What Tron Did Right: 2010 Loved The 1980s

The start of this decade offered several movies that gladly and blatantly connected themselves to the 1980s. From Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's references to 8-bit video games to those weeks when the nation was once against obsessed with Back To The Future, the Me Decade was big in the cinematic world. Yet of those films that lived on their associations 30 years prior, only Tron: Legacy managed to pull it off. Even Hot Tub Time Machine couldn't swing it and that featured John Cusack at a ski resort in the 1980s.

Tron: Legacy

I'm not saying Tron Legacy was a great movie. It wasn't. Definitely visually impressive, it unfortunately lacked that extra bit of uniqueness that made the original film so memorable.

For example, whereas the original 1982 Tron was a prison break movie done in a science fiction-y landscape, Tron Legacy was a typical science fiction-y film done in a science fiction-y landscape, following most of the tropes of the genre. And, while the original film seemed to connect everything in The Grid to real life computers/computer programming in an understandable, though not wholly realistic, way (i.e. the programs take the form of the creators), Tron Legacy seemed to abandon that premise, opting instead for occasional spurts of nonsensical technobabble and proclamations of “the one.”

Nevertheless, although missing the cleverness of the original film in both concept and execution, what Tron: Legacy did right- and where many of the subsequent movies failed- was respect the source material.

Tron: Legacy did not look upon the original Tron with derision. Kevin Flynn's son didn't mock the Frisbee discs. The original light cycle was treated like a classic car. The movie itself upgraded and expanded upon the effects/look/aspects of The Grid without taking anything away from the original film or the original landscape. While this did not cover up all the film's flaws, it made the movie as a whole more palatable and enjoyable.

Unfortunately, there was no Yahtzee or Moses.

Clash of the Titans

Compare to something like the uninspired Clash of the Titans remake. While the 1981 film isn't as respected or admired as Tron (although Tron itself did not gain respect until relatively recently, as viewers of the 3-D Homer segment of The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror VI might recall), its one blatant reference to the first film drew an immediate line in the sand. (A scene early on features Perseus finding the first COTT's Bubo the Owl in a chest and essentially being told that it's fucking stupid and lame.)

By the way, speaking of “respecting the source material,” Greek mythology features some of the richest stories the world has ever known. Nearly everything drama has tried to accomplish over the past several thousand years was already contemplated by the gods, the demi-gods, and the humans of Greek mythology. 2010 Clash opted to boil down one of the greatest universes the world has ever known to one-dimensional caricatures of Hades and Zeus. To base a movie around their sibling rivalry without even referencing Poseidon is shameful. An excellent CHUD article better discusses the film's problems.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

To read my more in-depth review of Wall Street 2, click here.

Just as Tron: Legacy was a sequel to a 1980s film, so was Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Despite having many of the same behind-the-scenes people involved from the 1987 movie, including returning director Oliver Stone, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps failed where Tron: Legacy succeeded.

The film virtually starts with a shot of Gekko's 1980s cell phone as he's being released from prison. While Gekko's old cell phone has become a stock joke over the past couple of years due to its obsolescence, and the scene got good laughs in the trailer, the moment does not fit the tone of Wall Street or its sequel. It's a goofy moment and kind of a hacky gag. Unrealistic that Gekko would bring his cell phone to the prison, the bit is basically the same “Bubo is fucking stupid” joke from Clash of the Titans without the excuse of being Clash of the Titans.

As the movie progresses, things get worse. When Gekko regains his 1980s persona halfway through the film, it feels forced. Michael Douglas' Academy Award-winning role becomes a caricature based on vague, shorthand ideas about the character, rather than who the character actually was or what he would turn into. Over the past several decades, apparently, Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox turned a boozing pussy hound. Obviously meant as an homage to the private life of Charlie Sheen, this brief scene was not believable as a next step in the evolution of Bud Fox considering how his redemption was the core of the entire first film. This serves as yet another example of Wall Street 2 playing to the simplest members of the audience, instead of contributing to the story, the characters, or the source material.

Although Tron Legacy was supposed to be the bigger and more mass-friendly film, Wall Street 2 came across as caring more about (no pun intended) trading in on the first film's name than continuing the tale. Morals are muddled (even the “greed is not just good but legal” line used repeatedly in the advertisements is only loosely touched upon), character motivations make no sense, and points (if there are any) are never actually made. The more one thinks about the film, the worse it is. It's 2010's Superman Returns.

