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…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

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

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.