A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD
So, that's Schwartznegger, Stallone and Willis all releasing action films in the space of just one month of each other. An event as unique as last year's alinement of planets but with one major difference. The planets aligning was exciting and interesting.
Something that Bullet to the Head and Die Hard aren't. Of the three, Die Hard is easily the worst offender, mainly because it should have been the easiest one to get right. For god's sake it had Willis in it for a start, a man with so much charisma he carries a government health warning, he used to have a terrific track record for action films. Well, that's a record he's just taken one great big dump on!
This is a piss-awful and wretched piece of shit. A stupid, inept and crap action-film without a single sequence or scene to recommend it. Have you seen the trailer, remember the bit where the incredibly attractive biker girl unzips her leather cat-suit to reveal a stunning body in a black, bulging bikini, well that's not in this film. IT'S EDITED OUT!
The villains are all idiots and unlimited in number, I couldn't tell you how many of them there were or either what their plan was. They exist only to shoot badly and die easily. Nor could I explain how they kept managing to turn up and find the McClanes.
This is a seriously stupid film that's so inept it's painful. There is no internal logic, it's lazy, dull and crushingly slow and boring. It's only 92 minutes long and you feel every single, tedious second of it.
It's all shot by shaky cam and edited by a man with visual tourettes.
I love the original Die Hard movie, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it and this latest installment is a pitiful travesty to its memory.
Actually, come to think of it, I truly hated this film, fucking hated it. Hated every single, stinking, stupid, lazy, pointless, second of it. Hated it so much it makes me angry.
Don't waste you money on it. Instead rewatch any of the first three Die Hard movies, actually even the last one wasn't that bad. But this one just blows huge chunks of bile and it very nearly manages to tarnish the memory of the first.
Willis and Fox must TRY HARDER or DIE TRYING!
2/10
(SPOILER)
10 Stupid things that don't make any sense in this stupid film.
If any of you can explain just one of these to me convincingly then I will change my score and opinion of this film and give it a 10/10.
1. John McClane spends an entire flight from JFK to Moscow reading all the evidence in a police document about a crime his son has committed in a foreign country. The problem, the document is all in Russian, beyond looking at the picture of his son, what does McClane hope to achieve, he can't read Russian!? Similarly, what exactly does McClane think he can do when he arrives in Moscow, his son has broken the law and is being tried fairly? McClane's plan seems to be to stand outside the courthouse and watch his son turn up. WHY?
ALSO! How does McClane have time to gen up on the case, it happens the day before, he wouldn't even hear about it. How is he able to get the actual police report? Why would he get it? how could he get it? What.
How come his daughter hasn't heard about her brother and the crime he's accused of committing? The.
Come to think of it, is that really the best plan a C.I.A agent can come up with to get close to his target? FUCK!
2. McClane survives the following without a scratch:
a. Three massive, high speed, vehicular crashes which includes his truck dropping off a flyover.
b. He jumps through at least three huge plates of glass without a single cut,
c. He takes two savage blows to the face from the butt of a shotgun and doesn't lose a single tooth,
receive a concussion or even suffer a bruise, let alone a cut.
d. He jumps off a 20 storey building and walks away without even a limp,
e. He runs around and even swims in water in Chernobyl without any ill effects. CHERNOBYL
for god's sake, that's where there was a nuclear meltdown! HOW IS ANY OF THIS
POSSIBLE?
3. The lead baddie, who is called Dancer, doesn't execute McClane and his idiot son even when he has them on their knees, hand cuffed and unarmed. He taunts them. WHY?
4. At no point in this film do the regular Russian police force ever show up and attempt to investigate the serious amounts of collateral damage that McClane and the baddies are wreaking. WHY?
5. The McClanes drive from Moscow to Chernobyl in a couple of hours, that's a distance of 430 miles! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
6. When do the villains have time to swap from their Hind Gunship for the heavy body Mil Mi-26 helicopter after leaving Moscow? WHEN?
7. Talking of helicopters, the villain, who is called Dancer, at one point in this film travels from the 20th story of one building, across the road before traveling up to at least the 10th floor of another building to get into a helicopter all in the space of 2 minutes. HOW?
8. What actually happens to all the people in the packed courtroom when the three car bombs go off. There appears to be only two people in the room when the baddies turn up. WHAT?
9. Just how many innocent civilians does McClane seriously injure or kill when he's driving his jeep over the tops of cars or ramming other cars off the road? HOW MANY?
