Tendentious people are tendentious (and frequently dumb).

It will surprise no one who read my previous post to learn that the folks at Big Hollywood loved The Expendables exactly as much as they are ideologically required to anticipated. Still, John Nolte’s review is a teleological marvel. What he likes about the film is

the simple straight-forward plot, all the B-movie mayhem you could possibly ask for, and two unapologetic hours of masculinity—which may be two hours more than we’ve seen in all of the last decade put together. These boys smoke cigars, drink beer while piloting airplanes, and return us to those glorious pre-Oprah days when stoicism was still a virtue and real men didn’t gush about their inner-emotional lives like 13 year-old girls drunk on Dr. Pepper at a slumber party.

Maybe someone should tell him that the reason flat characters don’t “gush” about “their inner-emotional lives” is because they don’t have them. Maybe I should. I suppose I will. Please, Mr. Nolte, continue:

Sylverster Stallone’s glorious throwback to the brawny 80s is also about something, and it’s not Bourne-ian self-discovery. It’s about something that actually matters. And in this age of nihilism when believing in anything bigger than self is considered old-fashioned, unsophisticated and naïve, that’s both refreshing and important.

If you insist on italicizing the word “about,” you might want to indicate what that “something” that it’s about actually is. Sorry, I’m being rude. Mr. Nolte, you may continue:

The story opens with a well-crafted action sequence involving Somalia pirates that not only establishes how deadly competent our guys are, but also that they’re not cold-blooded killers. These are men with a moral code and one of their own breaking that code will be the root cause of deadly complications and a couple over the top action sequences to come.

So these are mercenaries who only ever fight the good fight? If I may, Mr. Nolte, let me recommend my friend Adam Roberts’s post on Iron Man, in which he notes that that film adheres to

the dream narrative of US military involvement in the Middle East: one American is able to go to Afghanistan, kill only the bad Afghans, leave all the good Afghani men women and children alive and leap away into the sky.

That “dream narrative” isn’t the product of a moral code, but simply a denial of the reality of reality. But I should let you finish:

The plot gets a nudge courtesy of a self-referential Meeting of The Titans. Ever in search of a job, Barney meets with “Church” (Bruce Willis), a CIA spook in need of some housecleaning that won’t make headlines and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a long-time rival. Cinematically this is far from a great scene—

First, stop pretending to be German. Second, I think you’re starting to realize that you didn’t even like the film. You call it a “B-movie,” rate its action scenes as “over the top,” and now you’re criticizing how it films a conversation. What did you think of the dialogue?

[T]hese aren’t men who talk a whole lot, and when they do it’s usually in the form of affectionate crowd-pleasing insults that might not move the plot or add character dimension, but once again Stallone (who co-wrote the screenplay with Dave Callahan) knows his audience.

I definitely think you hated this film. I mean, you’re praising dialogue that neither advanced the plot or added depth to the characters because, to your mind, Stallone’s audience consist of people who prefer pointless banter. I can’t even tell whether you’re insulting them more than your own intelligence here or vice versa. Wait, I have a test:

There’s also a kind of validation that comes with the price of admission, especially for those of us who couldn’t figure out why in the hell anyone would call metro-sexuals angsting over calling evil what it is and apologizing for America an action movie.

“The Expendables” proves us right.

Matt Damon sucks and the eighties freaking ruled.

I’m still not sure, but I will say this: your intelligence deserves to be insulted, because the reason you’re saying “Matt Damon sucks” is that he starred in movies with “Bourne-ian self-discovery,” whereas The Expendables “freaking ruled” because it was of the 1980s. Guess what? So’s The Bourne Identity (1980) and, of course, The Bourne Identity (1988).

Hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Nolte, but your precious ’80s were a bit smarter and more “inner-emotional” than you’ve chosen to remember them as.

Comments

[Matthew Merlino]

Could we please just agree that we've had enough Michael Cera- and Seth Rogan-esque heroes? Whiny neurotic men just don't do it for me anymore.

[SEK]

So what you're saying is you're glad Scott Pilgrim tanked, even though it was directed (apparently quite well) by the talented Edgar Wright? I see. I haven't seen either film yet, but I'd prefer to support the careers of people 1) under 60 and 2) with actual new ideas (or an intimate knowledge of what a mashup is, and how to make it work).

