((There was something so straightahead about its ridiculously simple script -- one of those things where Arnold (and his trusty kidnapped assistant Rae Dawn Chong, Tommy's daughter) found just the right clue they needed at the right time to advance to the next step, just like that.))
Indeed. The bare minimum to hold the story together.
((The mission was simple -- get Arnold out of LA to a "banana republic" (evidently Catalina, hah) before a plane landed with the guy he killed, thereby revealing that he wasn't going to go kill somebody when the plane landed, as ordered by the folks who kidnapped his daughter. Hey, wait that sounds complex.))
Come to think of it. When you put it like that, it kind of does. But that's all-- what should I call it? Action logistics, perhaps. It's characters running around, shooting each other and finding out what the others are up to. The main plot --the villain's plan-- is utterly simple.
((Then Arnold is asked by Chong what he did with that guy:
Arnold: I let him go.))
A trademark Arnold joke (see "stick around", "you're fired", etc.) Stallone couldn't match him in this department, though he did try ("heads up" while kicking frozen Wesley Snipes' head off in Demolition Man).
((Yes, he was. It was what Clint began, and what Sly did with too much emotion, really. Nobody can stop him.))
"What Sly did with too emotion." I think this is true, and quite relevant. I hadn't given it too much thought before. I think in his best roles, Arnold was more of a robot, an indestructible Uberman (a Terminator...), whereas at his best, Sly was still physically remarkable, but more human, more relatable. That's market differentation for you. Not unlike Seagal vs. Van Damme, with Seagal akin to Arnold and Van Damme akin to Stallone.
((Yes, the "extreme divorce from realism" is pretty much the point. Its a violent comedy, really.))
To me, what's funniest about it is the irony of how Dan Hedaya's plan backfires. He kidnaps Arnold's daughter to force him, a killing machine and one-man-army, to murder a dictator, but instead Arnold goes after him and, since he is a killing machine and one-man-army, succintly disposes of his paid mercenaries and kills him instead. Not a very well thought-out plan.
((Interesting to me: Arnold's ultimate foe is another muscleman...but decidedly more flabby, actually. In 1982, he's been THE muscleman in The Road Warrior, but three years later...hey buddy, back to the gym. No matter...he and Arnold have a great fight to the death...spoofed later by , of all people, Andrew Dice Clay in Ford Fairlaine.))
Vernon Wells. Arnold didn't think he was right for the role of the villain until he acted so crazy with a knife, Arnold had to change his mind! Clearly the two were not physically matched, but Wells made up for it with his screen presence. In the film, his character is a bit threatening, but also funny, campy and kind of pathetic.
((Yes, and eventually, the cuts to Arnold's bare torso as his muscled biceps ripple while machine gun bullets fly out of the gun in his arms well...I dunno. Its SOMETHING.))
Visceral.
((Absolutely. The career of Arnold Schwarznegger is a mix of very hard work and very great luck. In the 50s and 60's I think he would have been in Hercules or Gladiator movies, or "the strongman" in a caper movie with Michael Caine as the star.))
Interesting examples. They ring quite true!
((Arnold played it out over the years, moving up film by film, then making comedies, inviting his fans in joining him in his "quest for superstardom." He got it...and then(people forget) lost it. Very quickly. He was a con man who got found out, you ask me.))
The stint in politics couldn't have helped. I do wonder if his comeback to film would've played out significantly better if he had had a more successful term as governor. But still, even with his diminished stature these days, he could pass away tomorrow and his reputation in film would remain strong. Sly, too. For a good chunk of his career, he has probably been second to Arnold in the action genre, but he's also an Oscar nominee, and a director and screenwriter (was before Arnold!). And he has Rocky and Cop Land for prestige.
People like Van Damme and Seagal just couldn't cut it. Van Damme really screwed up by turning down an offer by a studio (Universal, I think) to star in three films for them. He could've outlasted Seagal in the theatrical film business. Not for long, perhaps, but he could've done better than him. He's a good actor, too, and nowadays his lined, aged face can convey pathos effectively. Seagal has always been too lazy and has too much of an ego.
((They are similar. They both have very similar sounding James Horner scores(which, oddly, sound NOTHING like his later scores for Titanic and The Perfect Storm.))
Horner liked to use those steel drums back then.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
((There was something so straightahead about its ridiculously simple script -- one of those things where Arnold (and his trusty kidnapped assistant Rae Dawn Chong, Tommy's daughter) found just the right clue they needed at the right time to advance to the next step, just like that.))