Though not actually sequels or remakes, both The Expendables and Cop Out promised to return to styles of filmmaking long gone in our world of postmodern, self-referential douchery. Neither delivered.

The Expendables

When first announced, audiences had a lot of hope for The Expendables. Sylvester Stallone promised a return to the action movies of the 1980s where actors like Bruce Willis, Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger ruled the box office. Moreover, he swore to do it again with the biggest action stars of that era.

Unfortunately, The Expendables could not pull it off.

For starters, many of the cast were “modern” guys who don't have the connection that old school action heroes do. That's not to say that Randy Couture, Steve Austin, or Terry Crews couldn't make up the next generation of action stars, but they currently lack the iconic status needed for a film like this. The only “modern” performer that fit into this movie was Jason Statham, whose vehicles manage to harken back to that earlier generation while maintaining a modern feel. His movies might not have the staying power of the likes of Cobra or Marked for Death, but in a world where pure action movies are rare, Statham continues the legacy.

The next and biggest problem was the tone. Neither entirely serious nor entirely jokey, 1980s action films existed in a time before movies had to be self-aware and could just be. Sure they were cheesy, but being blind to the cheese made those movies work, made those movies fun. The “badassery” of Tango and Cash or Commando was tempered by their over-the-top dorkiness but they believed in themselves so the audience believed in them. Although now heavily ridiculed, the ability to give a lame one-liner with a straight face right before slaughtering someone is an unappreciated skill.

While The Expendables featured some of the right actors, the one-dimensional villains, the evil corporate guy, and violence, it lacked the soul necessary to be a genuine 1980s action film. It tried too hard to be cool.

Oddly enough, Stallone managed to find the right balance in Rambo and Rocky Balboa.

Cop Out

Before Cop Out was released, director Kevin Smith said that it was his homage to 1980s action-comedies like Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, and 48 Hours. He condemned critics for not getting it when the horrific reviews came out. Then he said his goal was to make a film he would like to see with his dad. And then he retreated to Twitter.

I want to like Kevin Smith again. I really do. I even found Zack and Miri Make a Porno enjoyable. But Cop Out was a step backwards for the filmmaker and really showcased his lack of progress as a director. And, more importantly, as a 1980s homage, Cop Out seemed to lack any understanding of the genre.

The buddy cop comedy has a style; a look and a feel that makes them different than the typical action-comedy. The pacing and the style of such films can be imitable, similar to what Todd Phillips managed to accomplish with the Starsky & Hutch movie and the 1970s television cop genre. Kevin Smith did not even seem to try beyond combining a Wild Black Cop with a Serious White Cop.

Among the film's many problems is that most of the genre takes place in California; I don't think any of them were set in Philadelphia, as Cop Out was. It would be like doing a takeoff of the gritty New York Serpico/French Connection crime dramas of the 1970s and setting the movie in St. Louis.

Secondly, in all of those films the two partners pretty much meet for the first time as the movie begins. We see how the uptight cop initially deals with the rogue behavior of Mel Gibson and Eddie Murphy, how they eventually grow together, and how their disparate crime fighting styles mesh. We learn at the start of Cop Out that Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan have been partners for a decade. Had the film been about what happens to an Eddie Murphy/Judge Reinhold-style team ten years down the line, that would be one thing, but Cop Out wasn't about that at all.

Thirdly, in the classic films, despite the crazy cop having unconventional methods, he was still a good cop, just an outside-the-box thinker. In that role, Tracy Morgan comes across as a blithering idiot that you're shocked hadn't shot his face off years ago. He is in the mold of Martin Lawrence in Blue Streak and Martin Lawrence in National Security.

Fourthly, the uptight cop might be straitlaced but, again, still a good cop who is passionate about his work, just a bit too conventional in his methods. He is not, and god help me for saying this, dead the whole movie.

Fifth, as a pair, the partners in buddy cop films do not seem incompetent. Overzealous, but not incompetent. Whether apart or together, Willis and Morgan seem retarded at doing their jobs and neither of them seemed to give a damn about the case. It probably did not help that their chemistry was so bad that the film and their relationship would have been better served had one of them been CGI'ed in later.

Sixth, even when the desk sergeant took Willis/Morgan off the case, he seemed more bored than angry. Again, if this was a guy who was just exhausted about having to suspend these two from the force year after year that would be one thing, but it wasn't.

