Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Last Stand' delivers big action fun

Acclaimed Korean filmmaker Kim Jee-woon makes a strong US debut

  • Critic's Rating B+
  • Readers' Rating B
<p>Arnold is, indeed, back.</p>

Arnold is, indeed, back.

Credit: Lionsgate

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

There are very few actors who could walk away from the world of film for a decade and expect to be welcomed back by an audience, but Arnold Schwarzenegger has made a career out of defying the odds.  No one would have expected that a muscle-bound Austrian with a thick accent would be able to carve out a successful career starring in not only action films but comedies as well.  No one would have believed that America would embrace an action icon with the last name "Schwarzenegger."  And now, he manages another truly astonishing feat, returning to the world of movies after his time spent as the Governor of California, and to complicate things, he did it in a really good movie.

I am amazed that "The Last Stand" is as fun as it is, but I shouldn't be.  After all, it's directed by one of the few filmmakers to place not one but two films on my end-of-the-year top ten lists in the last decade.  Kim Jee-woon has more than proven himself as a significant voice in Korean cinema with movies like "The Foul King," "A Tale Of Two Sisters," and "A Bittersweet Life," but it was the back-to-back punch of "The Good, The Bad and the Weird" and "I Saw The Devil" that convinced me that he is an important voice in genre film.  He has a remarkable gift for staging action sequences, and he has a knack for building in all sorts of surprises into each sequence.  I honestly believe we'll be discussing his work for as long as I'm writing about film, and now we'll be able to add a chapter to that conversation in which we talk about how he snuck into the American system making a better-than-it-should-be Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie.

"The Last Stand" casts Arnold as a guy who used to work for the DEA in Los Angeles until he was involved in a really awful situation that went wrong.  He walked away with some scars, but most of his team was not that lucky.  He took a job as a sheriff in a small town in Texas called Sommerton Junction, and he's happy having basically nothing to do.  He heads a very small department, and his deputies include Jerry (Zach Gilford), Sarah (Jaimie Alexander), and Mike (Luis Guzman).  The most they typically have to do is lock up one of the locals, Frank (Rodrigo Santoro), for being drunk and disorderly.

As we get to know the people in Sommerton Junction, we also see another story unfolding, one in which a notorious Mexican drug cartel leader named Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega) stages an ingenious escape from custody as he's being transported from one prison to another.  He ends up behind the wheel of a brand-new experimental concept car, convenient since he's also an amateur race car driver, doing 200 MPH as he heads for the border.  Forest Whitaker plays John Bannister, the FBI agent in charge of that transfer, and he is determined to capture Cortez again before he can escape.  And, as you might expect, the escape path that Cortez has planned manages to steer him right through Sommerton Junction, where Ray is determined that no one is getting across that border.

It's a pretty simple set-up, and one of the virtues of "The Last Stand" is that it doesn't try to outsmart the audience, and it's also not embarrassed to be what it is.  It is an action film, first and foremost, built around a series of well-staged set pieces that escalate until you end up with Ray and Cortez facing down in the most primal way possible.  This is one of those examples of something taking what could have easily been an empty exercise in formula and treating it seriously, and Kim Jee-woon makes an entirely successful transition from the freedom of the Korean system to the American film industry, something that has eluded many talented Asian filmmakers over the years.  One thing that helps is that Kim has Schwarzenegger in the lead, and he's caught him at a moment where he is vulnerable.  There was a time when Arnold only did giant-budget films, and if "The Last Stand" had been made at the height of his box-office power, it would have been a much bigger film.  Here, the limitations of the budget actually work in the film's favor, because it falls back on something that you can't buy… ingenuity.  Each sequence seems important to Kim, and he makes sure to get the most out of every moment.

Even the character moments are handled with a light touch.  Take Johnny Knoxville's role in the film, for example.  He plays Lewis Dinkum, a local gun dealer, and he's introduced early in the movie in a scene that is short, funny, and just long enough to establish why Arnold's going to go back to him later on when they need some extra firepower to face off against Cortez and his men.  The one thing I'm curious about is how a film like this lands at this particular political moment.  There is no way to get around the fact that this is a film that is entirely pro-firearms.  One of the reasons Arnold is able to stand up to Cortez and the mercenaries that he's hired, led by Peter Stormare, is because everyone in the town has guns of their own.  You may think I'm exaggerating, but without giving away some of the second-half gags, let's just say that I mean everyone.  This is a film that comes down firmly on the side of people being able to keep guns just in case, and it pays off in the end.  That may make it hard for people who are heavily invested in the real-world conversation about guns in America to enjoy this as the piece of break-neck entertainment that it is.