Indeed. The bare minimum to hold the story together.
--
Yes. The script reminded me of a derisive line a friend used to use:
"That script was no good, because I could have written that story."
Idea being: if the script wasn't great in the plotting or great in the dialogue, ANYONE could write it.
But Commando somehow used that as a strength here. The script isn't that bad, there are some funny lines, its "serviceable." But at this point in his career, Arnold had to play to the moment: action, action, action. Raw Deal, Predator, Red Heat, The Running Man. He knew what he had to do to become a star. And then he used "Twins" for comedy and to step up a level. Making more money with each film.
---
((Then Arnold is asked by Chong what he did with that guy:
Arnold: I let him go.))
A trademark Arnold joke (see "stick around", "you're fired", etc.) Stallone couldn't match him in this department, though he did try ("heads up" while kicking frozen Wesley Snipes' head off in Demolition Man).
---
It didn't quite work for Sly, did it?
I recall Sly trying to do the Arnold thing...and the Clint thing...in the cop actioner "Cobra": "You're the disease, I'm the cure." THAT was a bad movie, and Sly just didn't quite seem to have Arnold's affinity for the one-liner and comic violence.
---
"What Sly did with too emotion." I think this is true, and quite relevant. I hadn't given it too much thought before. I think in his best roles, Arnold was more of a robot, an indestructible Uberman (a Terminator...), whereas at his best, Sly was still physically remarkable, but more human, more relatable. That's market differentation for you.
---
Well, Stallone started with Rocky. All heart plus some righteous violence when provoked. Then he wandered for a few years and then the first two Rambos took Sly in another - emotional -- direction. He got a bit too serious -- and Arnold started mocking him for that in interviews. A little playful competition. But it was Sly, not Arnold, who had Oscar cred from the first Rocky.
---
Not unlike Seagal vs. Van Damme, with Seagal akin to Arnold and Van Damme akin to Stallone.
---
I can see that. Seagal's career was fascinating: he was the martial arts instructor of Hollywood superagent Mike Ovitz. Ovitz told Seagal: "I'm going to make a star out of you." And he did. It lasted almost 10 years, as I recall.
---
((Yes, the "extreme divorce from realism" is pretty much the point. Its a violent comedy, really.))
To me, what's funniest about it is the irony of how Dan Hedaya's plan backfires. He kidnaps Arnold's daughter to force him, a killing machine and one-man-army, to murder a dictator, but instead Arnold goes after him and, since he is a killing machine and one-man-army, succintly disposes of his paid mercenaries and kills him instead. Not a very well thought-out plan.
---
What I love about that is how right after the daughter is kidnapped, one henchman explains the plan to Arnold ,and how Arnold has to go with him or the girl dies, and Arnold simply says "Wrong" and shoots the guy. From the START, Arnold isn't going along with anything.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
((Interesting to me: Arnold's ultimate foe is another muscleman...but decidedly more flabby, actually. In 1982, he'd been THE muscleman in The Road Warrior, but three years later...hey buddy, back to the gym. No matter...he and Arnold have a great fight to the death...spoofed later by , of all people, Andrew Dice Clay in Ford Fairlaine.))
--
Vernon Wells.
--
Thats him. A brief 80's career. He reprised his Road Warrior villain as a joke in "Weird Science" -- starring Steven Seagal's gorgeous wife, can't remember her name.
--
Arnold didn't think he was right for the role of the villain
---
interesting
---
until he acted so crazy with a knife, Arnold had to change his mind!
---
Also interesting. I've read of two other actors who were not being taken seriously in their villainous roles by their filmmakers UNTIL they started acting their most villainous scenes out: Alan Arkin as the psycho in Wait Until Dark and Al Pacino as Mike Corleone in Godfather I.
---
Clearly the two were not physically matched,
---
Well, come to think of it with Arnold, who WOULD be? Perhaps one of his muscleman buddies --the ones who got to play baddies in Conan the Barbarian?
Still, it just seemed a bit off how Vernon Wells looked. His chain mail shirt didn't help. And yet -- in the final fight scene, we were reminded: great physical strength can hide in slightly flabby packages.
---
but Wells made up for it with his screen presence. In the film, his character is a bit threatening, but also funny, campy and kind of pathetic.
---
All of the above. He was a GREAT villain, and well matched with Richard Nixon lookalike Dan Hedaya as the dictator.