10. The McClanes outrun the Hind 24 gun ship's 12.7mm Mini-guns which fires 4000 - 5000 rounds per minute. HOW?
Saturday 16 February 2013
FILM #16 WARM BODIES (10.2.13)
WARM BODIES
The classic tale of boy meets girl, eats her boyfriend, loses girl and then fights to win her back and convince her father he's worthy of her. In short it's Romeo and Juliet meets Zombie Flesh Eaters.
This year is going to be remembered as the year of the YA film (that's Young Adult to you), films based on books aimed at Teens and youths left adrift by the ending of the Twatlight series of films. In fact, it'll seem not a month is going to go by this year without a new film opening based on a franchise.
And if this is the standard of what we can expect then I can't wait! This was a surprisingly warm and fun film which managed a fresh twist on the 45 year-old zombie genre, basically a story told from the zombie's point of view.
Set in a world over run by zombies and bonnies, what's left of mankind lives in a walled off cities eking out an existance foraging for drugs and food in the world outside the walls. It's during one such mission that a group of humans encounter a group of zombies and a spark of love is ignited that might just save the world.
The film belongs to Nicholas Hoult in the lead role of the zombie, R, He first came to prominence in About A Boy but easily proves that he has the potential to be the next Robert Paterson, but with more charm and less chiseled granite looks. His charisma and humour carries the film and his chemistry with Teresa Palmer works exceedingly well as does his relationship with fellow zombie, Rob Corddry. There is very little gore or violence and where in a normal zombie film this would be a positive drawback, here it hardly matters. the warmth and romance works well and more than masks the lack of blood and guts. If I had one issue with this film it would be that there's just too much running and not enough action in the third act. And the best thing about it, there won't be a sequel!
8/10
The classic tale of boy meets girl, eats her boyfriend, loses girl and then fights to win her back and convince her father he's worthy of her. In short it's Romeo and Juliet meets Zombie Flesh Eaters.
This year is going to be remembered as the year of the YA film (that's Young Adult to you), films based on books aimed at Teens and youths left adrift by the ending of the Twatlight series of films. In fact, it'll seem not a month is going to go by this year without a new film opening based on a franchise.
And if this is the standard of what we can expect then I can't wait! This was a surprisingly warm and fun film which managed a fresh twist on the 45 year-old zombie genre, basically a story told from the zombie's point of view.
Set in a world over run by zombies and bonnies, what's left of mankind lives in a walled off cities eking out an existance foraging for drugs and food in the world outside the walls. It's during one such mission that a group of humans encounter a group of zombies and a spark of love is ignited that might just save the world.
The film belongs to Nicholas Hoult in the lead role of the zombie, R, He first came to prominence in About A Boy but easily proves that he has the potential to be the next Robert Paterson, but with more charm and less chiseled granite looks. His charisma and humour carries the film and his chemistry with Teresa Palmer works exceedingly well as does his relationship with fellow zombie, Rob Corddry. There is very little gore or violence and where in a normal zombie film this would be a positive drawback, here it hardly matters. the warmth and romance works well and more than masks the lack of blood and guts. If I had one issue with this film it would be that there's just too much running and not enough action in the third act. And the best thing about it, there won't be a sequel!
8/10
FILM #15 HITCHCOCK (9.2.13)
FILM #15 HITCHCOCK
Sir Anthony Hopkins and Dame Helen Mirren. The story of the making of Psycho.
I'm fascinated by films that deal with the creative process and in particular films about the making of films, like RKO 281, Living in Oblivion, Synecdoche, New York and Barton Fink.
Hitchcock, like RKO 281, deals with the making a real film, in this case, perhaps one of the most famous horror films ever made, Psycho. In its day, Psycho was incredibly shocking and broke not only box office records but several cinematic taboos and conventions along the way. It's also the grandfather of all modern horror films and without it there would be no Scream franchise or Friday the 13th, in fact it single-handily created the slasher genre. Hitchcock fought long and hard to get the film made and in the end had to use his own money to fund it, so on paper a film about it's creation should be a fascinating one.
It's therefore sad to admit that Hitchcock just isn't that fascinating a film. It's not a bad film per say, it's just very pedestrian and lacks any really bite, or depth. Hopkins and Mirren are both very good in their roles, as are the supporting cast lead by Scarlet Johansson, but the film just chugs along from A to H (d'you see what I did there?) and at no time do you ever feel that the film or Hitch are in a real danger of either the film not getting made or of him failing. Problems arise and are dealt with ease, and the insurmountable odds are beaten with no real effort. And in fact most of the film's drama comes not from the trials of making Psycho but from Mirren's almost fling with randy old goat and writer Whitfield Cook as played by Danny Houston.
