Star Trek: Into Darkness does many things I love in its effort to extend a seemingly undying franchise!

After Starfleet has had enough of Captain Kirk’s reckless and complacent actions they have him demoted and his ship taken away. But no sooner does a mysterious terrorist called John Harrison emerge from the shadows with the desire to destroy all of Starfleet. Only Kirk and his crew can stop him.

The reborn Star Trek series did one thing right, and fortunately it is continuing to reap the benefits of that decision. The 2009 remake made it clear that these new series of events are a new, divergent timeline and as a result the writers can do almost anything! Into Darkness plays a lot of cards that the Star Trek fans will get instantly, and better still they cannot technically cry foul of any references or changes.
 
It might sound like I am saying this is a remake. Not at all. Part of this new series strength lies in its ability to be completely different, yet have some historically significant events. Awesome for those of us who know our Trek, because we are left in suspense; wondering if what we think we know will happen or not…
I cannot spoil anything for you all (a testimony to film these days: I’ve had several reviews recently where I have had to cut short of the juicy details!) but I can talk about how the continuity of the first film is still here. The music is bombastic and victorious, the ships are great to look at, the characters are still as loveable as before, reminding us why we like them so much. They each get their time to shine, Simon Pegg’s Scotty is great as ever. 

However I still don’t buy into the Uhura/Spock romance… it has been four years and I still think its stupid, and this film does little to validate its existence. Some of the dialogue is a little repetitive, boiling down to the old “Kirk/Spock logic-vs-emotion” chestnut frequently. The editing is insane at times, we are flung around with characters moving place to place rapidly (if you aren’t awake you will slip up) and it does suffer from action sequences that are too fast (I saw this in 2D, I dread to think how this movement registers in the darker 3D.) I also found the addition of Alice Eve’s character Carol Marcus a little… pointless? (trailer fodder?)

But that’s all my negatives right there. Benedict Cumberbatch does not disappoint and steals every scene he is in without saying anything (and when he does speak, there’s a ton of gravity in it!) he makes the rest of the cast look incredibly vulnerable. This film takes on board what I always believe is true: set up your heroes first (ie Star Trek 2009) then hit them hard with a relentless villain.

The film is fast paced; you won’t feel the two hours pass by. And yes, there are still plenty of JJ Abrams lens flares. There are some little things that bother me, and it might be better on a second viewing, but it is still Star Trek, and that means it is a fun, exciting and entertaining science fiction adventure!

Additional Marshmallows: If you have already looked this up on IMDB these days, then a major element of the film has already been spoiled for you… I was lucky enough to not have this happen, and I strongly advise you do not look at the page until after you’ve seen the film!

So I finally rectify my criminal shortcoming in not seeing Paranorman in the cinema! I have to say, I wish I hadn’t made myself wait so long.

From the creators of Coraline comes another intense, entertaining family film set in a small town that labours under a history of witchcraft and prosecution of witches. Norman is a quiet child who has the strange power of speaking to ghosts, and while people around him call him names and put him down, his power is about to be the one thing that can save the whole town from black magic.

That’s the short description anyway, Paranorman is a lot more than the advertised supernatural comedy/adventure. There’s plenty of social context in the movie in relation to the prejudices of old still resounding today, as well as a heartfelt and family driven theme. 
Much like with Coraline, I respect this film for its gutsy and challenging look towards children’s films; it is fun and has great humour but it never condescends and never dumbs down its audience for sake of cheap laughs. Some parents might find it dark… but this is the sort of thing I was brought up with, and I can safely say I would love this as a kid.

Asthetically too the film is gorgeous. I am a big fan of stop-frame animation, but there is a fine line where it is perfect for me; the point where you can still see the seams, but not jerky (Corpse Bride is an example of the style becoming too perfect) Here it is characterful.
The music too is great and really adds to the haunting and quirky atmosphere that is loaded into every frame of the film.

A lot of people say the characters are stereotypical and one-dimensional: the weedy, nerdy kid; the vain blonde sister; the dumb jock; the socially awkward fat kid… But it is so obviously deliberate I didn’t have a problem with it, their dialogue is wonderful throughout, and these characters make me think of old 80s and 90s cartoons.

Overall, Paranorman is one of those films that actually lived up to the hype I had been hearing, and I would recommend it for everyone (yes, even the very young!) to see it around Halloween time.

Additional Marshmallows: It is obvious to me now how Paranorman completely trounced Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie when they both released last year! They both have some similarities, but this is how you do it.

Stark’s getting too big for his iron clad boots, so big that there’s no room for anyone else!

With an advanced, advanced preview I can give you my thoughts on Iron Man 3, and I can tell you right now, you aren’t going to expect half of what happens! (the trailer threw me completely off the scent)

The film is set after the events in Avengers Assemble and we see a burnt out Tony Stark who is overwhelmed with the hero worshiping and the memories of his near-death experience. The events in Avengers are game changing, and he isn’t ready for competitors pioneering in bio-warfare technology or the terrorist known only as The Mandarin.

The good stuff first. Robert Downey Jr is still on fire as Tony Stark (and no matter what I might say to lessen this experience, fans of his will still love it for him) his dialogue is still snappy and loaded with sarcastic wit. The action sequences are very creative and ludicrously dynamic what with Tony’s newest suit’s ability to fragment and locate him, or for it to fly and work remotely. Almost all of the action sequences revolve around this trick (if you thought the suitcase suit was bizarre, you ain’t seen nothing yet!)
There are several occasions were Stark has to make do without the suit, and these are definitely the best moments in the film! Hilarious. 

