The reason I bring it up is because I think this is more proof of the wrong-headedness of modern 3D. Not because it’s 3D, as is the conventional wisdom, but because it’s not 3D enough. This is a special case because obviously it’s not a movie shot in 3D, it’s one of these postconversions that I decided to stop seeing, but (like TITANIC) it’s one that they spent more time and money on and it was done by technicians who seem to give a shit, so I was hoping it would be done well.

The results are mixed. There are some parts that look cool. There’s a great shot of the big city planet and some 3D lens flares (fuck you, I like lens flares). It seems like the podrace section, not just the race itself but the people in the audience and everything, looks more 3D than the rest of the movie. I don’t know if they spent more time on it, had a different person doing it, or just had a better attitude at that point in the production, but it’s clearly the best looking part, the most layered.

It’s not like HARRY POTTER PART 7 PART 2 or (from what I’ve heard) CLASH OF THE TITANS – it doesn’t have things that look distractingly wrong or blurry or muddy. It doesn’t detract from the viewing experience. But alot of the time it just doesn’t look very 3D. It looks like the same movie from before.

We might be able to blame this on the limitations of the postconversion technology, but then again I’ve seen the trailer for TITANIC 3D and at least those shots they used in the trailer had way more depth than this does. Apparently it’s possible. So my concern is that they might’ve done this on purpose. Not being very 3D was a deliberate artistic choice.

While the internet celebrates its 15th year of being seriously angry that in the first Star Wars he changed a shot of a puff of smoke to a brief, awkward gun fight, George Lucas is also out there saying stuff about 3D. In a press release for this one he says, ““I don’t like things coming out into the audience. I like everything to be behind the proscenium.” His attitude is apparently shared by many critics who frequently praise 3D movies for not having things protruding towards the audience. What they’re saying is that the industry has spent many years and many hundreds of millions of dollars developing technologies and completely overhauling the entire movie theater industry so that they could bring back the 3D idea that has been done since the ’60s, but it would be in poor taste to use it very much. You can use it in one direction, I guess, but please not in both. That would be too gimmicky.

I can’t remember where I saw it now, but the first review I read of PHANTOM MENACE 3D praised it for its “subtle 3D.” So that was a warning.

See, these filmatists who are pushing 3D as the next step in the evolution of cinema like to compare it to the invention of sound or at least of Dolby Stereo or something like that. I’ll go with stereo. Have you ever heard of a movie being praised for its subtle use of stereo? Do you ever hear people complaining that a stereo movie sounded too much like things were coming out of either the right or left, and should’ve been more like mono? No. That would be stupid.

When they first introduced sound, did they try not to use it much? Just save it for one or two lines of dialogue, because using it throughout the movie would be too in-your-face? I don’t think they did that.

What about color? When color was introduced to movies did they worry that they shouldn’t overdo it? It would be too much of a gimmick if the colors were vivid? No, they went hog wild with that shit and everybody loved it. In fact people still talk fondly about those bright Technicolor movies. It’s only in recent years that filmatists started using digital technology to suck the color out and make it almost black and white.

I guess I’m a broken record on this, but PHANTOM MENACE 3D is a reminder that if you’re gonna use 3D, you should use 3D. Be a man about it. This goes quadruple in this rare case where you’re converting an old classic (Phantom Menace is considered a classic, right? I know it gets mentioned constantly I don’t really pay attention I assume it’s because everybody loves it) from flat to 3D. You can’t tell me that 3D is the reason I should come see this if then when I come see it you tell me you know what man, I didn’t think you wanted it to be very 3D, I was worried you would get upset so I played it down.

I think I might’ve heard something that Lucas does not listen to you when you write on the internet that he should do things now more like he did them a long time ago. Or maybe that was someone else, not sure. But I think an ideal example of 3D done right is in the Disneyland attraction CAPTAIN EO, which was produced by Lucas, directed by his mentor Francis Ford Coppola and co-starring his cousin Hooter and college roommate Major Domo. If I remember right that used the full spectrum of 3D and it was great. Of course it gives the depth into the screen and everything but every once in a while it has a show-offy reach “through the proscenium,” like the part where the character Fuzzball seems to fly out into the audience.