Cop Out was a certain type of movie, but not the homage to the Buddy Cop Comedy genre it purported to be. Instead, it was Generic Action Comedy With A Black Guy. It was Lethal Weapon 3 (complete with annoying lackey Sean William Scott in place of Joe Pesci's Leo Getz), not Lethal Weapon. It was Showtime with Eddie Murphy and Robert DeNiro. It was I, Spy with Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson. It was not Hot Fuzz or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, both recent films that showed a real appreciation for and understanding of the genre.

To be fair, there were elements in Cop Out that made it appear as though some people got it. The synthesizer-heavy score by Beverly Hills Cop's Harold Faltermeyer clearly meant to evoke memories of the era. Surprisingly, the “other” cop team of Adam Brody and Kevin Pollack fit the mold. Brody's a rookie, Pollack's a veteran. They have a weird connection over a small thing (in this case boots). They perform actual police work. They seem competent as a team, yet different enough in personalities to play off each other, and they grow to appreciate each other' value throughout the film.

Conclusion

It requires more than merely saying that one respects source material to actually prove that one respects source material. Films, series, books, and genres are more than just individual elements one can pillage from and call it a day. For sequels, it's more than just throwing in an old line here or there that the audience remembers from the first film. Homages require a greater effort than merely replicating the most basic of basics. Tron Legacy seemed to understand this; the other movies did not.

SHORT REVIEW: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Oliver Stone continues to hole up in mediocrity with the 2010 sequel to his 1980s classic Wall Street, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (the “money never sleeps” part really doesn't make sense even after the film. You'd think it would be about global markets and the internet, but no. And it could be referencing New York City but The Big Apple is barely a setting).

Set several years after the end of Wall Street, Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), recently released from prison, has written an ambiguously successful book (“Is Greed Good?”) about the scandal, and...

Well for starters, the main character in Wall Street 2 is not Gekko but junior stockbroker Jacob Moore (Shia LeBeouf). Jacob occupies the same role Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) did in the first film. However, for a main character in any movie let alone a Wall Street film, Jacob is far too good.

Jacob does not seem driven by the greedy excesses that drive a lot of people into entering the financial industry; he seems to do it because he likes investing in businesses. More than that, he likes investing in green technology from people who genuinely want to do good for the world, and not those who like taking advantage of saps. A big portion of his storyline revolves around getting funding for a a company building some sort of super energy laser (or, as I like to call it, Super Death Ray, Inc.).

He's also a child prodigy, who discussed businesses from a very young age while caddying for stock legend/father figure Louis Zabel (Frank Langella, giving the only halfway decent performance in the film).

And he came from humble beginnings with his mother (Susan Sarandon) who toiled long hours as a nurse. (In the film, she switched professions to work as a house flipper. She suffers when the market goes to shit in a plot line that could have easily been excised.)

He's also dating Gekko's daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan, remarkably bad after her impressive turn in An Education), who hates her father for ruining the family. Jacob, however, loves her unconditionally, and the first thing he does when he gets a nearly $1.5 million bonus from Zabel is buy her an engagement ring. Winnie works as a blogger-journalist for a non-profit blog that she wants to use to save the world.

(Is the point supposed to be that people in their 20s are more socially conscious and less obsessed with greed and status than they were in the 1980s? Because that is seriously not true.)

And he ride motorcycles, which I guess makes him cool.

When the film begins, Jacob Moore is working at Zabel's investment firm as a junior stockbroker. The stock of the high profile firm tanks and Bretton James (Josh Brolin), evilly offers to buy the firm out for pennies on the dollar in an evil wood paneled room of evil financial and government guys. Zabel, having no choice, agrees. Then he jumps in front of a train.

After a brief period of mourning, Jacob sees Gekko at a speaking engagement promoting his book. In his speech, Gekko lambasts the economy, over-leveraging, and all those other economic terms that people kind of know but if pressed for details would stutter until they blame either Bush or Obama.

Telling Gekko that he is dating his daughter, Jacob manages to form a relationship with the disgraced stockbroker. Gekko teaches Jacob about how his time in prison taught him that time is the most important commodity, how family is crucial, etc., etc., etc. He also informs Jacob that Bretton James was acting out a personal vendetta against Zabel, which is why he destroyed Zabel's company leading to Zable's death. Ever loyal to his one-time father figure, Jacob starts a rumor about James company which fucks with the stocks. This warning shot gets Brolin’s attention, and he hires Jacob to be his right hand man. (Bretton, who didn't exist in Wall Street 1, turns out to be most responsible for ratting Gekko out to the feds in a wacky plot twist.)