If you're a grown-up who is able to enjoy escapism as escapism, though, "The Last Stand" is confident, breezy fun, and Arnold tweaks his own advancing age in a way that never feels like overkill.  He's still a badass.  He's just gonna feel it the next day.  I have to admit, I really wasn't looking forward to his return to movies.  It felt like a moment that had passed.  Now, though, I'm excited because he did it the right way, trusting a filmmaker and using his clout to let the director make the film he wanted to make.  The cast is good across the board, and there's eye candy for men and women alike.  The cinematography by Ji-young Kim is crisp and colorful, and I was delighted by how clean the shooting style for the action sequences is.  There's no shaky-cam, and you can see everything that's happening.  It's ridiculous that I have to point that out, but that's how bad it's gotten in modern action cinema.  Simply observing the basics in composition and geography is cause to celebrate right now, and "The Last Stand" is a reminder of just how much fun a pure action film can be when everyone involved treats it like it matters.  Arnold is, as he promised, back, and it turns out that is good news indeed.

"The Last Stand" opens everywhere on Friday.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Bryant Burnette

    Well, I'd been considering seeing this movie anyways, and now I am definitely going to see it.

    January 15, 2013 at 4:17AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Shaggy_werewolf_talkback_profile

    That Werewolf Guy

    The bad Mexican is called "Gabriel Cortez"? Wow, I hope his nickname isn't "El lobo" or "El loco" or "El loco lobo".

    Apart from that, I'm really looking forward for this one. (Although the version that will be shown in German theatres, is apparently cut to achieve a lower rating. Home video it is then.)

    January 15, 2013 at 4:20AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Hogue_talkback_profile

    BdubU

    Pleases me immensely that Kim Jee-woon has hit the ground running and that in Foul King there is a another one of his I didn't know existed to check out. Hope Stoker and Snowpiecer are just as successful as these three Korean guys are some of the most exciting film makers around at the moment.

    January 15, 2013 at 8:48AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ungruntled Foul King is indeed tons of fun. It's a little uneven, though: it reflects Kim's inexperience toward the beginning of his career, and doesn't always reach the heights of lunatic humor to which it aspires. But it benefits greatly from a rock-solid comedy performance by Korean all-star Song Kang-ho, whose range is apparently unlimited, and when the movie does reach its intended heights, it's drop-dead hilarious. There's an out-of-nowhere sight gag in the middle, for example, that's probably one of the best visual jokes of its decade. And the third act tops the whole film, going for absolute broke in the violent slapstick department. I'd give the film a solid B, knocking it for some pokey, formulaic plotting here and there, but otherwise have no hesitation in recommending it.

      January 15, 2013 at 1:31PM EST
  • 3_talkback_profile

    Intellectual Ninja

    I'm very, very excited that this film is good. I was so sure from the trailers that it was going to be a "so bad it's good" Arnold film, like Commando.

    As for the other thing:

    There's no debate.

    No Amendment in the Bill of Rights will ever be overturned.

    It's not happening. Unless the people that want to take firearms away from the law abiding citizens also come up with a way to also take firearms away from the criminals.

    If you can do that, then by all means.

    Changing human behavior would also help. More people die every year from diabetes, heart disease and many other complications from obesity. Basically, from overusing their fork.

    The fork doesn't eat the cake.

    The real dialogue needs to be about how since the 1990's, mental health funding in the country has been slashed to the bone. Without stigmatizing those with mental health issues, those issues still need to be confronted. Institutions must be reopened, and people who can become dangerous and need help should be able to get that help.

    January 15, 2013 at 10:09AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Well said, but I don't think anyone is seriously considering a full reversal of the second amendment. So, you're right in saying that this will never happen.

      However, a ban on assault weapons and/or stricter purchasing laws are almost certainly going to pass.

      January 15, 2013 at 11:39AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CaptainCanada Er, yes, there is a debate. It's about where the limits are. All rights have limits, including the Second Amendment. Even the ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court have said that.