Why is that bad? Why would it be bad in PHANTOM MENACE? In a 3D movie where things often explode toward the camera, why would you not every once in a while want to have a piece of shrapnel or a laser beam shoot out of the screen? As Chewbacca would say, that is highly illogical.

But I had fun going to the movie. It seemed that the half-full theater was made up of people with the same attitude as me: groaning and laughing at it, but also enjoying it. When one of the alien guys had a line that was more of a stereotypical Asian accent than I remembered and I heard a guy behind me chuckle a little it made me start laughing and then seemed to spread across the crowd. A few Jar Jar scenes in I heard a quiet, sincere sounding sigh that set me off laughing too. And there was various scoffing and snickering throughout, disrespectful but not too obnoxious. Then the same people seemed genuinely excited for R2-D2’s brush-your-shoulder-off type strut after rescuing the ship, or the near-fatal pod-crash of “an especially dangerous Dug called Sebulba,” or Obi-Wan’s (SPOILER) cutting (SPOILER) in half (SPOILER) of Darth (SPOILER) Ma(SPOILER)u(SPOILER)l.

It’s kind of like ROADHOUSE or something. I’m not saying it’s as good as ROADHOUSE because obviously that would be ridiculous, that would never happen. But I have kind of a similar type of appreciation for these movies’ combination of headscratching wrongness and genuine quality, and the blurry lines between the two. I mean I’m sorry for what PHANTOM MENACE did to you and everything but I still enjoy watching it every once in a while and that is my right as an American.

two things I never noticed before:

1) Terence “The Limey” Stamp is in this movie a little bit, and I remember reading how he would never do it again because he was so offended that Lucas had him by himself in front of a green screen when he was supposed to be having a conversation with Natalie Portman. What I didn’t notice before was that his first line in that scene is “It’s an honor to finally meet you in person.”

2) At the end of the movie, when Chancellor Phantom Menace lands on Naboo for the funeral/parade, there is some random black guy filling in for Samuel L. Jackson in the background. The Jedi Council people are in the crowd behind the Chancellor but there’s a different bald guy wearing Sam’s robes and everything. Of course when I looked it up I found out that the Star Wars Trekkies are aware of this and there are pictures online, but it’s much more hilariously obvious on the big screen. I find it kind of charming that in a movie so full of digital effects and green screens (and a puppet changed to animation in this version) they didn’t bother to fix a visible mistake like that. (Or maybe it wasn’t a mistake, maybe Mace Windu has decoys like Queen Amidala or Uday Hussein.) Good for you, body double, you got on screen.

I did notice the cameo by Senator E.T., but not Sofia Coppola this time around. I’ve never been sure which one was Keira Knightley, but I guess she’s the queen whenever it’s not Ms. Portman. So I guess I saw her. I don’t know, not to be racist but they all look the same to me.

Anyway, that’s all I got. I might regret bringing it up, but do your worst, fellas.

First of all, here’s the commercial:

Okay, admittedly it’s corny that it’s based around a Jay-Z lyric (although it does kinda make it seem like The Rock is playing himself). But I’m sort of mesmerized by this footage. It takes the, uh, strengths (if you want to call them that) of the first movie (ninjas, a dude who wears an all black rubber costume, flipping, explosions, gimmicky vehicles, constant ridiculousness) and adds something new: taste. Stephen Sommers made such an ugly, cheesy-looking movie, already seeming dated when they started advertising it. But these shots look nice:

Nicely designed and composed, striking to look at. I believe that’s RZA on the left, by the way. Same character he played in GHOST DOG, in my opinion.