[tomemos]

"Could we please just agree that we've had enough Michael Cera- and Seth Rogan-esque heroes?"

Here's a counter-offer: no.

"Whiny neurotic men just don't do it for me anymore."

You're more into well-oiled, masculine, strapping older men flexing their big muscles through their tank tops while firing giant machine guns? I think I see what you're saying.

[tomemos]

After posting it, I felt bad for that cheap shot in my second paragraph. I don't know anything about Matthew Merlino and don't mean to project onto him my irritation with the attitude expressed by John Nolte. (Similarly, Scott, Matt didn't say he wanted Pilgrim to fail.) There's nothing wrong with expressing a preference against a particular type of character.

But I do remain nonplussed by Matt's request (plea, even) that we "just agree" to dislike the character. What's it to you, Matt?

[Ahistoricality]

The Matt Damon/Bourne-bashing betrays the shallowness of the BG consideration of the issue. Bourne is a loyal and effective soldier betrayed by elements of his own out-of-control government, one which has taken to carrying out private vendettas and wasting taxpayer money on dead-end, pie-in-the-sky projects. Bourne never has moral qualms about his actions, and wants to be left alone: he's a perfect libertarian, and their failure to recognize this is just one more piece of evidence that they don't understand themselves, much less anything else.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I don't know anything about Matthew either, and I haven't seen any of these movies (nor will I). But any sentence that begins "Can we please just agree" just shouldn't lead to another one that complains about whiny neurotic men. Form and content shouldn't clash like that, or, you know, someone has to burn down the sentence with a flamethrower that he lights from his cigar as he stoically ignores the pain of having to read it.

[Matthew Merlino]

Wow. It's like I tweaked someone's nipple. Didn't realize the Michael Cera love went this deep.

First off, Rich, you're being a little tone deaf. Then again, there's not enough of my initial post to get any real sense of tone. Needless to say, I'm not whining.

Second, Scott, no, I didn't care if *Scott Pilgrim* succeeded or didn't. It looks like a retreat of other Michael Cera movies, only this time with Real Live Special Effects. Do I need to see another awkward man-child chase after a hipster girl? Not really, not after *300 Days of Summer* or *Chasing Amy* or *Nick & Nora* or or or. The fact that the plot plays like a video game doesn't help it in my books, because as you know, I'm a pretty big snob when it comes to comics, video games, etc.

Finally, you can defend the whiny man-child hero. I'll take Bogart or Brando.

[tomemos]

Matthew, when people object to what you write, you should consider whether they might be objecting to your mode of expression rather than the content. Most people do not mind hearing that someone else doesn't like a particular actor. On the other hand, it tends to stick in people's craw when you say that they should "please just agree" to agree with your position, whether you're talking art, politics, or what have you.

I can't tell whether you saw 500 Days of Summer and Nick & Nora or not. I didn't, because the reviews weren't good and no one recommended I see them, which I find is a good way to save my money and keep from getting annoyed. Did you see them expecting to enjoy them? Or expecting not to enjoy them? Or did you not see them but are annoyed with the trend anyway? Nothing wrong with that—I'm annoyed by the incessant trend of remakes—but I don't find it productive to simply ask for people to stop liking them; if I'm going to talk about them at all I'd rather give an argument for why they're bad, rather than gripe about a personal preference.

I've stopped enjoying Anthony Lane's criticism because all he does is harp on modern pop cinema (often the really easy targets, Speed Racer, e.g.) and complain that it's not as good as the old stuff. That's a pretty shoddy way to make a living, but at least he gets paid for it; I don't know what would make one do it for free. There ain't going to be no more new Bogart or Brando movies, so I would find some new stuff you like—or blog about the old—rather than just going around stating contrary preferences without elaboration.

[Matthew Merlino]

Tomemos -- like I said, I clearly tweaked someone's nipples. I really don't really too much about Michael Cera. I pick on him because it's fun. But it's interesting to see the response, to see how much some people have invested in such a limited actor.

I mean, I guess I can understand. I used to defend Scarlett Johansson a lot, before simply accepting that, although she's wildly talented, she has no idea how to choose the right roles (or how to turn Woody Allen down).

In the end, though, I was watching Altman's *3 Women* tonight, and I remembered just how different a great movie from any of this trite crap, whether it's Sly Stallone or Michael Cera.