---
((Yes, and eventually, the cuts to Arnold's bare torso as his muscled biceps ripple while machine gun bullets fly out of the gun in his arms well...I dunno. Its SOMETHING.))
Visceral.
---
I'll take that. Its like Arnold's physique matched WITH the flying bullets was ...sensual and cinematic.
I have to laugh at the thought of that close-up being set up with Arnold's knowledge.
---
((Arnold played it out over the years, moving up film by film, then making comedies, inviting his fans in joining him in his "quest for superstardom." He got it...and then(people forget) lost it. Very quickly. He was a con man who got found out, you ask me.))
The stint in politics couldn't have helped. I do wonder if his comeback to film would've played out significantly better if he had had a more successful term as governor.
---
I think folks forget that Arnold ran for Governor only after his career had run out of a lot of steam. Simply put, his budgets were shrinking back down and he was being sent backwards from True Lies to things like "Collateral Damage." (He was also removed from Planet of the Apes and I Am Legend, replaced with Wahlberg and Smith.) Arnold's rise to fame and making of money could never be taken away from him but...it was pretty much over. So he switched to politics and...I think...a NEW con job.
---
But still, even with his diminished stature these days, he could pass away tomorrow and his reputation in film would remain strong.
---
Absolutely. For a few years there, Arnold was one of the two or three biggest superstars in Hollywood. He never did Oscar bait, but he created himself as a star.
---
Sly, too. For a good chunk of his career, he has probably been second to Arnold in the action genre, but he's also an Oscar nominee, and a director and screenwriter (was before Arnold!). And he has Rocky and Cop Land for prestige.
---
All true. The truth of the matter is that all stars fade eventually. But Sly and Arnold made their mark. And remember when they brought in Bruce for the Planet Hollywood franchise? Those restaurants were fun, with their movie memorabilia all over the place. But they didn't last, either. Time marches on.
---
People like Van Damme and Seagal just couldn't cut it. Van Damme really screwed up by turning down an offer by a studio (Universal, I think) to star in three films for them. He could've outlasted Seagal in the theatrical film business. Not for long, perhaps, but he could've done better than him. He's a good actor, too, and nowadays his lined, aged face can convey pathos effectively. Seagal has always been too lazy and has too much of an ego.
---
The best Van Damme movie is "Sudden Death," I think -- "Die Hard in a Hockey Arena," but well-crafted by veteran action director Peter Hyams.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
I saw the first few Seagals for the same relaxation I saw Commando. Seagal's deal was that no opponent really much could keep up with him, these were one-sided fights. In real life, a terrible ego. And eventually weight gain that doesn't cut it for action. Oh, well. He had HIS day.
And Van Damme has done some serious indie work.
Point of fact: Sly, Arnold, Bruce, Van Damme, Norris, and others made hay with that "Expendables" franchise. I gotta admit it got pretty fun when Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson showed up, too. The "has been" aspect was tough to take, but they all still had some star power; great to see them share some scenes. Oddly, Jason Statham registered as the NON has been in the movies, the one star of "now."
---
((They are similar. They both have very similar sounding James Horner scores(which, oddly, sound NOTHING like his later scores for Titanic and The Perfect Storm.))
Horner liked to use those steel drums back then.
---
Yes. Very similar scores. And yet, by the time we reach Titanic and Perfect Storm...that sound is completely gone.
I hear strains of "The Perfect Storm" in Horner's (partial) final score for The Magnificent Seven last year. Horner died in a plane crash right before production began, but had written the score on paper; another composer finished it up and got it conducted.
reply
share
mattjoes (53)
8 years ago
((I saw the first few Seagals for the same relaxation I saw Commando. Seagal's deal was that no opponent really much could keep up with him, these were one-sided fights.))
That was his bit, and it definitely had some appeal, even though it teetered on the brink of being grating. As I said, I feel he was at his best when directed by someone like Andrew Davis. In something like On Deadly Ground, where he had total control, the results were highly silly. In all fairness, though, that has its own weird charm, in its excessive self-indulgence.
((In real life, a terrible ego. And eventually weight gain that doesn't cut it for action. Oh, well. He had HIS day.))))
Nowadays, with Seagal's weight gain and lack of interest, I think it's even gotten to the point where, in one of his recent films, he fights someone while --sitting down--.
((And Van Damme has done some serious indie work.))