What I love about this is that despite being 30 seconds, quickly edited and full of action it’s clear what’s going on in every single shot. The camera isn’t static but it always frames everything nicely:

It’s always clear who is in the shot (or at least what color of ninja), where they’re standing (or flying or swinging) and which direction they’re moving, even in edited-down-for-the-Super-Bowl form. Obviously we can compare this to the other filmatic adaptations of the works of Hasbro and see a hell of a difference. I saw that trailer for TRANSFORMERS IN DARK MOON like ten times in theaters, there were still parts of it that I didn’t know what I was looking at. They just dump a big barrel of wiggly shiny crap on the screen and if the sound is loud enough your brain figures it must be amazing. This is the opposite. This is clean. I like it.

I figured since Chu had so much experience shooting elaborate dance sequences he could apply those skills to other forms of movement. I saw an interview where he said he didn’t think dance scenes and action scenes were really the same skill, but if so I guess he must be good at both.

Looks like this one has a little bit of dancing:

…but probly more punching:

I remember the trailer for the first GI JOE picture really showcased the scene where the GI Josephs wear power suits and it’s computer animation of them flipping around and crashing through a subway and stuff. I got a good laugh out of Sommers’s trademark use of really outdated looking digital effects in a big expensive movie, but it’s nice to see that Chu is going the opposite route and trying to do a good job. When I saw that teaser trailer I kind of thought this was a real stunt:

Like maybe a nice digital background but real guys on wires or something. But watching it again I figure the movements and poses are just too cartoon perfect, it’s gotta be fake. But I’m not actually sure ’cause it really looks like live action to me. I dig it.

My preferred form of action movie would probly not be this silly, but it takes all kinds. This looks like a hell of alot of fun. I think style is gonna do inappropriate things to substance in this movie. If not, it will still be a movie starring Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, the RZA, Ray Stevenson, Walton Goggins, Byung-Hun Lee, Arnold Vosloo, Ray Park, and probly some surprise guest star under the mask of Cobra Commander. Jay-Z, probly. That would tie in with conspiracy theories about Jay-Z and the Illuminati or whatever. And it would be such shock ending ’cause the guy The Rock quotes to pump up the troops was behind the attack all along. He’d be real upset, but, you know. You can’t knock the hustle.

Back to you, Paula.

Like

Unlike

Still, I like that there’s a holiday, and in its honor I want to present to you a couple clips related to the holiday’s greatest contributions to pop culture.

First up is Stevie Wonder’s song “Happy Birthday,” from the album Hotter In July. In 1980, after the holiday was first proposed by labor unions and then debated by politicians, Stevie recorded this to popularize the movement. Since then he seems willing to use it as a generic birthday song, but originally it was a plea to create “a holiday where peace is celebrated all throughout the world.”

Here’s a nice live performance of it:

In the song Stevie is befuddled by “anyone who takes offense” at the holiday, but of course for years after President Reagan signed it into law (because “”Congress seemed bent on making it a national holiday”) some of the usual white assholes in power had the balls to push back against it. 2004 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain infamously voted against it, although he had reversed his position by the early ’90s, when Arizona was getting alot of shit on the national level for still not honoring the holiday. In 1990 it was actually put to a vote, and Arizonans rejected it by 76%! This was not that long ago. Even the NFL wondered what in fuck’s name was wrong with those people, and pulled the Super Bowl out of Arizona.

In 1991, armed only with a large clock and a badass sample from Mandrill’s “Two Sisters of Mystery,” Public Enemy launched a musical attack on Arizona. Even though it only played on MTV one time, the video (by HOUSE PARTY 3 director Eric Meza) created controversy not for being pro-MLK holiday but, more understandably, for blatantly going against Dr. King’s peaceful philosophy by depicting Chuck D assassinating the governor of Arizona.

In an interview with Spin a couple months ago Chuck had no regrets about the video: “Dr. King didn’t make the video. Dr. King died a violent death and I was answering that. As a child, I was pissed off that they killed Dr. King and I was answering that. Regardless of what Dr. King believed, the act of his life being taken was not a passive thing. So I don’t feel any contradiction to this moment. Look, I’m for peace, but I can make a visual statement about how I feel about what happened. The actuality is that I shot a video in rebuttal to something that happened in real life.”