      January 15, 2013 at 11:42AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho If you agree that mental health is the issue (as I do), would you not also agree that mentally ill people should not have access to dangerous weapons?

      No one is talking about overturning the Second Amendment. No one has said that. Only the paranoid minds of the delusional gun nuts think anyone is discussing that. What we are talking about is banning ASSAULT WEAPONS which have no use but MASS MURDER. You don't need them to hunt with or to protect your home. They serve no purpose other than to kill the defenseless. If you don't support banning assault weapons and stricter background checks, you are supporting future mass murders of children and innocent adults.

      January 16, 2013 at 3:18AM EST
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja Wow. It's amazing how emotionality gross generalization is allowed to overcome logic.

      If you don't support my way of thinking, that means you're for THIS.

      Cinemapsycho, if you tell us all how banning "assault weapons" will prevent MASS MURDER, how you will ban criminals from appropriating those firearms, then I will agree with you. Because all you are doing is banning them from stable, law abiding citizens. You're not banning them for those who would use them for ill.

      Assault weapon is a meaningless name. In reality, all it means is "scary looking rifles." Any shooter motivated with ill will using a deer rifle or a handgun can do the same damage. And magazine size doesn't matter, either. Rate of fire is not dictated by magazine size.

      You want to talk about the defenseless and idiotic laws? Get rid of "gun free zones." You notice how in "gun free zones," they're never, ever protected zones? No metal detectors, no police or armed guards? At least in public gun free zones like public schools? In private schools, in fact, like in the same private school that David Gregory sends his kids, they're protected by eleven armed private security guards. But he's the same guy who doesn't want kids in public schools protected by one police officer. Why do his kids get protection, but less fortunate kids in public schools don't?

      Gun free zones are the kind of idiotic, fear-based emotional thinking that goes into making laws like you want. They don't make us safer. All they do is make us less safe. Chicago and D.C. ban firearms, and what happens? The murder and violent crime rate goes UP.

      But let's remove more of our rights. Because that's smart. Because we FEEL we must.

      January 16, 2013 at 7:43AM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 I think the hyperbole is getting a little out of hand in this post.

      Cinemapsycho, equating not supporting

      I think the hyperbole is getting a little out of hand in this post.

      CaptainCanada – Well said.

      Cinemapsycho – By arguing that supporting ownership of assault weapons is the same as supporting mass murder of children you fall into the slipper-slope fallacy. One does not equal the other and your argument is weaker for saying it.

      Ninja - you asked how banning assault weapons would prevent "criminals from appropriating those firearms." This is really an economics question. If there is a ban, then demand (at least in the US) would be greatly diminished. The market would then respond by making less assault weapons. Sure they will still exist, and some criminals will still have them, but there will certainly be less and they will be harder to find. Thus leading to a drop in their use.

      Second, you say “Any shooter motivated with ill will using a deer rifle or a handgun can do the same damage.” If what you say is true, then what is the harm in banning assault weapons. If we can truly use these weapons to the same end, then citizens with only handguns and rifles should be fine even if the criminals have assault rifles.

      Lastly, not all private schools have armed guards. I know, I went to one. In fact, I would bet that a vast majority of private schools in the US don’t have armed guards. The reason David Gregory’s kids or other people in a similar position have armed guards at their schools is because their children are at a higher risk. Anyone who is rich or in the public eye, causes their family to be a higher security risk than most. Not everyone needs the same level of security. Should we re-evaluate public school security after the Sandy Hook tragedy? Absolutely. Should every school have armed guards? Absolutely not. It would be a waste of resources.

      As CaptainCanada said above, all rights have limitations. Recognizing these limitations isn’t attacking freedom, but instead finding the balance between freedom and safety.

      January 16, 2013 at 1:39PM EST
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja Listen to yourself... "Should all schools be provided with [one police officer. which is the NRA's suggestion]? No. It would be a waste of resources."

      Wow. One police officer per school is a waste of resources.

      To help protect our most precious resource, by providing a deterrent.

      If I were someone as crass as Cinemapsycho, I would tell you you don't care about dead kids.

      Instead, I'll just say we really agree on what is a waste of resources.

      January 16, 2013 at 1:45PM EST
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja * we really DISAGREE. We really DISAGREE on what is a waste of resources.