In 2008's JCVD, especially. He also made an indie comedy, Welcome to the Jungle, I think it's called. And now he's going to star in Jean-Claude Van Johnson, an Amazon show in which he parodies himself and action movies. It's produced by Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions. So, definitely doing better than Seagal, who doesn't seem to care enough to make any effort to get himself out of the DTV rut.
((Point of fact: Sly, Arnold, Bruce, Van Damme, Norris, and others made hay with that "Expendables" franchise. I gotta admit it got pretty fun when Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson showed up, too. The "has been" aspect was tough to take, but they all still had some star power; great to see them share some scenes. Oddly, Jason Statham registered as the NON has been in the movies, the one star of "now."))
I do feel Ford and Gibson glided elegantly over the whole thing, Ford by making a very brief appearance, and Gibson by dominating the film with his villain role (sort of doing it a favor by elevating it with his presence). Also, with their appearances being one-time only, the "has been" quotient felt relatively low. As for the others, Sly and Statham excepted, the more substantial the role, the higher the "has been" quotient.
((Yes. Very similar scores. And yet, by the time we reach Titanic and Perfect Storm...that sound is completely gone.))
He moved with the times. Without being too knowledgeable of Horner's work, I'd say 48 Hrs., Gorky Park and Commando all have a similar, specific sound, very 80s, most prominently in its synth percussion.
((I hear strains of "The Perfect Storm" in Horner's (partial) final score for The Magnificent Seven last year. Horner died in a plane crash right before production began, but had written the score on paper; another composer finished it up and got it conducted. ))
I think it's generally agreed upon that Horner is very self-referential. As I said, I'm no expert on him, but I do recall in The Magnificent Seven there was a distinctive, slightly sinister trumpet phrase, heard over a shot halfway through the film, when the seven-in-progress are riding through an open field. A phrase much like it is heard in Avatar, when the big tree is destroyed. Also, in Avatar, while the colonel is escaping a ship that's about the explode, there is a snare-and-strings section that sounds like it was taken straight from Aliens.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
((I saw the first few Seagals for the same relaxation I saw Commando. Seagal's deal was that no opponent really much could keep up with him, these were one-sided fights.))
That was his bit, and it definitely had some appeal, even though it teetered on the brink of being grating. As I said, I feel he was at his best when directed by someone like Andrew Davis.
---
The first "Under Siege," with heavyweights Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey as the villains was almost "Die Hard" good. (Die Hard on a Battleship.) Notable: Seagal isn't really in it all that much, he's held prisoner in the ship's brig for a lot of the movie.
---
In something like On Deadly Ground, where he had total control, the results were highly silly. In all fairness, though, that has its own weird charm, in its excessive self-indulgence.
---
Well, let's just say I noticed it. I never saw an opponent even get one blow in that slowed him down. There was a pathos to the bad guys even as it was great to see them get the tar beaten out of them.
---
((In real life, a terrible ego. And eventually weight gain that doesn't cut it for action. Oh, well. He had HIS day.))))
Nowadays, with Seagal's weight gain and lack of interest, I think it's even gotten to the point where, in one of his recent films, he fights someone while --sitting down--.
---
SITTING DOWN?
Wow.
There was a film critic who became a film director(for awhile) named , I think , Rod Laurie. He was banned from the Warners lot for critic previews, and for some reason he took it out on Warners star Steven Seagal, referring to him only by the monicker "Fatboy" in all reviews. Pretty gutsy, given Seagal's martial arts trraing.
Seagal was also listed by cast and crew as one of the worst hosts SNL ever had, behind the scenes. All ego. Mean. Narcissitic. Another one of that nature was...Robert Blake.
Oh, well. It didn't work out for Seagal.
---
---
((And Van Damme has done some serious indie work.))
In 2008's JCVD, especially. He also made an indie comedy, Welcome to the Jungle, I think it's called. And now he's going to star in Jean-Claude Van Johnson, an Amazon show in which he parodies himself and action movies. It's produced by Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions. So, definitely doing better than Seagal, who doesn't seem to care enough to make any effort to get himself out of the DTV rut.
---
Well, Van Damme has made nice with his Hollywood contacts. As I recall, Seagal got some reality show cred out of actually becoming a reserve sheriff, BTW. Can't remember where.
---
((Point of fact: Sly, Arnold, Bruce, Van Damme, Norris, and others made hay with that "Expendables" franchise)
You mean..made money? I found the films fun, but a bit poorly written(somewhat by Sly himself.)