Still, it was a good song and the video was an effective expression of anger and disgust:

Also controversial was “Return of the King,” the MLK Day episode of The Boondocks. This under-recognized gem of ballsy cultural satire imagines what would happen if Dr. King hadn’t died when he was shot, but just went into a coma, and woke up in the modern world. The resurrected Dr. King not only has to deal with being demonized on Fox News, but with seeing a future that doesn’t entirely resemble the one he famously dreamed about. Obviously Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder is making alot of criticisms of his own community, so it’s kind of iffy for me as a white person to agree with it, but I think this is a more on target attack on the type of degrading media images that Spike Lee went after in BAMBOOZLED. And it alternates between funny and sad, like in this scene where Dr. King gets his first taste of BET:

I’m gonna go slightly off the connected-to-the-holiday theme to end on a positive note and I can’t find a trailer for the cable movie BOYCOTT, where Jeffrey Wright played Dr. King. Instead I present to you Curtis Mayfield’s “People Get Ready,” a great, soulful anthem written the year after the March on Washington. This NPR story explains some of the song’s connection to Dr. King and the civil rights movement. Here’s a white lady singing it:

Nah, just kidding. Nothing against Dusty. But here’s the version Curtis did with the Impressions:

There’s also a great Staples Singers version (did I hear a De La Soul sample in there?), and a Chambers Brothers one, and Alicia Keys sings it. And holy shit, I think I need to embed this Al Green version:

Anyway, I hope that you have enjoyed some of these selections, and if not I will turn the other cheek so you can slap that one too, as long as you are in the business of slapping me in the face for just sharing some nice stuff with you. Thanks alot.

Happy birthday everybody.

oh shit, 2012!

Happy New Year’s Day Observed everybody. I hope you are able to observe the New Year today.

Everybody seems to be sharing their end of the year favorites list, so I decided to join in, and threw this hodgepodge together. As a rule I don’t do end of the year lists, but I hate all rules so this year I’m doing one. Take that, The System.

#7:

ENTER THE VOID

This movie didn’t entirely work for me. I think it’s way too long and repetitive. But it’s such an unusual and impressive technical feat (it follows a dead guy’s soul floating around after his death) that the experience really stuck with me. Yeah, I saw plenty of movies that weren’t as heavily flawed, but most of them weren’t as interesting.

DISQUALIFIED FOR BEING RELEASED IN 2010. NICE TRY, CHEATER

#6:

FAST FIVE

My pick for the most satisfying dumb Hollywood movie this year. Somehow this series continues to get more awesome without sacrificing ridiculous. Great action scenes, gimmicks, cast, and a classic macho-off between Vin Diesel and The Rock. Too bad THE EXPENDABLES wasn’t this fun.

#5:

HANNA

I love a good movie that can pass for a Hollywood thriller but has kind of an arty or classy edge to it. Here the director of ATONEMENT does a great take on the ol’ “kid trained to be a super killer” tale. He gives the girl a good revenge arc and Eric Bana a couple topnotch fight scenes, but my favorite part of the movie is the goofy and sweet friendship between the l’il assassin raised in the wilderness and the little brat raised on reality TV and cell phones.

#4:

I SAW THE DEVIL

A stylish action-revenge movie gets disemboweled by a fucked up serial killer thriller. It uses filmatism to get me excited for sadistic vengeance and then makes me feel bad about it. In a good way. “Revenge is bad” is a message we’ve seen before but it’s such an engrossing, precise, and at times shocking movie that it almost tricks me into thinking it’s a new idea.

#3:

13 ASSASSINS

A big group of characters but a simple story. An absolutely great villain and a whole bunch of badass samurais with a smart strategy. Swords, explosions, bonding, honor, all the shit I love. Just pure entertainment.

