'demolition man' is a movie that i somehow own, though i don't remember ever buying it. it also was one of sandra bullocks first performances, i believe. DM was another formula action movie, not much could be said about it other than that and it was moderately entertaining. for me, the most memorable part was stallone not knowing how to work 'the seashells,' which operated the toilet. the gimmick could have actually been a lot cooler were it done in a more serious tone, but this was far from a serious movie. the characters' depth is found in the perforations around the cardboard cutout.
correct me if i'm wrong, but DM came out in 1993, which, i think, was really when the 80's action style had been played out. in that sense, DM was a throwback, or at least the cusp of the ending of a certain kind of filmmaking that included 'raw deal,' 'cobra,' rambo II and III, 'red heat,' 'commando,' etc.. (not listed are the chuck norris movies and ones like 'passenger 57,' (another snipes movie from '92-- a little later than the rest, but fits the formula to a tee) but i have to cut the list off somewhere.) after DM, stallone really did only one more 80's forumla action flick imo, 'judge dread.' that and arnie's 'eraser' were pretty much the end of the line. every once in a while a better movie slipped in, like 'predator' or 'die hard,' both of which had sequels that retarded into utter formula, albeit a formula they helped create.
the formulas were pretty basic: loner good guy has to rescue his daughter or would-be girlfriend from the clutches of a gang, terrorists, or a gang of terrorists. i'd bet that were someone to make a plot analysis of these movies that almost with a minute or two of screentime the exact same thing happens in each movie, lol. 'minute 47: insert hero travelling to evil bad guy's fortress.' 'minute 126: audience finds out the hero's friend is really one of the bad guys.'
DM could bench a thousand pounds, but it only pumped a fraction of that into the plot and less into characterization. the plot here really is nothing more than the gimmick. DM benefitted from its stars' personalities, stallone, snipes and bullock, all of whom are great fun to watch. you really couldn't miss not making it entertaining, if nothing else. 'if nothing else' was all they aspired to be, and that's all it is. you could easily retell this same basic story and make it compelling.
of course they still make these brainless flicks. 'xxx' comes to mind. 'xxx: state of the union,' i swear, is one of the DUMBEST movies ever made. i recommend it only because it's so laughably cliched. the term 'outrageously dumb' comes to mind. there's barely a point in dissecting it because it's nothing an attentive 13-year-old couldn't have written. awful, awful, awful... yet fun to poke at.
there's a formula to those 80's flicks. even some of the better ones like 'lethal weapon' and '48 hrs.' had a buddy-buddy formula separate from the action formula. i think the 80's is really where the franchise mentality kicked in in earnest for action flicks and horror flicks. i blame george lucas on that one, too, heh heh. (btw, lucas raped my childhood. had to throw that in there. someone should do a movie with that title. i'd see it-- had i not lived it, baby!) this is the decade where 'franchise' became a dirty word to me. and you can see it in the movies, where some are definitely geared towards a sequel. i'm sure the producers went to sleep at night dreaming of the day they could make 'action jackson II: back in black.'
growing up in the 80's, i saw 'em all. it got to the point, though, where i thought i was watching two hours of stock footage. today's movies are pretty formula, too, but the difference is there tends to be a twist in it. modern cop suspense flicks like to make the captain part of the bad guys. if you've not noticed it, try to remember that the next time you watch one made within the last five years or so and see if it's true or not.
i think that's interesting to note in movies and how you plan on arranging your plot. do i want that twist at the end? or do i want to be more linear, for lack of a better word, and let the audience know who the bad guy is up front? while the twist has always been around, i don't think it's ever been quite so overdone to the point where you almost expect it to happen in most of the movies you're watching. young screenwriters will be influenced by newer material, i think, and go with the flow on that. why buck the trend, eh?
but, look at some pre-80's classic movies. there, more often than not, you knew who the villian was early on. and it *worked*. from my own writing, i think it's a lot easier to actually write the 'villian at the end' twist than writing the bad guy in from the start. one of the more modern, a vastly superior movies, has been 'l.a. confidential,' where we see the real villian earlier than the last fifteen minutes of the movie, like in lesser made movies in the same vein that get cranked out now. (action flicks by their nature have the villians pretty upfront, though, so this isn't as much in reference to them.)
hm, went off an another tangent.
