than a means to a state or states as yet unappreciated. He began this path with some squeam-worthy body horrors, before genre hopping to more explicit science fiction with Scanners , and with it, greater critical acclaim and a wider audience. And it remains a good movie, even as it suffers from an unprepossessing lead and rather fumbles the last furlong, cutting to the chase when a more measured, considered approach would have paid dividends.

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.

You seem particularly triggered right now. Can you tell me what happened?

Trailers The Matrix Resurrections   The Matrix A woke n ? If nothing else, the arrival of The Matrix Resurrections trailer has yielded much retrospective back and forth on the extent to which the original trilogy shat the bed. That probably isn’t its most significant legacy, of course, in terms of a series that has informed, subconsciously or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, much of the way in which twenty-first century conspiracy theory has been framed and discussed. It is however, uncontested that a first movie that was officially the “best thing ever”, that aesthetically and stylistically reinvigorated mainstream blockbuster cinema in a manner unseen again until Fury Road , squandered all that good will with astonishing speed by the time 2003 was over.

I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (SPOILERS) I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street a little under a decade after its release, and I was distinctly underwhelmed five or so sequels and all the hype. Not that it didn’t have its moments, but there was an “It’ll do” quality that reflects most of the Wes Craven movies I’ve seen. Aside from the postmodern tease of A New Nightmare – like Last Action Hero , unfairly maligned – I’d never bothered with the rest of the series, in part because I’m just not that big a horror buff, but also because the rule that the first is usually the best in any series, irrespective of genre, tends to hold out more often than not. So now I’m finally getting round to them, and it seemed only fair to start by giving Freddy’s first another shot. My initial reaction holds true.

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef

Maybe I’m a heel who hates guys who hate heels.

Crimewave (1985) (SPOILERS) A movie’s makers’ disowning it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing of worth therein, just that they don’t find anything of worth in it. Or the whole process of making it too painful to contemplate. Sam Raimi’s had a few of those, experiencing traumas with Darkman a few years after Crimewave . But I, blissfully unaware of such issues, was bowled over by it when I caught it a few years after its release (I’d hazard it was BBC2’s American Wave 2 season in 1988). This was my first Sam Raimi movie, and I was instantly a fan of whoever it was managed to translate the energy and visual acumen of a cartoon to the realm of live action. The picture is not without its problems – and at least some of them directly correspond to why it’s so rueful for Raimi – but that initial flair I recognised still lifts it.

I admit it. I live in a highly excited state of overstimulation.

Videodrome (1983) (SPOILERS) I’m one of those who thinks Cronenberg’s version of Total Recall would have been much more satisfying than the one we got (which is pretty good, but flawed; I’m referring to the Arnie movie, of course, not the Farrell). The counter is that Videodrome makes a Cronenberg Philip K Dick adaptation largely redundant. It makes his later Existenz largely redundant too. Videodrome remains a strikingly potent achievement, taking the directors thematic obsessions to the next level, one as fixated on warping the mind as the body. Like many Cronenbergs, it isn’t quite there, but it exerts a hold on the viewer not dissimilar to the one slowly entwining its protagonist Max Renn (James Woods).

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.