#2:

THE TREE OF LIFE

This seems like the obvious pretentious critic’s choice for movie of the year, but sometimes those fellas know what they’re talking about. This Terrence Malick individual uses cinematic language in a way I’ve never seen before, creating such an authentic movie version of the feeling of remembering one’s childhood that it gave me maybe the most overwhelming emotional response I’ve ever had to a movie. Despite the presence of dinosaurs. I’m not saying I’m gonna throw this one on all the time – studying it too much could demystify it – but man if it isn’t a cinematic achievement. Way to achieve, Malick.

#1:

DRIVE

This is another one that’s topping alot of lists, you might be sick of hearing about it. I’m glad it caught on so much (big enough for a backlash!) but I really feel like this is exactly my kind of movie. It’s a crime movie with great tension and action but with a sense of patience and a respect for quiet. And some great characters. Might even get Albert Brooks an Oscar. It’s got style, atmosphere, mood, swagger, weirdness, humor, romance, headbashing, some cars.

losers that can hang their heads high:
KILL THE IRISHMAN, ATTACK THE BLOCK, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, WARRIOR, THE DESCENDANTS, M:I:4:GP

Most surprising DTV movie:

INSIDE OUT

Really couldn’t believe WWE Films made a quirky crime dramedy starring that long-haired guy from BLADE III, Parker Posey and Bruce Dern.

runners up: HOSTEL PART III, THE MARINE 2, DEATH RACE 2, THE HIT LIST

Best DTV supporting actor:

Michael Jai White, NEVER BACK DOWN 2: THE BEATDOWN

MJW’s directorial debut has some cheesy aspects, but his character is a classic. I watched scenes of this over and over like I was wearing out favorite songs on a pretty good album.

Most interesting failure:

SUCKER PUNCH. I don’t know man, it’s a mess but I still respect the ambition and the technical mastery. Not given enough credit.

Best horror:

DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK. I guess it wasn’t a huge year for the stuff, I didn’t see too many new horror movies in ‘11. And of course even this one is a remake. But I think it’s really well executed with interesting character dynamics, solid suspense skills and A+ creature effects. I hope it catches on on video. (I think it comes out this week.)

Best Animated Movie:

I wish I could say RANGO, which is easily the best looking cartoon I saw, but unfortunately the movie bored the shit out of me. One thing I don’t get: if it’s supposed to be a tribute to westerns why base it on CHINATOWN? Why not, like, a western type plot? Or at least a samurai one?

And I liked THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN if that counts as animated, but I gotta tell you, the one I enjoyed most was actually KUNG FU PANDA 2. I thought a part 2 would probly fail without that “not Pixar but good for Dreamworks” surprise factor, but they managed to make a really good sequel. It builds on the first one, starting him off as a heroic warrior (not taking everything away and making him rehash what happened in part 1) and turning the joke about him obviously being adopted into the premise of the movie. The villain is a white peacock who’s visually interesting, a completely different threat than the burly tiger villain in part 1, and who has some emotional vulnerabilities you don’t expect to see. Looked great in 3D, too.

worst animated movie I saw:

CARS 2. I’m sure some of the other ones involving Gnomes and shit are worse, but this is the first time I thought a Pixar movie was bad. I dug the insane logic and detailed animation of the first CARS and it sounded like a great idea to put them into a spy movie. But the story is just like Saturday cartoon junk with vague, generic allusions to James Bond, phony attempts at emotion and gratingly frenetic action throughout. It’s not just “weak for Pixar,” it’s not good at all.

Best Nicolas Cage movie:

DRIVE ANGRY 3D I guess. Not his best year.

Best 3D I saw:

HUGO

Most unique use of 3D I saw:

CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS. So cool it got re-released in a theater here after the DVD already came out.

worst 3D I saw:

HARRY POTTER AND THE etc. part 2

There’s some god damn liar in Hollywood going around giving a little seminar to convince the directors that it would be easier just to shoot the movie the way they always have and not learn new things, then have it converted to fake 3D. It always looks like shit, many of them don’t do as well anymore and most moviegoers either can tell the difference and don’t like it or can’t tell the difference and don’t like any 3D. It’s just a terrible idea artistically and business-wise but they keep doing it – for example THE AVENGERS and STAR TREK 2 are gonna be released in fake 3D next year. STAR TREK might be shot partially in Imax, but why would you want to go to a real Imax theater only to have that footage converted into fake 3D?