      January 16, 2013 at 1:46PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 It’s weird how the quote you used of what I said isn't actually what I said. Anyways, moving on.

      Let’s break this down then, shall we? There are almost 100,000 public schools in the United States. The median income for a police officer is about $57,000 a year. Let’s go on the safe side and say that half of the schools already have at least one armed guard so we would only need to fill 50,000. Also, the school year is only nine months out of the year. So 75% of $57,000 is $42,750. Even when taking these things into account, we are at $2,137,500,000 annually. This is without taking into account inflation or anything but salary. Since Columbine there have been roughly 47 school shootings (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html). I know, that sounds like a lot, and some could argue that even one is too many. However, even if these all took place in completely different schools they happened in less than one half of one hundredth of a percent (0.047%). You talk a good game about not making rash decisions based on fears, but then you turn around and want to do the same thing here.

      January 16, 2013 at 2:47PM EST
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja I don't see adding a cop to public schools that don't already have one (because there are some that already do) as a rash decision.

      It actually seems pretty logical.

      This is the one point on which we disagree.

      Our governments spend our money so stupidly, at the federal, state, and local level.

      I don't see why cutting out a portion of, again, our money to ensure all kids in public schools are provided with at least some kind of deterrent against something like this happening is a bad idea.

      It's actually quite shocking to me that some think it is.

      January 16, 2013 at 3:01PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 I respectfully disagree, but honestly thanks for the chat. I'm glad this kind of logical debate can happen without name-calling and the usual idiocy.

      January 16, 2013 at 3:13PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Beef Supreme

    Saying this film is "pro-firearms" is like saying most Hollywood action movies are "pro-killing". Which they ARE, but few people would translate that to a political statement about killing in the real world.
    I hope people can see that there's a difference between condoning the use of guns in an action movie, and condoning gun ownership in the real world. Of course, based on the idiotic debate about violence in movies right now, that's probably too much to hope for.

    January 15, 2013 at 11:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 "One of the reasons Arnold is able to stand up to Cortez and the mercenaries that he's hired, led by Peter Stormare, is because everyone in the town has guns of their own."

      This certainly sounds like a "pro-firearms" argument to me. Refusing to believe that films can make a statement, even if that wasn't the creative team's intention, is pretty silly. While I agree that the debate about violence in movies right now is kind of idiotic, it isn't a stretch to say that this movie is pro-firearms when it depicts the exact argument that pro-firearms activists use in support of individual gun ownership. Which is personal protection.

      January 15, 2013 at 11:36AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Beef Supreme I didn't make myself clear enough, I think. What I mean is that a movie can be "pro-firearms" or "pro-killing" or "anti-whatever" WITHIN the context of the movie, without having to have the in-movie argument extended to the real world.

      If these movie characters save their village because they were all armed to the teeth, that is no doubt an excellent thing for them. That doesn't mean that the filmmaker should be expected to (or even wants to) have this taken seriously as an argument for why we shouldn't have gun control in the real world.

      I see your point though. It's like arguing that we as a nation need to allow torture in some cases, because "what if the Bad Guy knows where the ticking bomb is, and we have to stop him". Now, people actually do make that insipid argument, because they have seen it in movies. It has never happened in real life that we are sure someone knows a time-sensitive secret and torture can stop a disaster. And it never will. Yet, people have seen it over and over in movies, so the argument has spilled into the real world, so I have little hope that gun control will be any different.

      January 15, 2013 at 1:10PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Fair enough. Now I see where you are coming from.

      January 15, 2013 at 1:27PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Beef Supreme

    Happy to see this getting a good review. I'm going of course, having seen every Schwarzenegger movie since "The Terminator" (except for Red Sonja) in the theater... I even enjoyed "The Sixth Day", so...

    January 15, 2013 at 11:27AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Thomas Mayer

    Thank you very much for this absolutely great review, Moriarty!! I'm a film geek from Germany and can't wait to see this movie. Here in Germany we have to wait until the 31. of January. In German theatres the movie will be missing 22 seconds, because they say the movie is too bloody. So I have to wait a couple of months until the unrated Blu Ray will be available. Arnold Rules!! I would absolutely love to see True Lies 2, but I think this will never happen...

    January 15, 2013 at 4:02PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web