Skip to main content

I’m not putting my hands in horse urine!

Grudge Match
(2013)

I have to admit, I though the conceit of Grudge Match was a pretty good one. It’s difficult to tell if it bombed because everyone else thought differently, or it was simply that the finished picture is frequently on the ropes. Maybe the Stallone renaissance was so 2007, or maybe the puzzled one was trying his hand at his most rewarding genre; comedy. Maybe the most interesting thing about a De Niro performance these days is how much his nose has grown over the past decade. Grudge Match isn’t actively bad, well sometimes it is, but it’s obvious in the most tiresome of ways. A movie that might have been quite clever and sparky just coasts on automatic pilot.


Old guys movies have been in fully aging swing recently, but they haven’t been finding the audience of Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Probably because they want to be debauched and crude rather than gentle and heart-warming; others include Stand up Guys and Last Vegas (that one did reasonably well). Commonly they have found once-great performers slumming it with sloppy scripts and stodgy scenarios. This one has the irresistible pitch of Rocky vs Raging Bull (despite the unlikelihood of their respective weights with regard to such a bout).


Henry “Razor” Sharp (Sly) was beaten by Billy “The Kid” McDonnen (Bobby) in 1982. Then Razor emerged victorious in a 1984 fight and subsequently retired (because The Kid slept with his girlfriend Sally, Kim Basinger). Since then, The Kid has petulantly chewed over his desire for a deciding rematch; he runs a car dealership and owns a bar so he doesn’t need the money, it’s all about his pride. He also does stand-up (see what they did they’re; they’re so clever, these writer guys!) Stallone, meanwhile, is in full blue-collar mode devoting his time to the shipyard like Springsteen never went out of fashion. So the lines are familiar straightaway; De Niro playing up the boorish wiseguy persona while Stallone does the noble warrior thing. Both these guys fought in ‘Nam, though. Ain’t that something. No cliché left unchecked.


Along for the supporting roles are Alan Arkin as Razor’s old trainer. No matter how hopeless the material, Arkin emerges unscathed (just as he did in Stand Up Guys), and here his surly banter with Kevin Hart’s promoter is one of the few parts of the picture that actually ekes laughs (although the less said about the “hilarious” bucket of horse piss, the better). LL Cool J pops up in a role that involves having his arse handed to him by an old guy, so he must be desperate for cash or have lost all sense of pride (NCIS: Los Angeles will probably do that to you). 


Jon Bernthal retains dignity as The Kid’s son, although to be honest he could have equally played Razor’s. Bernthal’s a great actor, and if someone really has to remake Escape from New York they couldn’t go wrong with him. He also has a precocious brat of a son allowing for antics with Granddad Bob (much of which revolve around an extremely poor taste blow job gag). Basinger has the thankless girlfriend role (with the honour of draping herself over sweaty old Stallone) although she looks fantastic for 60, which must be some compensation.


The plot follows the expected course; reluctance to get back in the ring (on Razor’s part), followed by training montage bullshit (The Kid is out of shape, not that you’d ever have thought it looking at De Niro). Right on cue, when it looks as if everything is looking good pre-fight, everything has to fall apart before to instil some “tension” into the decision to fight after all. There are also supposed to be whole barrels of laughs involved but Peter Segal’s never been the kind of director to settle for comedy gold, not when pleasantly predictable will do. Tim Kelleher co-wrote the screenplay with Rodney Rothman; the former’s credentials, as a Two and a Half Men stalwart, are impugnable, but we might expect more from Rothman who has worked with Phil Lord and Christopher Miller.


The movie is as full of adolescent vulgarity, much of it involving the aging process, as a PG-13/12A will allow. It’s akin to a “family” Adam Sandler movie, or one of those cash-grab Ben Stiller efforts. Utterly characterless. In that sense, one might expect it to do reasonably well, although both their stars have been on the wane of late too. Arkin can almost make it fly (“Man, are you going to be feisty when you hit puberty” he tells Hart). Stallone reminds us that he was only ever any good in comedies when he played the straight man; don’t waste good lines on him (although, with the likes of “Isn’t anybody here going to rape this guy?” he isn’t exactly being thrown pearls). De Niro has so little shame left, he even does a Dancing with the Stars bit.


Everyone learns something from their experience, which is nice; they go into it for the money but come out with something even better. Love, and family. And money. It’s the American Dream, or retch. The makers clearly didn’t learn that a Mike Tyson cameo is a very bad thing, however. His continued veneration is mystifying. As for the match, the only means of making it remotely convincing is having Razor blind in one eye, and even that doesn’t do the trick. Sly’s steroids are going to outmatch De Niro’s 70-year old moobs any day. I’m most likely making the picture out to be worse than it is, but it’s so utterly pedestrian and formulaic on every level that it deserves recriminations for the waste of the talent involved and the decent kernel of an idea at its centre. If you want to see a decent De Niro/Stallone movie, check out Copland.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …