James Proclaims (6)

After spending most of December writing reviews of Christmas(ish) films, I’ve decided that I should make the reviewing of movies a more regular feature on James Proclaims.

After all, there are films out there that don’t include even the vaguest of references to Christmas and they shouldn’t be precluded from featuring on this blog just because of one, admittedly careless, oversight.

However, I don’t really get much chance to go to the cinema these days, and when I do I find it a profoundly irritating and overpriced affair. I’d be ok with the cost of a ticket if it meant I got the whole screen to myself, but apparently other people are still permitted to come into the room. Given that most things are available to watch at home within a matter of months of their big screen run, and given that television sets are now quite big screens in their own right, I find the cost of the cinema utterly perplexing.

Obviously I still go for things like Star Wars, but mostly to stop people from ruining it for me. Which, to be fair, the latest installment almost did on its own. Although I did still quite like it I think. I’m not sure. I’ll need to see it another ten times before I’m absolutely certain.

Anyway, with my cinema aversion firmly established, it seems unlikely you’ll gain any insights into the latest releases here.

But I do have a fairly substantial collection of DVDs and currently subscribe to two different web-based providers of visual media.

So I can totally review old films.

Which is probably the most useful thing anyone ever did on any blog ever.

So, I shall be doing just that.

Be warned, however, that not everything in my DVD collection is of the highest quality, but they all have a special place in my heart.

So, without further ado, let us begin our cinematic odyssey.

Image result for demolition man

And what better place to start than 1993’s Demolition Man?

Probably quite few places actually.

Still Demolition Man is the film I’ve chosen to kick this all off with, because few films represent my cinematic choices as a teenager better than this one.

Unlike today, going to the cinema was one of my favourite activities when I was younger. Or more precisely when I was too young to pretend to be old enough to drink in the local hostelries (at least those prepared to turn a blind eye to underage alcohol consumption). It was more affordable for my younger self to access the big screen than it is for my current self. Although I only had pocket money to survive on, I also had no mortgage or bills to pay. Plus I was young enough to qualify for a discount on the entry fee but old enough to pretend that I was actually of a sufficient age see to certain films, despite often being a full year younger than the advertised age-restriction at the time of release. The same thrill I would later experience ordering low quality lager in disreputable public houses was definitely a factor in my willingness to flout British Film Board Certification guidelines and restrictions.

Often I’d just go and see whatever was on – there didn’t need to be a specific movie out to entice me to make the journey into the centre of Cardiff. It was a Saturday afternoon ritual for me and my friends. Meet up in the morning, jump on a train, wander round the shops for a bit, possibly purchase a CD and/or item of clothing from Top Man. Next we’d hit a fast food establishment and finally see whatever film was the least unappealing in the multiplex before heading home on the 17:21 train

But Demolition Man was different. This was a film we all wanted to see.

It was practically event cinema for a teenage boy that year.

Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes on the same screen?

How awesome is that?

Throw in a young Sandra Bullock who was more than easy on the eyes of a hormonal teenager and you had the recipe for cinematic gold.

But, I like to believe that my cinematic tastes have evolved over the years, so it was with some trepidation that I revisited the movie this week.

But actually Demolition Man is quite good. It’s not, you understand, a ‘must see’ movie. If you haven’t ever had the pleasure then you can rest easy in the knowledge that you’re not missing out on one of cinema’s hidden treasures.

But, as a way to pass a couple of hours, it more than suffices.

It is, for the most part, a fairly generic action movie not untypical of the early nineties.

But Stallone, Snipes and Bullock are all competent performers and make the most of the material they are given to work with. Throw in Dennis Leary and  Nigel Hawthorne and the cast is certainly not the worst ensemble that ever spent time together on screen.

Essentially Stallone and Snipes play a nineties cop (John Spartan) and villain (Simon Phoenix) respectively from (the then slightly futuristic) year of 1996, who end up being cryogenically frozen (for reasons that are ridiculous but relatively coherent within the narrative) and waking up in 2032 where the peace-loving citizens are unable to deal with a criminal of Phoenix’s brutality. Apparently only Spartan can stop him.

I wouldn’t go so far as to claim there is much in the way of originality on offer, but at least there aren’t the kind of gaping plot holes that are more than commonplace for this kind of fare. Certainly within the film’s own, admittedly skewed logic, the story does make sense.

The dialogue is often clunky and there are plenty of the ‘witty one-liners’ that seemed to be the staple of action movies of the era. Most of them are harmless enough, although one does stand out as particularly strange. Spartan is in the process of beating up a man that turns out not even to be a bad guy and offers these words of wisdom shortly before pummelling him into submission:

“You’re going to regret this the rest of your life, both seconds of it!”

It’s problematic in that the ensuing fight takes longer than two seconds and the recipient of Spartan’s wrath doesn’t actually die. Also, as previously mentioned, he isn’t even a bad guy. So death threats seem a little out of place.

Where the movie really differs from others in the genre is in its humour. It is quite funny. Not pant-wettingly hilarious, but this is not a movie that takes itself too seriously. Some of the futuristic fads are so ridiculous as to be entirely plausible and the joke about the three seashells substituting for toilet paper still raises a smile.

Throw in some genuinely excellent action sequences, and Snipes playing the bad guy with a gleeful insanity that elevates him head and shoulders above many a nineties-era villain and Demolition Man is a far better movie than it really has any right to be.

 

7 thoughts on “Films I Watched When I Was Younger – Issue 1: Demolition Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s