---
I do feel Ford and Gibson glided elegantly over the whole thing, Ford by making a very brief appearance,
---
Ford said he agreed to film his scenes en route to some island to film a climate change documentary. He simply stopped off for a day and shot it.
---
and Gibson by dominating the film with his villain role (sort of doing it a favor by elevating it with his presence).
--
Gibson also made for a good(if distractingly chunky) villain in the Machete sequel. (I'm sorry to keep mentioning weight, but its like Seagal and Gibson a little bit just didn't see fitness as part of the job as the agiing Willlis and Eastwood DID.)
Its funny. Whereas Arnold and Sly saw their careers slowly decline to second-tier status, Mel Gibson was "up on top" working at top dollar in big hits(Signs, What Women Want) when he made his unfortunate comments. I was shocked at how quickly Hollywood DID revoke his stardom(of course , he made Passion of the Christ and multi-millions instead.)
Gibson earned his way back with those villain roles, and now with his directorial director Oscar nom for Hacksaw Ridge.
---
Also, with their appearances being one-time only, the "has been" quotient felt relatively low. As for the others, Sly and Statham excepted, the more substantial the role, the higher the "has been" quotient.
---
Interesting thought. And oh, I liked Mickey Rourke in the first one. I'm a big Mickey Rourke fan even though I suspect I wouldn't much like him in real life. (Check out his climactic fight with Sly Stallone in the otherwise lackluster "Get Carter" remake for some great macho chit-chat and bloodsport boxing.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
((Yes. Very similar scores. And yet, by the time we reach Titanic and Perfect Storm...that sound is completely gone.))
He moved with the times. Without being too knowledgeable of Horner's work, I'd say 48 Hrs., Gorky Park and Commando all have a similar, specific sound, very 80s, most prominently in its synth percussion.
---
Yes. Very distinctive. Very 80's I guess.
---
((I hear strains of "The Perfect Storm" in Horner's (partial) final score for The Magnificent Seven last year. Horner died in a plane crash right before production began, but had written the score on paper; another composer finished it up and got it conducted. ))
---
I think it's generally agreed upon that Horner is very self-referential. As I said, I'm no expert on him, but I do recall in The Magnificent Seven there was a distinctive, slightly sinister trumpet phrase, heard over a shot halfway through the film, when the seven-in-progress are riding through an open field. A phrase much like it is heard in Avatar, when the big tree is destroyed. Also, in Avatar, while the colonel is escaping a ship that's about the explode, there is a snare-and-strings section that sounds like it was taken straight from Aliens.
---
The "gag" here is that while I remember some Horner scores exactly(The Perfect Storm) with others, I don't at all(Avatar, Aliens.) So you and I probably caught different influences in The Mag 7.
reply
share
mattjoes (53)
8 years ago
((Well, come to think of it with Arnold, who WOULD be [physically matched]? Perhaps one of his muscleman buddies --the ones who got to play baddies in Conan the Barbarian?))
This is very true. More on the subject below.
((I think folks forget that Arnold ran for Governor only after his career had run out of a lot of steam. Simply put, his budgets were shrinking back down and he was being sent backwards from True Lies to things like "Collateral Damage." (He was also removed from Planet of the Apes and I Am Legend, replaced with Wahlberg and Smith.) Arnold's rise to fame and making of money could never be taken away from him but...it was pretty much over. So he switched to politics and...I think...a NEW con job.))
Yeah, on further analysis, you're right about this. In fact, I think after Eraser, Arnold started taking some unusual roles for him, possibly to branch out a bit, but more likely to keep himself fresh and relevant:
-BATMAN & ROBIN: For the first time since he hit it big, he did not play the leading role. Instead, he was the villain. He was mostly typical Arnold, but nevertheless, a step in another direction.
-END OF DAYS: This project was originally intended for Tom Cruise, but I think Arnold was more logical casting, or at least, when he joined, he made sure it would be. After armies and aliens were no match for him, what else was left for him to battle but the Devil himself? Also, it was interesting to see him playing a depressed, drunk, suicidal character. This was Arnold both subverting his persona and taking it to its limits. I like this film a lot for that reason, by the way, barring some plot inconsistencies.
-COLLATERAL DAMAGE: Unlike Arnold's previous films, this one tried to take the subject of terrorism much more seriously. One can see Arnold was trying to keep up with the times. Once again, he was playing a character stricken by tragedy.
In the noughties, Terminator 3 was a big hit, but a retread. Collateral Damage didn't recoup its budget, and The 6th Day barely did. So as you explain, after returns started to diminish, he must've decided it was time to jump into politics. And I imagine he wouldn't have looked back had he been more successful at them.
((The best Van Damme movie is "Sudden Death," I think -- "Die Hard in a Hockey Arena," but well-crafted by veteran action director Peter Hyams.))
From what I've seen, I'd be inclined to agree. Watched it not too long ago. The film holds one's attention and, by design, the story is cleverly intertwined with the progress of the hockey match, which, in terms of narrative structure, is both gratifying and makes perfect sense. There are at least two bits I remember (at the end of successive hockey periods) in which the film crosscuts between different characters doing different things in different places (Van Damme trying to defuse a bomb, the bad guy about to set it off remotely, etc.). I felt the picture really came together in those moments. Hyams, in general, is no slouch.
Another candidate for the best Van Damme film would be Hard Target, which has a clever premise and John Woo's stylish direction.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
In fact, I think after Eraser, Arnold started taking some unusual roles for him, possibly to branch out a bit, but more likely to keep himself fresh and relevant:
---
Some danger signs popped up for Arnold in the nineties. But not in the first two years!1990 had the "killer year" of Total Recall for summer action and Kindergarten Cop for Xmas comedy(with action), and then in 1991, Arnold found himself in a sequel(Terminator II) that was really a landmark film all its own. CGI morphing came into its own with that film; we may hate it today, but THAT year, it was incredible to behold. And Arnold was in it.
In retrospect, one realizes that James Cameron gave Arnold arguably his three best movies: The Terminator(as a lean and mean B movie); Terminator II(movie history is made) and then the lush and expensive(and action-packed) True Lies.
True Lies is the last truly "big" Arnold movie, and I think the world knew it was James Cameron's baby(though Arnold was the perfect star for it, and Tom Arnold was the perfect comic sidekick. Hey -- Bill Paxton was the perfect smarmy jerk. This is HIS OT thread, right?)
The drift downward came almost immediately after True Lies. Eraser wasn't nearly as 'big" as True Lies. "Jingle All the Way" was a bust of an Xmas comedy. And then came Batman and Robin.
---
-BATMAN & ROBIN: For the first time since he hit it big, he did not play the leading role. Instead, he was the villain. He was mostly typical Arnold, but nevertheless, a step in another direction.
---
As a fan of the two Burton Batman movies, I was excited to see Arnold taking the Mr. Freeze role. I remember thinking: man, this is as big as Jack taking the Joker, just in a different way. Arnold was truly a superstar.
But what had been breaking down in the years 1993 to 1996(don't forget the shockeroo bomb of "Last Action Hero" in 1993) seemed to hit rock bottom for Arnold with "Batman and Robin." The movie was awful, as was the direction(Joel Schumacher), as was the look, as was the music, as was having Robin in it. Arnold was willing to play bad -- for awhile. He reverts to goodness at film's end. No matter. It was horrible -- even though he sure looked great at the costume party. His puns were awful, btw, and the movie shockingly just replicated the almost as bad "Batman Forever" before it(Joel Schumacher, you SOB!)
---
"Last Action Hero" and " Batman and Robin" exposed Arnold as a shallow superstar(who couldn't really act very much beyond his range.) These two movies -- even with four years between them -- combined to kill the Arnold aura. The movies he did after "Batman and Robin" were different, to be sure...but also much lower-budget than Arnold had been getting.
---
As I had showed up for Commando, Raw Deal, and The Running Man when Arnold was starting out, I showed up for End of Days, Collateral Damage, and The 6th Day when Arnold was winding down.
Each film had a certain offbeat intelligence, but it was clear that Arnold was now "going in reverse." These were not big entertaining movies.
The Governor's race was really a face saver for him.
reply
share
mattjoes (53)
8 years ago
((Well, Stallone started with Rocky. All heart plus some righteous violence when provoked. Then he wandered for a few years and then the first two Rambos took Sly in another - emotional -- direction. He got a bit too serious -- and Arnold started mocking him for that in interviews.))
Furthermore, it's easy to forget that, for a while, Stallone was a serious actor, and not just in Rocky. FIST, Paradise Alley, Victory... even Nighthawks. His recent Oscar nomination seems to have regained him some clout as serious filmmaker/actor, and he'll be directing and starring in a film for Fox, about a wounded war veteran returning home. Adam Driver will co-star.
