Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

When did the Die Hard franchise officially “jump the shark?”  Was it in the second film, when Bruce Willis’ John McClane jumped onto the wing of a movie 747?  Or was it in the third film, when he survived an underground flood by being harmlessly thrusted out a manhole.  Surely, by the time he was paired opposite Justin Long to stop an imminent cyber attack against the U.S., you were well aware this was no longer the John McClane you knew and loved.  Still, many critics have opined that the problem with A Good Day to Die Hard is that the film betrays its roots – that John McClane should be an everyman who not only survives but also overcomes realistic circumstances through grit and determination.  Realistic?  Really?  What about the last three movies has seemed at all realistic?  No, the real problem with the fifth Die Hard is that it’s a pointless excuse to smash a bunch of cars and blow up stuff.

The plot of the movie finds McClane off to Moscow to find his son, who has apparently found himself in a bit of trouble.  As in the previous films, we are reminded repeatedly that McClane has been a horrible family man and is hoping to mend fences with his son.  Sending him to Moscow adds the fish-out-of-water layer to the plot but that only manifests in a few re-hashed American cowboy jokes.  The rest of the plot plays out with McClane repeatedly schooling his son, so much so that I was waiting for him to break out into a rendition of “Kids” from Bye Bye Birdie.  It all gets tired really fast.

If I could make an analogy to illustrate what ails this film it would be that director John Moore and writer Skip Woods gives us the cinematic equivalent of a BMW 1-series.  People may call the 1 series a BMW, slap the logo on the hood, and pay BMW prices, but nothing under the hood suggests that it is a real BMW.  That’s the deal with Die Hard 5.  Other than casting Bruce Willis and giving it a title that not-so-cleverly uses the words “Die Hard,” there’s nothing about this movie that looks or feels like Die Hard.  The plot is generic and uninteresting.  And save for one or two way-over-the-top scenes, the action sequences are pretty unimaginative.  And in a movie like this, if you don’t have top not action then you don’t have anything.

Where I knew things had gone wrong was when the plot took us to Chernobyl.  Having seen Chernobyl Diaries before this film, I can safely say that I hope no other film ever uses this as a backdrop to a fictional plot.  It doesn’t play.  Not even “Looper” Bruce Willis or “Moonlighting” Bruce Willis could have overcome the stink of this whole Chernobyl plot line.  But worry not, because Willis doesn’t bring his A-game to this movie.  He treats it like a paycheck movie.  I have come to realize that Die Hard has become the cinematic equivalent of “fat sweat pants” to Bruce Willis.  It lulls him into not even trying.  As a result, his work in this movie is even worse than his work in Armageddon.   Ouch!

Working opposite Willis is Jai Courtney as his son, Jack.  Courtney recently played the heavy in Jack Reacher and after seeing these two performances I can tell you that he has the screen presence of an uncooked potato - Yes, uncooked.  The issue here is that not only is he a bad actor, but I suspect that he may also be a boring guy. My guess is that he is probably not the person you want to station yourself next to at a cocktail party.  His lack of charisma is a huge issue for this film since he receives as much screen time as Bruce Willis.  As for the rest of the cast, Cole Hauser (Pitch Black), Yuliya Snigir, Sebastian Koch, and Rasha Bukvic are adequate at best and could have been easily replaced by any other actor.  That Mary Elizabeth Winstead is only used in a cameo capacity is one of the more egregious offenses committed by the creative team.  She is a good actress who would have brought a lot more spunk to the narrative than anyone else in this cast.

So, I suspect that there are some who are going to watch this movie regardless of what anyone says.  You’ve seen the first four so you’re pot committed.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  I am right there with you.  But for those of you on the fence, you probably don’t need to see this movie, even if you are an action/adrenaline junky.  There are titles upon titles upon titles that will give you more bang for your buck (or your time) sans the curmudgeonly old man jokes.  At best, it is a FX, TBS, TNT movie but even then you’ll probably regret losing those ninety-one minutes.  If you are a huge Bruce Willis nut, go rent Looper - his best work in the last ten years.  And if you’re a Jai Courtney fan, well then I guess there’s no accounting for taste.  

Standout Performance: Me for not using a joke like this one in the review: “The only thing that needs to Die Hard is this movie.”  ZING!

Read More

Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

I had to do it.  Sure, the mere mention of the title elicited incredulity and every time the trailer ran, it drew rounds of mockery and snickering.  Despite the fact that talking heads claimed that the book upon which the film is based, is an interesting read with an attention to historic detail, I knew not a single person who had read it.  Critic reviews, cinema scores, and box office figures be damned, I was not to be deterred.  Now having seen Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, I can tell you that while some of the derision thrust upon it is understandable, it may not be completely warranted.

The movie follows the life of Abraham Lincoln from small boy in Illinois through the Civil War adding a fictionalized element to his biography – that the sixteenth president of the United States was a vampire slayer (pause for laughter).  The plot goes on to weave vampires into the state and affairs of the U.S. government as it rumbles towards the Civil War.

I think a lot of what has kept people away from this movie is that they feel the premise is ridiculous, which in many ways it is.  But then is it any more ridiculous than the plot of some other movies?  We know that Abraham Lincoln as a vampire slayer never existed, but then neither did Van Helsing, Buffy, nor Blade.  That the movie is so grounded in history and that it gives vampires a prominent role in the Civil War seems to be another point of contention for critics and viewers alike.   Again, I would counter that it is no more preposterous than placing the X-men at the center of the Cuban Missile Crisis in X-Men: First Class or placing Jack and Rose near the center of the Titanic sinking.  After all, last time I checked, this film never claimed to be anything more than fiction. 

With all this having been said, this movie is incredibly flawed but still manages to be somewhat entertaining.  There is not a lot of character development in the film; the dialogue is quite clunky; the CG is second rate; and outside of Benjamin Walker – who at times bears a striking resemblance to honest Abe – the rest of the cast fails to impress.   This is particularly disappointing since Dominic Cooper, Anthony Mackie, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead are capable of delivering strong performances.  Still the movie moves at a brisk pace and builds tension through some well imagined action sequences and typical cheap scares.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is really going to challenge your “willing suspension of disbelief” and if you cannot get past the notion that you are watching the Abraham Lincoln that you know from history books twirling an axe while chasing blood sucking fiends from beyond, then watching this film will turn into two hours of eye-rolling.  If you can take the film as a piece of fiction designed only to entertain, then you will be treated to mediocre summer action fare which is light on depth and exposition but loaded with explosions and fisticuffs.  If you’re the former, then avoid, avoid, avoid.  If you are the latter, catch it on Netflix somewhere down the road when you’re in need of mindless entertainment.

Standout Performance: Benjamin Walker bears a striking resemblance to Abraham Lincoln late in the movie so perhaps the MVP of this movie should go to the makeup artists.

Read More

Review: The Thing (2011)

Let me start by answering the question that I know is weighing heavily on your mind: The Thing (2011) is not a remake of The Thing (1982).  It’s actually a prequel.  Good, now that we have cleared up that pressing question, I can tell you this: the best thing about The Thing (2011) is that it transitions seamlessly into the events that kick off John Carpenter’s classic.  When I ask myself why exactly I watched this movie, I can really point to two things: insomnia and the presence of Mary Elizabeth Winstead, whose work I adored in the thoroughly underrated Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

The issue with this movie is that for the most part, films of this archetype are a dime a dozen.  Alien being from outer space is sent to earth for some reason (or no reason at all) and poses a threat to humankind.  Bloodshed ensues.  One thing that aids the film in drumming up suspense is that it is set in Antarctica, which creates a sense of isolationism that dials up the intensity a couple of notches.  An interesting choice on the part of director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. was to feature the alien extensively rather than slow play the big reveal.  At the risk of sounding like a D.O.S. (disciple of Spielberg), I think the slow reveal would have been the better choice and probably would have helped to mask the overall mediocrity that pervades this film.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is credible as the lead because she is adept at putting forth a rugged exterior that translates well into the role of a survivor.  The issue here is that the survivor is only a good as the threat and ultimately it is the alien antagonist that fails Winstead’s performance.  As for the rest of the cast, Eric Christian Olsen is bland and uninspired and has already seen his best days in Not Another Teen Movie, Beerfest, and the The Comebacks (gasp).  Joel Edgerton continues to look like a masculine Conan O’Brien, but does little to add any value to this film.  The rest of the cast – that includes Ulrich Thomsen, Paul Braunstein, and Jorgen Langhelle – spend the bulk of the film hiding under beards and hoods waiting for a violent death.

This movie is not a total miss, but only if you like films of the horror/suspense genre.  There are a few nail biting moments and a couple of stomach churning scenes that for some might be worth the price of the rental.  If you like Carpenter’s original, you may want to stay away from this one for fear that it might cheapen its predecessor.  I can’t recommend this film, but my guess is that there is a place for it somewhere at the very bottom of your Netflix queue in case you see every other movie that might be of any kind of interest to you.

Standout Performance: Jorgen Langhelle as Lars has very few spoken lines - a classic case of less is more.

Read More