This is where the film could have possibly gone, and maybe even worked. (Note the words could and possibly.) Wall Street 2 might have been Platoon meets Wall Street, Jacob's soul is being fought over between the new Zen Gekko and unscrupulous trader Bretton, like Charlie Sheen between Sgts. Barnes and Elias. (Of course it would help if Jacob wasn’t practically a saint himself but, like I said, could, not would.)

The film continues along these line for about 2/3 of its two-and-a-half hour running time. Gekko remains decent, contemplative, and, after about an hour and a half, Gekko finally reconnects with his daughter. It seems as good a place as any for the film to begin to wrap up.

But then the film changes completely.

The stock market crash from a couple of years ago hits. Yet, with the exception of another wood-paneled-room meeting where people in expensive suits throw around the term “too big to fail,” the crash doesn't seem to impact any of the main characters. Even the day the crash hits, Jacob is taken to Bretton's estate to participate in a motorcycle race. After Jacob wins, he tells Bretton to go fuck himself and loses his job. (This probably would have happened without the crash.)

Elsewhere, Gekko's character also changes. For most of the film, he seems a genuinely changed man, but it turns out that he gave Winnie a $100 million trust fund held in Switzerland that she doesn’t even want. (The bitch.) She, instead, plans to give it to charity and Jacob convinces her to give it to Super Death Ray, Inc. Gekko also needs to sign for the release of the funds, and he promises Jacob that he’ll give the money to the company.

He doesn’t.

Gekko makes a complete heel turn and steals the money. Winnie breaks up with Jacob, and Gekko rebuilds his business empire. Could the entire attempt to reconnect with his daughter have been a scheme just to get her money? Possibly, but...

My theory: the writers realized that they weren't getting a lot of use out of Gekko in the first portion of the movie. They had good use of him as a relaxed guy, popping in every once in awhile to offer some guidance, like Obi-Wan Kenobi, but Gekko is the most famous part of the Wall Street films. Everyone remembers him. People who don’t know anything else about Wall Street remembers there was some evil guy named Gekko, he liked money, said 'greed was good', and wore three-piece suits.

So, in what I can only assume to be a “satisfy the idiots in the audience” move, they had to switch gears. Gekko suddenly takes center stage as a evil, sinister figure, practically a mustache-twirling villain. Give the people what they want: a rich guy smoking a cigar wearing suspenders while looking at stock prices. Gekko did not become the Gekko from Wall Street, he became the Gekko that people who never saw/don't remember Wall Street assumed he was.

Unfortunately, about halfway through this final third, the writers remembered that people like Gekko. People want to see Gekko. Gekko is the big sell. In another what I can only assume to be “satisfy the idiots in the audience” move, Gekko twists again! Audiences would not want to see the fan favorite character go back to prison! But audiences would not want to see him close out the film evil either. How to remedy this?

The film wraps up by allowing Gekko to have a second redemption plotline where he re-reunites with Winnie, reunites Jacob with Winnie, and gives the necessary funding to Super Death Ray, Inc. And he still has his millions from his new investment firm in England. And Winnie gets the story on Bretton James, thus allowing her social justice blog to explode in prominence. And Bretton James is about to be indicted. It's a ridiculously happy ending with the credits sequence at Winnie/Jacob's son's first birthday party.

Not Footage From Actual Film

The first Wall Street was a dark movie. It did not have a happy ending. As much as everyone loved (or hated to love or loved to hate or whatever) Gekko, and despite how cool he was, he was the bad guy. His greed brought him down. Similarly, even though Bud Fox does the “right” thing at the end and saves the airline and cooperates with the feds, he too will face a prison term.

Yet Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps abandons any sort of lesson, any sort of point in favor of the worst excesses of The Hollywood Ending. If the sequel wanted to continue down the path set by the first one, the character's vices would be their respective downfalls. Or, if the sequel wanted to make a Bret Easton Ellis/American Psycho-esque point about how despite all the back dealing and robbery and insider trading and suicide-causing acts, nobody cares as long as money is made, it could have easily done that...but it didn't. If the film really wanted the stupid birthday party ending, it shouldn't have bothered with Gekko's relapse into evil.

Instead, the film ends with the unsatisfying and disappointing realization that Gordon Gekko has been turned into a mass friendly character, and even by going back to the lucrative well, Oliver Stone still hasn't found whatever it was that made him so notable in the 1980s and 1990s.