((I can see that. Seagal's career was fascinating: he was the martial arts instructor of Hollywood superagent Mike Ovitz. Ovitz told Seagal: "I'm going to make a star out of you." And he did. It lasted almost 10 years, as I recall.))
That was an unusual occurrence, wasn't it? Seagal might've trained Sean Connery in the martial arts, but in terms of film work, he basically came out of nowhere, and got the lead role in a studio film. Ovitz sure had clout. Ovitz must've adviced Seagal on how to build a mystique around him, with those exaggerated stories of his past: working for the government, diving with the Navy SEALS, his life in Japan...
Anyway, when reigned in by a good director, such as Andrew Davis, and surrounded with a good cast and story, Seagal could make for a competent leading man. I do imagine, however, it must've taken days of intense talks for him to agree to the knife slash above the eyebrow Tommy Lee Jones gives him in Under Siege!
((What I love about that is how right after the daughter is kidnapped, one henchman explains the plan to Arnold ,and how Arnold has to go with him or the girl dies, and Arnold simply says "Wrong" and shoots the guy. From the START, Arnold isn't going along with anything.))
Hilarious!
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
8 years ago
Well, Stallone started with Rocky. All heart plus some righteous violence when provoked. Then he wandered for a few years and then the first two Rambos took Sly in another - emotional -- direction. He got a bit too serious -- and Arnold started mocking him for that in interviews.))
---
Furthermore, it's easy to forget that, for a while, Stallone was a serious actor, and not just in Rocky. FIST, Paradise Alley, Victory... even Nighthawks.
---
Yes. As I recall, the attempt was to go with FIST as a "very serious film"(with an Oscar-winning director, Norman Jewison at the helm) and establish Sly as a prestige star(after all, Rocky DID win Best Picture.)
He tried.
But by 1979, he was in Rocky II, which might well be the first example of a sequel that pretty much repeated the beats of the original, and didn't add all that much new to the story.
And by 1982, he was in Rocky III and showing off such a buff, oiled, muscled body that -- well, the Ascent of Arnold was actually launched probably with this movie.
Why the muscleman stars in the 80's? A lotta reasons, I suppose. Fitness was a big deal(Victor Mature's body was no longer "enough.") Ladies' fitness, too -- Jane Fonda workout tapes. Bodybuilding was "interesting"(thanks to Arnold) if not quite mainstream. Wrestling was taking off in a big way(Hulk Hogan fights Sly in Rocky 3.) And both studios and indie companies were "turning B movies into As."
Sly and Arnold were the big musclemen, but there were others, weren't there? Van Damme of a smaller build. Maybe even, kinda/sorta, Chris Reeve as Supes.
--
His recent Oscar nomination seems to have regained him some clout as serious filmmaker/actor,
---
Yes, its like the Academy remembered the ORIGINAL Rocky(a Cinderella sleeper) and remembered how Sly Stallone definitely showed both star power and acting chops in that film.
---
and he'll be directing and starring in a film for Fox, about a wounded war veteran returning home. Adam Driver will co-star.
--
Well, here's hoping for a good film. Sly must be in his 60's now, but Clint kept working into his 80's as an actor...and might yet again.
---
((I can see that. Seagal's career was fascinating: he was the martial arts instructor of Hollywood superagent Mike Ovitz. Ovitz told Seagal: "I'm going to make a star out of you." And he did. It lasted almost 10 years, as I recall.))
That was an unusual occurrence, wasn't it? Seagal might've trained Sean Connery in the martial arts, but in terms of film work, he basically came out of nowhere, and got the lead role in a studio film. Ovitz sure had clout.
---
Yes, Ovitz did. I've thought about it. Ovitz in those powerful days held most of the A-list stars and could use them as leverage. So..."Put Seagal into a low-budget action film with plenty of promotion and...you will be able to book Eddie Murphy and Sly Stallone for other projects." Or something like that. That said, Seagal's first films were modest affairs; Ovitz knew not to put him in risky overbudgeted films. Three word titles: Hard to Kill, Out to Lunch, whatever...
----
Ovitz must've adviced Seagal on how to build a mystique around him, with those exaggerated stories of his past: working for the government, diving with the Navy SEALS, his life in Japan...
---
It was pre-internet, when all stories could be found false real quick-like.
reply
share