As the public becomes more aware of this shitty technique they gotta do interviews and talk about how it was always planned in 3D or they had a longer period to convert it than they did on CLASH OF THE TITANS, THOR, THE IMMORTALS, CAPTAIN AMERICA, CONAN THE BARBARIAN and whatever else you saw that looked like shit, or the technology’s getting better or whatever. And still they end up with something like GREEN HORNET, where you barely noticed it’s in 3D until the end credits, or this, where you barely notice it’s in 3D except when parts of it are blurry or dark and it’s hard to see.

I hope this will be the year everybody figures out to stop doing that, but obviously if any of these directors had seen any of these movies in fake 3D they would never have even considered doing it to theirs. So they must not go to many movies and they’re never gonna find out.

comedies that weren’t that great but made me laugh:

BAD TEACHER – I wonder if there’s gonna be a whole “BAD” line of movies some day. BAD LIEUTENANT, BAD SANTA, this. Cameron Diaz being an asshole the whole time is pretty funny. I only regret the undeserved happy ending for her.

30 MINUTES OR LESS – This one the story was pretty dumb but the people in it were funny, mostly in ways that probly didn’t come out of the script. I can’t really do it justice but maybe my favorite scene is Danny McBride showing off that he’s not scared to pretend to buttfuck FRIDAY THE 13TH 3D Jason Voorhees on his dad’s projection TV.

Dumb comedy that made me laugh but everyone I know thinks it’s the worst and unfunniest piece of shit they’ve ever seen:

YOUR HIGHNESS

Another Danny McBride one. Not as good as I was hoping for, but still had me laughing with its story of a CABIN BOY esque priss as the obnoxious hero of a KRULL type ’80s fantasy movie. James Franco maybe made the movie as the handsome brother McBride is jealous of. You’d think he’d be a vain asshole but instead he’s the greatest guy in the world. He’s so kind and heroic that he offers to go on a dangerous rescue mission for the pet lizard (”my animal companion Stephen”) that his dumb brother purposely left behind in the woods. Natalie Portman, having already won her Oscar, does a victory lap in this movie looking super hot and shooting arrows. I didn’t review this because director David Gordon Green wrote the introduction to Seagalogy, and people would probly think I was faking it to be nice. Don’t see it, I guess, but I liked it.

out on a limb prediction for 2012:

I think this THE HUNGER GAMES PART 1 OF A NEW SAGA won’t be the cultural phenomenon they’re trying so hard to fabricate it into. It will make some money but to mediocre reviews and most adults won’t give a shit by the time the second one comes out. (counter argument: but Steven Soderbergh is the second unit director. The insert shots are gonna be transcendent!)

That’s all I got. More reviews soon

Thank you all for your continued support, I got lots of ideas for next year and I hope we’ll have fun and learn shit and become rich and build a huge statue of Dirty Harry foiling a bank robbery while eating a hot dog.

Also a tip of the hat to our ancient Mayan brothers for their foresight in fucking our shit up with that funny calendar trick

First of all, here’s the teaser if you haven’t seen it or need a refresher:

Well, this teaser does a good job of tricking me into thinking I care about these characters and can’t wait to see them again. The truth is I’m more excited to see them get a second chance at doing something. Sure, Stallone’s Barney Ross and Statham’s Lee Christmas had storylines, but some of the other Expendables were pretty much just background characters. Maybe since they came back for another round they’ll be rewarded. Maybe.

We know that Bruce’s part is at least slightly expanded, because he’s shown in more than one location. The reunion of Stallone’s character Barney and Bruce’s “Church” is full of menace this time instead of winking and nudging. Actually seems kinda dramatic.

