Like many of you, I started off 2012 with a new year’s resolution to work out.  And, hopefully unlike many of you, two weeks into the new year … I’ve yet to do a single push-up. (sigh)

“Where to find a little workout inspiration?,” I wondered. “Ah, yes, Rocky IV.”  Watching it for the 5,849,948th time, I am compelled to share with you my thoughts on… the greatest film ever made.  Yes, that is not mere opinion but fact.  Rate it on a sheer entertainment, emotions-evoking, never-goes-stale standard and surely you’ll agree.

To be fair, “Rocky IV” is not an overly political film, nor was it intended to be.  But it nonetheless encapsulates several key conservative points, so much so that it was, and still is, slammed by leftist critics as right-wing propaganda.  Behold, the top 10 conservative lessons of “Rocky IV”:

1) Communism… (let me be succinct and find the right word here…) sucks.

(more…)

Editor’s note: Script reviews of upcoming projects have been around for as long as there’s been an Internet. Therefore it’s no secret that a film can evolve into something quite different from its screenplay. Please keep in mind that this article represents a look at a particular script and not the final product. *some spoilers*

Thanks to political correctness, ours is a rough day for masculinity. Strong men are painted as tyrants, heroic men as ego-centrists, and moral standard bearers as bigots, or worse. This is particularly true in Hollywood, where a purposeful revisionism toward manhood has been under way for decades.

—–

Not surprisingly, big screen super heroes and mythic figures of valor – male figures – have been among the hardest hit by this revisionism. As a result, the mighty have learned to cry, the powerful to admit vulnerability, and the brave to second-guess themselves, all in an effort to win over the effeminized masses. And this is what makes the screenplay for the upcoming feature film, “THOR,” so wonderful: not because it carries on the ridiculous revisionism, but because it shatters it with a hammer blow from Thor himself.

Through its clear portrayal of an unapologetically strong male who comes to the rescue of female characters, risks his life in the defense of right and wrong, and loves his world (his realm) in an undying fashion, “THOR” promises to revitalize masculinity in 2011 the way “The Expendables” did in 2010.

Early in the screenplay we see Thor as a young man, and a citizen of the realm of Asgard, about to be crowned king of that realm by his father, Odin, who had been King of Asgard for some time. In that moment of passage, Odin’s words to Thor set the tone for the rest of the film — a speech about how responsibility, duty, and honor” are central to the charge Odin gives Thor, and as the screenplay unfolds, they are central to all that Thor does.

(more…)

Love or hate them, the 1980s had an impact on pop culture that the world has never quite shaken. From the advent of music videos to ridiculous hair to flashy films and TV shows, everything seemed bigger, louder and brasher back then.

But no other genre of that time divided people’s loyalties as much as the decade’s testosterone-fueled action films. Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris were three of the muscle-bound wisecrackers laying claim to the title of World’s Toughest Man. But none of those guys ever held a candle to the toughest guy of all, Sylvester Stallone.

With the Rocky franchise going full bore and Rambo first making the scene in 1982, it was a great time to be Sly. But then came the ’90s, and moviegoers were offered a menu of sensitive heroes and spectacular special effects taking the place of stars and stuntmen risking their necks onscreen. Stallone himself actually blames the ability of Michael Keaton to put on a suit full of fake muscles and become Batman as the moment that his own juiced-up muscles ceased to be important to audiences.

But if there is one thing Hollywood loves more than a mere winner it is a successful comeback. And in the past three years, Stallone’s been slowly building one, mainly through reprising roles he created and knows best, first in 2006’s “Rocky Balboa” and then “Rambo” in 2008. (more…)

[Ed. Note: This is the first part of a series expressing our affection for the kind of unpretentious, action entertainment Stallone is hoping to revive to with "The Expendables."]

There are few greater joys than ‘80s action films.  When I was younger, my brother and I sought out the craziest ones we could find for marathon viewing.  The appeal is obvious:  these movies are pure; they don’t waste time trying to excuse their existence.  There are no hackneyed back stories that reduce the protagonists to simpering man-babies in third act monologues; there are no juvenile progressive sucker punches (usually); and, most importantly, there’s no pretension. 

You can’t tell someone who didn’t like Die Hard that they didn’t “get it” or use your love of Rowdy Herrington flicks to passive-aggressively show off to your friends.  You’re not watching these movies to groom your image or impress anyone.  All you’re doing is marveling at the most sensible use of a medium that consists of moving images:  incredible feats performed by tough, charismatic men.  You’re laughing at the goofy charm (or genuine stupidity) of whatever insane premise is holding it all together. 

As noted previously on BH, Hollywood has abandoned these fundamentals, and the result has been a decade of hum-drum, camera-shaking clunkers with no personality and virtually no special effects created for real-life cameras to capture.  That is, Hollywood has abandoned these fundamentals, with one exception:  Sylvester Stallone.  (more…)

I hated the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark. No, not the Citizen Kane homage rosebud scene at the end – I loved that – but the ending of the movie. I didn’t want it to end. I hadn’t enjoyed a film that much since, well, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, or Jaws. I wanted it to continue. I wanted more. 

I got more and I didn’t want it. 

Why don’t sequels do well? Obviously, I’m not alone in feeling the way I do about Raiders or Star Wars or Jaws or any other great character-rich, dynamically set film that pulls you in and doesn’t fully let go even after the end titles trail up and we see that film certification symbol fade out. So, why is it that more of what we love, we hate? Well, maybe not hate, but not love quite so much. What’s going on here?  (more…)