Skip to main content

Why is it terrorists never appreciate Burgundy?

Red 2
(2013)

(SPOILERS) If in doubt, sign on for an unnecessary sequel. Red 2 isn’t bad, but it adds nothing whatsoever to its predecessor. More than that, director Dean Parisot may have a feel for the comedy but his action beats seem to be taking place somewhere else (calling second unit). In the end, it’s the continually impressive cast, old and new, that save this one from being completely redundant.


Parisot gave us the splendid Star Trek parody Galaxy Quest, but that was nearly 15 years ago. Since then he’s mostly made a nest for himself on TV (as have a platoon of directors who have had enough of labouring away out in the cold, trying and failing to get movie projects off the ground). Along the way there was the stillborn Fun with Dick and Jane remake on the big screen, but most notable was some solid genre work on Justified. One assumes it was his collaboration with Neal McDonough there that secured him the nominal villain role of Horton here. McDonough’s actually great fun, taking undisguised pleasure in being utterly evil. He manages to eclipse Urban’s ultimately well-meaning antagonist in the first movie.


Writers Jon and Eric Hoeber have returned, but they’re stuck in stir-and-repeat mode. The MacGuffin, a nuclear device called Nightshade that is powered by “red mercury” and sits under the Kremlin, feels derivative of the recent and vastly superior Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol. The narrative, while adopting a similar travelogue style to RED (complete with arty transitions, here better achieved and suggestive of the DC comic book origins) doesn’t have the same flow. And Parisot only rarely succeeds in integrating the action set pieces.


There is an effective attempt to capture Willis’ Frank Moses at the outset, recalling the SWAT team opening to the first RED. The reversed tables find Frank, Alien style, plucking feckless team members from doorways and dragging him into his lair. But, if that’s a more effective repeat, other references display a wanton lack of inspiration. Where Morgan Freeman was presumed dead early on in RED, only to reconstitute, this time it’s Malkovich (who is still the best thing in this series). Only now he has to compete in the slightly cuckoo stakes with Anthony Hopkins. 


Byung-hun Lee (who, like Willis, appeared in G.I. Joe: Retaliation this year) is Han, an assassin tasked with killing Frank. And, like Urban last time out, he turns out to be not such a bad guy after all. A scene in a supermarket, where Lee shows off his considerable martial arts skills, looks like it was filmed entirely on its own and then awkwardly slotted into the main movie. Yet again, there’s an identity twist regarding the villain; Dreyfuss last time, bumbling-but-not-really Hopkins this (it’s a twist you’re expecting from Hopkins first scene).


Still, there is such a surfeit of performers here that even when the writers and director let the side down there’s more than enough to hold the attention. Steven Berkoff appears in one scene. David Thewlis shows up as dodgy dealer The Frog (“Why is it terrorists never appreciate Burgundy?”). Catherine Zeta-Jones, often somewhat variable performance-wise, does no favours to a Russian accent is still good fun as Katya (Frank’s “kryptonite”). There’s a strange fascination in seeing one Hannibal Lector (Brian Cox) share screen time with another Hannibal Lector (Anthony Hopkins). As for the latter, as pay cheque-orientated as his appearance is he almost justifies the indulgence of his hammy/dotty professor persona during the middle section since his reveal as a merciless villain is more than a match for McDonaugh (“And you didn’t see that coming, did you? Old sport”).


Least successful are the attempts to give Frank’s relationship with Mary-Louise Parker’s Sarah some edge and development (“Things were getting a little stale”). Her jealousy of Katya is over-cooked, pushing Parker into frantic mugging mode. Likewise her desire to get involved in the action, but not to the extent of actually killing people. This leads to an ungainly succession of incidents where Sarah snogs otherwise dead meat targets. Worse, when she does end up shooting someone (with a initialised gun given to her by Frank) she has a momentary realisation of horror… and then all is well. The Hoebers presumably want to touch on something a little more serious here, but they chose the wrong picture; this is wall-to-wall superficial (and thus really better for not going there).


Frank: He’s not dead. He does this a lot.

Malkovich continues to get all the best lines, and his chemistry with Willis is as evident as ever. He tells the latter, “I was touched that you cried at my funeral”. When Frank is indignant that Marvin gave Sarah a gun, he replies, “It is America, Frank”. Asked by Sarah if he should eat a decades-old Moon Pie, he observes “It’s before they had the sell-by-dates, stuff”. And, under a heavy fire from Han, Marvin grips hold of Frank for dear life. “Is that a stick of dynamite in your pocket?” asks Frank. “I’m saving it for emergencies”, comes the reply.


A consequence of all this name actor malarkey is that Willis ends up mostly adopting the pose of the straight man. And he is very game, but it remains a shame that the once reliably witty lead is now relied to solid reaction shots. Red 2 was foolishly released during the summer. The original made capital from an October date to become a surprise sleeper hit. Given the more-of-the same nature of this follow-up, Summit should count themselves lucky that it ended up with $60m worldwide shy of the first (most of the drop came in the US). Such an underperformance may put a third outing in doubt, which may be just as well. It’s enjoyable to see these guys bouncing off each other but once was more than sufficient.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.