It’s a nice looking, moody sort of lighting too. Seems like a better looking movie than the first one.

I like this shot of Barney listening to Church’s threat. He doesn’t look quite as beaten up by life as Rocky Balboa in ROCKY BALBOA, but he looks kinda sad. I hope Barney gets a little more going on inside in this one. Maybe.

So they bring back the skull-winged-with-weapons logo, but this time stabbed in the eye sockets. Get it? Two knife handles. Part II. Think about it. It works.

Has anybody else noticed how many trailers use weird electronical bass noises like that ever since they started advertising the TRANSFORMERSes that way? If you want your trailer to be dramatic you gotta have a logo flipping around going BEEEEEEEEeeeeeyoooooowwwwwTTCHZZZZZZZKKKKKKKKZZZ!!!! That’s what audiences demand.

I guess Barney still likes wearing the beret. That’s his thing.

Oh wait, Christmas wears a beret too. That shows that those two are best buds. It also means they’re still the two main characters. Or maybe I just think that because I noticed the end of the trailer was copyrighted by “Barney’s Christmas Productions.” (No joke.) I like that they got Lee manning a gun on a turret again, since that part on the seaplane was the highlight of part 1.

Uh oh. Jet Li is the only one that doesn’t get a cool walking-toward-the-camera or holding-a-gun shot. This confirms the rumors that he’s not in this one very much. I’m thinking he must be the one that dies and they have to get revenge. But I guess not having an action shot implies that he doesn’t even go on the mission. Maybe he doesn’t need the money anymore, or just got sick of all the comments about being small. Even though he made most of them himself. Maybe he finds out that his character’s name is “Yin Yang” and quits on the spot.

Now that’s more like it. Dolph as Gunnar looks pissed. The turmoil of drug addiction and guilt for having betrayed his friends boils inside him, or whatever. There is actual debris involved, that means some action is going on. You don’t get ceiling debris while standing around talking. Gunnar better not be the one that dies at the beginning, that would be sort of a waste of his miraculous resurrection in part 1. But it would explain Jet Li not going on the mission. He hated that dude, why would he help avenge him?

The biggest icon new to the sequel cast is Chuck Norris. I am not the biggest Norris fan, but I think he’s earned his place in the movie. I can’t really tell if this is a villainous pose or just an “I’m awesome so I wear sunglasses” one. My hope is that he’s playing an arrogant asshole like he did in the best movie he will ever do, WAY OF THE DRAGON. He doesn’t seem to be wearing American flag pants, which would be my second choice for him.

This shot of course gets you excited for the return of the most beloved character in THE EXPENDABLES. Also pictured: Terry Crewes as Hale Caesar.

My personal favorite Expendable is Washingtonian and UFC Hall of Famer Randy “The Natural” Couture as Toll Road. He had that monologue about the origins of his cauliflower ear, and there was that part where he was on the plane reading a book. Okay, he doesn’t get jack shit to do in the movie, but I think the combination of his demonstrable badassness, his unconventional looks for a movie star and his regular-guy-but-intelligent speech make him a really compelling screen presence. So far his best role was in an episode of The Unit, so his full movie potential has not been reached. And probly won’t in this movie. But this shot I like because it just screams “Randy Couture is in at least one shot of this movie!”

A young actor named Liam Hemsworth plays the surprised-they-didn’t-pull-this-shit-in-part-1 “young rookie who joins the team” character. According to IMDb his character is named “Billy the Kid,” which is kind of a let down considering some of the other crazy character names. It should be something like Rench Greasestain or Rocket Bluntside.

