Monday, January 23, 2012
OFFICIALLY UNINTERESTED IN THE EXPENDABLES 2 PG-13!!!
I know it is too early to judge because I haven't seen the movie yet. Who knows maybe the whole PG-13 is just a hoax. And who knows maybe one day I will discover a large vein of gold deposited somewhere far up my butt. Not bloody likely but I am going to keep digging just to be sure. What I have read so far is that Chuck Norris doesn't want any bad words in his movies because kids maybe watching. Uh, last time I checked THE EXPENDABLES was made for adults. Wouldn't the more violent aspect of the film be more disturbing to kids? I believe honestly that the film was probably written to be PG-13 to begin with. A harder edge film probably wouldn't interest a high on values Chuck Norris anymore. If you think about it changing all the unpleasant words but still having lots and lots of stabbings to the face will still land you an R rating. If the first EXPENDABLES had no bad words in it but still had all the blood and guts and torso removings would that mean it was PG-13?
Violence matters, folks. You can't just make a big action movie dependent on big car chases, big explosions, and big heights to hang off of stuff. Those are called adventure films. Which is better ROBOCOP or ROBOCOP 3? Which was the more violent film? Which one was the smarter film? Which film didn't insult the audience by visually lessening the consequences of what it looks like to be shot? Which film left the greater impression on you? Did a jet pack flying Robocop make up for the lack of blood? It is a larger spectacle to have a flying Robocop than one that simply drives around. Violence is an ugly thing and when you water it down you weaken the horrible aftermath of it. It makes violence not seem so bad. When ED-209 is unloading two cannons into some poor bastard in ROBOCOP you see how horrible it is to be shot. At least it didn't look too pleasant for that corporate executive guy, what's his face.
I am predicting that THE EXPENDABLES 2 will have a lot of car chases, a lot of kung-fu, a lot of jumping from explosions, and neck breaks galore. Maybe a bloodless stabbing or two also. Will that be better than droves of baddies blown to pieces by a fully automatic shotgun? I can't wait to see a fight between Stallone and Van Damme but will it be so over the top in it's scale to make up for the lack of on screen violence? Is this going to be way over indulgent like Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi's final fight in EPISODE 3? I doubt the fight will top Scott Adkins and Van Damme's fight in THE SHEPHERD or any fight scene in a Isaac Florentine film. Being a large action film does not mean great action film. I want another RAMBO part 4 not STOP OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT.
I will see THE EXPENDABLES 2 in the theater. I am sure I will like it. But I know it won't be great. I know already that it could have been better. It will be fine at best. Despite having some major flaws THE EXPENDABLES part 1 will be better. It did not compromise. A good action film never compromises the integrity of it's art no matter how cheesy it is. Fix your film, Stallone. We want blood and major impalement issues galore. This time how about using practical realistic effects. Stop relying on C.G.I. cartoony blood. And don't put another Shinedown song in your movie. They suck.
I can only hope that one day I will wake up and all of this was just a bad dream. Until then I will be more excited for UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: A NEW DIMENSION and BULLET TO THE HEAD.....Oh, and THE RAID!