Perhaps the main problem is that beyond the filming of three scenes we get no real glimpse of the craft behind the making of Psycho and in the end the film just becomes a series of mild marital problems dealt with by discussion and the odd raised voice.
An interesting effort but no Oscar. 6/10
Sir Anthony Hopkins and Dame Helen Mirren. The story of the making of Psycho.
I'm fascinated by films that deal with the creative process and in particular films about the making of films, like RKO 281, Living in Oblivion, Synecdoche, New York and Barton Fink.
Hitchcock, like RKO 281, deals with the making a real film, in this case, perhaps one of the most famous horror films ever made, Psycho. In its day, Psycho was incredibly shocking and broke not only box office records but several cinematic taboos and conventions along the way. It's also the grandfather of all modern horror films and without it there would be no Scream franchise or Friday the 13th, in fact it single-handily created the slasher genre. Hitchcock fought long and hard to get the film made and in the end had to use his own money to fund it, so on paper a film about it's creation should be a fascinating one.
It's therefore sad to admit that Hitchcock just isn't that fascinating a film. It's not a bad film per say, it's just very pedestrian and lacks any really bite, or depth. Hopkins and Mirren are both very good in their roles, as are the supporting cast lead by Scarlet Johansson, but the film just chugs along from A to H (d'you see what I did there?) and at no time do you ever feel that the film or Hitch are in a real danger of either the film not getting made or of him failing. Problems arise and are dealt with ease, and the insurmountable odds are beaten with no real effort. And in fact most of the film's drama comes not from the trials of making Psycho but from Mirren's almost fling with randy old goat and writer Whitfield Cook as played by Danny Houston.
Perhaps the main problem is that beyond the filming of three scenes we get no real glimpse of the craft behind the making of Psycho and in the end the film just becomes a series of mild marital problems dealt with by discussion and the odd raised voice.
An interesting effort but no Oscar. 6/10
Saturday 2 February 2013
FILM #14 BULLET TO THE HEAD (2.2.13)
FILM #14 BULLET TO THE HEAD
(SPOILER ALERT)
It's recipe time! Take a meaty dollop of Stallone and add some Walter Hill, sprinkle with the next big action hero, Jason Momoa as the baddie, mix in a pinch of Christian Slater and season with Sung Kang. Bake for 91 minutes and what do you get?
(GET READY)
I'll tell you what. A great big, steaming, pile of shit by the name of Bullet to the Head. Actually after sitting through it I'd have to say I'd happily take a real bullet to the face rather than sit through it again.
(HERE IT COMES!)
Boring, lazy, dull. Filled with stupid characters, idiotic villains and bland action scenes made worse by a dreadful, repetitive soundtrack of New Orleans guitar jazz.
(ALMOST THERE...)
If you've seen the trailer you know there's what looks like an exciting axe fight between Stallone and Momoa and if you've seen enough films you'll know that it's going to be the final showdown between these two men. Let me save you the pain and tell you it's not worth waiting for. (LAST CHANCE TO STOP READING BEFORE I REVEAL WHAT HAPPENS) Stallone doesn't actually beat him, his sidekick, Sung Kang (the world's shittest cop) does by shooting him twice in the head, hence the title, I suppose.
Luckily there's a fair amount of nudity in this film, otherwise there'd be almost nothing to recommend it.
3/10
(SPOILER ALERT)
It's recipe time! Take a meaty dollop of Stallone and add some Walter Hill, sprinkle with the next big action hero, Jason Momoa as the baddie, mix in a pinch of Christian Slater and season with Sung Kang. Bake for 91 minutes and what do you get?
(GET READY)
I'll tell you what. A great big, steaming, pile of shit by the name of Bullet to the Head. Actually after sitting through it I'd have to say I'd happily take a real bullet to the face rather than sit through it again.
(HERE IT COMES!)
Boring, lazy, dull. Filled with stupid characters, idiotic villains and bland action scenes made worse by a dreadful, repetitive soundtrack of New Orleans guitar jazz.
(ALMOST THERE...)
If you've seen the trailer you know there's what looks like an exciting axe fight between Stallone and Momoa and if you've seen enough films you'll know that it's going to be the final showdown between these two men. Let me save you the pain and tell you it's not worth waiting for. (LAST CHANCE TO STOP READING BEFORE I REVEAL WHAT HAPPENS) Stallone doesn't actually beat him, his sidekick, Sung Kang (the world's shittest cop) does by shooting him twice in the head, hence the title, I suppose.
Luckily there's a fair amount of nudity in this film, otherwise there'd be almost nothing to recommend it.
3/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)