My old Ain’t It Cool colleague Drew McWeeny says that Hemsworth getting “last-name-only status” in this trailer is a sign that “Lionsgate is feeling good about the prospects of HUNGER GAMES,” which is apparently another movie that he’s gonna be in that people are excited about because it’s based on some books that the kids like and all movies based ona series of books change the world forever. I don’t know anything about that so maybe I’m wrong but I disagree, I definitely think it’s what we’ve already been discussed in the comments, it’s an attempt to make you confuse him with his brother who plays Thor. It’s this:

Squanderers are people who would never squander the opportunity to take advantage of their famous last names. (Surprisingly not named at the top of this VHS tape: Estevez. Joe Estevez.) And for the record, some of us here did say “I don’t know Chris Hemsworth was in this” when we first saw it on a poster.

Speaking of weird credits:

Mark me down as a fan of the “ALSO VAN DAMME” credit. I don’t remember ever seeing an “ALSO” credit before. That’s just how packed this cast is. If they do a part 2-knives-in-the-eye-sockets-and-one-in-the-nose-hole it’s gonna be “INCLUDING VENTURA,” “ALONGSIDE GRUNER,” “FURTHERMORE, YEN” and “MEANWHILE, JAI WHITE.” They’ll save the “OH SHIT, I ALMOST FORGOT” credit for part IV.

I love picturing Van Damme’s management sitting down with the Millennium Films team of lawyers trying to agree on a special credit that denotes a higher ranking than just being named but a lower ranking than the “WITH” that Bruce gets and the “AND” that Schwarzenegger gets. I think they got it right. Van Damme deserves an “ALSO.” He earned it both with his career as a whole and with having the balls to turn down THE EXPENDABLES the first time so he could spend more time on a way better movie about reanimated corpses fighting each other in a nuclear power plant.

Harry Knowles recently debuted a new EXPENDABLES 2 poster and he said “that poster that made the rounds a couple weeks back, according to Lionsgate, that wasn’t their poster and they don’t know where it came from.” Yeah, you know how the fans are, they’re real sneaky about getting ahold of unseen pictures of all the cast members wearing the same costumes from the trailer and then correctly predicting that there would be credits for “HEMSWORTH” and “ALSO VAN DAMME.”

(I’m sure Lionsgate is just covering their ass after pissing off one or more of the actors – Jet Li wasn’t pictured, Couture wasn’t named, etc.)

Anyway here’s JCVD himself, brandishing a knife. I’m excited to see him playing a bad guy, I think he’ll do a good job. And hopefully IMDb is not lying about his name being “Jean Vilain.” But the most important thing about this shot is that UNDISPUTED 2-3’s Scott Adkins is standing behind M. Vilain on the right side of the frame. It should say “ALSO ALSO SCOTT ADKINS.”

Here’s the proof that CIA-connected mercenary-mission-giver Mr. Church actually gets in on the action this time. This is my favorite shot in the trailer. Actually his name isn’t Church, he just suggested that as an alias while meeting with Barney in a church. I can’t really tell from this trailer what the room is where he meets Barney this time. Maybe he’ll go by Mr. Abandoned Warehouse in this installment. Whatever his name is, I hope he miraculously turns good guy like Dolph in part 1 or reluctantly teams up like The Rock in FAST FIVE.

There you go everybody, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Trench firing a gun. Looks like the same scene as Bruce, so we’ll either see them shooting at each other or shooting with each other. Either one would be historic. Or, I guess they could show up in the same room at different times and shoot in separate conflicts. There are alot of possibilities here. We got until next summer to figure it out. Or we could not think about it again until we get to watch it. Either way.

The article mentions that the deal includes theatrical rights, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Maybe somebody else’s breath. We’re talking two DTV stars, a DTV director and a company that has only done very limited theatrical releases.

The director is Keoni Waxman, one of modern Seagal’s primary directors who’s done THE KEEPER, A DANGEROUS MAN and several episodes of True Justice. He also did HUNT TO KILL which is a decent Stone Cold vehicle (but not as good as DAMAGE).

I also want to reiterate that the movie is called MAXIMUM CONVICTION. How is that not already a DTV movie? Or a guy’s name.

thanks to buffywrestling for calling my attention to this story

I love this kind of shit. Check it out when you have a few minutes. Here’s the link: MARK L. LESTER: THE MOVIES