bobcobb-84371

OK, so I have to admit: I can't help but love Sly Stallone. The guy just keeps coming back succesfully, against all odds. Who would have thought that he could pull off another Rambo flick at age 73? Well, I'm glad he did, because besides Liam Neeson, Denzel Washington and Mel Gibson, who are we gonna turn to for some old school, old-man-on-a-revenge-spree flick?

I was a big fan of First Blood, but didn't care so much for the second (too cartoonish) and third (too friggin' awful) installments. The fourth however, was just amazing. A slow build up, a suspenseful breakout and then cathartic violence. That last action sequence, where Rambo goes totally berserk and makes minced meat out of a whole army, I mean, come on, that was awesome.

The fifth Rambo is a little different in that it is more of a generic revenge flick in its setup. But only in its setup though. As soon as Rambo starts maiming and killing, this movie goes so far over the top you can't help but cheer him on. This is one bloody movie. Last blood it may be, but it is many a full bucket of it.

I also like how Rambo is more vulnarable in this flick. Stallone gets to use more of his acting chops in this one.

I know it's a lot to ask, and maybe I shouldn't even hope for it, but damn it, I sure would like another one of these.

Another user here called this flick 'heroic bloodshed'. I find that qualification a bit misleading. I'm of the opinion (not shared by everyone) that 'heroic bloodshed' should be reserved for a particular wave of Hong Kong action flicks of the late eighties and early nineties. For my taste, EXTRAORDINARY MISSION is too far removed from the meticulously choreographed, highly stylized gun violence that was so typical of those flicks. (The same user review that equates this flick with heroic bloodshed also mentions Bay as a reference point, which is more on the nose, I think.)

If we have to stick with Eastern action flicks for references I would call this a cross between INFERNAL AFFAIRS (written by the same guy) and last year's OPERATION MEKONG. Sadly, this flick borrows the convoluted plot from the first flick and the overall ridiculousness (and not to mention nationalistic attitude) from the second.

I have nothing against ridiculous action flicks, far from it, but EXTRAORDINARY MISSION tries to be a serious undercover cop drama while serving up nothing but clichés. It fails to be believable. Neither was MEKONG, but what that flick at least delivered was a barrage of hard violence and insane action sequences (with the shoot out in a mall half way through as the real high light). To see anything similar in EXTRAORDINARY MISSION you will have to wait until the last 20 minutes or so. The action is spectacular, but for me, it wasn't worth plowing through ninety minutes of unconvincing, uninteresting undercover blues.

If you're an action fan and haven't already seen OPERATION MEKONG I suggest you put this flick aside and watch that one instead.

Judging from the two flicks he made, William Peter Blatty was a talented director. He had vision and ambition. But that didn't make him infallible. THE EXORCIST III is a case in point. The theatrical version was flawed and we loved to blame the "suits" who demanded changes and re-shoots. But now here's LEGION, the version Blatty intended to make and I'm sad to report that it's even more flawed than the theatrical version. The theatrical version had that silly exorcism at the end, which brought an up until that point thoughtful flick down to the level of bargain basement horror. But the ending of the director's cut isn't much better, it's extremely anti-climactic and a million miles removed from the theological ending of the book. Another big difference is that in the director's cut Brad Dourif plays both the Gemini Killer/Patient X and Karras. You gotta hand it to the "suits" at Morgan Creek who insisted on re-shoots with Jason Miller, because the going back and forth between Dourif/Gemini and Miller/Karras in the theatrical version works like a charm. That part is much better in the theatrical version.

What's great about EXORCIST III remains great in the director's cut: the performances, especially the lead role by George C. Scott, the eerie atmosphere and photography and the best jump scare I have ever seen.

All in all, EXORCIST III remains flawed in both versions. But it's great that we can establish that by ourselves, thanks to the good folks who assembled the director's cut from whatever crude material they could get their hands on. In that respect, it's mostly historically interesting.