[SeanH]

If you think that action movies are all terrible now that "real men ... gush about their inner-emotional lives", doesn't this compel you to think that Die Hard was where action movies started to go wrong? And isn't that a patently absurd thing to think?

[tomemos]

Ah yes, the oldest trick in the book: "I totally don't care, but I got you to reveal that you care, and I just think that's interesting. Checkmate!!"

If you were really confident in the greatness of your favorite cinema, you wouldn't feel compelled to compare it to every summer film that comes along. No one was expecting Edgar Wright to dethrone Altman, so your interest in putting them in the ring together shows me that you're a lot less secure in your personal canon than you like to project. I just think that's interesting.

[Gas]

Don't know about you, but I'm about equally into "well-oiled, masculine, strapping older men flexing their big muscles through their tank tops while firing giant machine guns" as I am into Michael Cera- and Seth Rogan-esque whiny neurotic men.

On Saturda mornings I have a greasy breakfast, go to the gym, and then I go back hometo be whiny and neurotic for the rest of the afternoon. And by God I'm proud of it.

[Matthew Merlino]

No, Tomemos, you're inventing some intentionality where none exists. I had no intention of showing that anyone cared about Michael Cera or the whiny man-child hero. Which is why I so confidently asked, "Can we all just agree, et cetera?" I was actually surprised by this reaction. It's one thing to enjoy Cera in *Arrested Development* (he's a child, after all); it's another to put up with the same character in every one of his films, and the same character in so many other films.

And yeah, of course I'm insecure about my "canon," as you put it. Not because I'm not confident that it's superior, but because artistic superiority means nothing today. We don't teach it, we don't appreciate it, we don't write about it, we don't read about it. It's an endangered species. And when we get smart people arguing over the relative merits of a Stallone or Cera picture, well, I think we're in trouble.

[Ahistoricality]

Not because I'm not confident that it's superior, but because artistic superiority means nothing today.

Already into "Kids these days" declensionism? Bad troll! Bad troll!

[JPool]

You know what really tweaks my nipples? Repeated use of the phrase, "I clearly tweaked someone's nipples."

[tomemos]

While I find the "ubi sunt" tone annoying too, I wouldn't say Matthew has been trolling. Just moaning.

[Adam Kaiserman]

Over here (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-sylvester-stallone-blames-batman.html), you can see Stalone blame the decline of the 80s muscle-and-gun genre on Tim Burton's Batman. The terms he employs are hilarious.

"He went on to say, 'The action movies changed radically when it became possible to Velcro your muscles on,' a clear dig at how the trim Keaton was encased in a sculpted Batsuit for the film. Stallone joked, 'I wish I had thought of Velcro muscles myself... I didn't have to go to the gym for all those years.'"

He then goes on to make a distinction between how Burton made action films less about the actor and more about the style of the film. What strikes me as significant about Stallone's values is that he underplays the art of film making (direction, custom design) for the mere physicality of the actor. However, it also seems significant that Stalone's discourse suggests a language of masculinity and self-improvement that sees the strong male action hero attacked by directors, geeks, and other collaborators whose existence are necessary for any film to be made, let alone an action film.

[Matthew Merlino]

It's so interesting how the term "troll" is used to police thought on these threads. You know, it's hard to be a troll when I've been commenting on Scott's blog for, I dunno, seven years now? Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree. But when I disagree under my real name, and not my blog name (Luther Blissett), I get called a troll. It goes to show how much uniformity of thought people basically desire.

And no, it's not a "kids these days" complaint. I *am* one of the kids these days. No, it's more a complaint about what the previous generation of intellectuals did to the standards of taste. I'm a rebel against old fogies who "deconstructed" the canon.

And JPool, sorry if the nipple tweaking gets you down. In any case, I touched a nerve by not joining the Michael Cera whiny man-child lovefest.

[tomemos]

Matthew, I found out who you were after my first comment, and for the record I find your repetitive smugness just as monotonous and annoying regardless of the persona you use. Maybe if I point out that, in this "Michael Cera lovefest," not one person has praised Michael Cera, you'll realize that people are objecting to your superciliousness rather than the content of your opinions, as I said before. But most likely you'll keep chortling to yourself about how you touched a nipple.

[Rich Puchalsky]

It's impossible for just one person to have the blog name Luther Blissett. I'm disappointed if it hasn't been a group name locally.