But if I can now dive into the problems… I didn’t like the film’s antagonist. Now I may start wobbling into spoiler territory here, but early on in the film we are introduced to an indestructible soldier. Think of a fiery rendition of the Terminator’s T-1000 (reforming lost limbs and all) and these soldiers become the film’s main threat.

The special effects are great, but the villain’s motivations and personality are paper thin. We know and love Tony Stark, now the story needs to give us some convincing villain for him to face and what we get here is not the answer. Yes, I will go out and say it: Iron Man 2’s Whiplash was more interesting.

My issue is with the film’s overriding focus on Stark himself (what, I hear you cry) because the story’s justification for this feels shallow and unrefined:

“The love triangle in this movie is between Tony, Pepper and his obsession with those suits.” - Producer Kevin Feige.

That is the film’s meat at the end of the day and honestly I felt it was an insufficient theme for a third (technically fourth) outing for these characters.  

Urgh, I can’t say the film wow’ed me. It isn’t your typical “trilogy third act”. In fact it is remarkably underplayed at times and its ponderous nature did make me a little restless: “Where are we going with this? Why are we here, talking to this character?” (especially that little kid…) which I pin almost entirely on the poorly established and executed villains.

Creative action sequences, laugh-out-loud funny moments, but unconvincing villains and a ponderous theme, makes Iron Man 3 good, but not great.

Having made his directorial debut with Tron: Legacy, Joseph Kosinski’s own original creation hits the big screen and proves to be more about atmosphere than action.

Set in a future were aliens known as Scavengers (Scavs) have destroyed the Moon and as a result put Earth through apocalyptic destruction, forcing the human race to relocate. Tom Cruise plays Jack Harper, a solitary technician who must live in the wastelands and repair the robots that harvest minerals vital to humanity’s survival. However, when a ship crash lands and Jack investigates… everything he thinks he knows is called into question…

To go deeply into the film would be to spoil a great deal of its effectiveness, so I will refrain from doing so. What I can say is that Oblivion is not your average Hollywood sci-fi shooter. It is relatively slow paced, moody and atmospheric; giving time for the audience to see great vistas of wastelands and utter destruction. (It does have its battles, and a particular vehicular chase through an icy chasm was a prominent feature!) I’d recommend a cinema trip just for the wide, rolling landscapes and the very Tron-esque soundtrack. It is great to see science fiction films rising above being just overblown shooters and sequences of explosions! 

But it isn’t without flaws. Kosinski is a new director, and while he has clearly been influenced by some of Tron’s successes (soundtrack and art designs) and makes them his own now, I can’t say the script here was particularly interesting. A lot of it was pretty stock sci-fi, ridged and emotionless. Okay, I cannot express reasons why this might be relevant, but even when taking those into consideration it still felt wooden. The narrative felt clouded in its own ambiguity, and as such I didn’t feel enough for the people involved, or whether or not they succeed in their goals.

Personally I found it a gorgeous film to look at, a real art and concept design marvel; I could see multiple inspirations from contemporary science fiction of today (films, video games etc) and as a fan of the genre I happily ate it up! I also love to see original ideas getting such big screen treatments. More casual audiences might find it a little long-in-the-tooth however…

Additional Marshmallows: Oblivion is based off Kosinski’s own graphic novel creation.

———-
Show your love of cocoa by Liking Cinema Cocoa on Facebook! Get the reviews sooner!
———-

Battleship? More like a Sub…
…with ham and cheese!
Am I right?

Following the success of the Transformers film franchise, Hasbro runs its finger down the index of toy licenses they own and inexplicably land on the Battleship board game. The film follows a young man drafted into the Navy in a bid to get his act together and win the confidence of an Admiral whose daughter he has hopes to marry.
But during a Naval military training exercise, aliens attack!

This is an overlong, noisy and emotionless experience that has had way too much money thrown at it, but let’s go into the positives first, lest this turn into a rant (which it will anyway)
As bad as it is, and as cheesy as it is, at least the film is self-aware that it has no credibility and doesn’t even try. The special effects are very impressive in most areas, the alien designs are good (even though they look like numerous existing video game concepts) and the basic idea of the film isn’t bad. Unfortunately it is blown way out of proportion and loses all credibility.

Now am I suggesting there was a better film adaptation of Battleship that hasn’t been made? Yes, I actually am. (I surprise myself sometimes…) I am fine with several ships being locked in a contrived scenario against alien ships and resorting to Naval tactics and quick thinking to save the day. That’s a small, intense situation; stuck on a boat against overwhelming odds.
But no, Battleship wastes time with either hammed up goofball antics or ham-fisted sincerity. We have our lead’s girlfriend hiking around Hawaii with a double leg amputee in bid to restore his confidence, we have jocks playing football, we have computer geeks being socially weird, and later we have the lead cast hire a load of OAP Navy veterans to man an out of commission Battleship to win the day.
Now… I feel bad for saying this, but the “Booyah, America; we never back down!” vibe makes these otherwise sensitive and heartfelt scenarios (amputees and war veterans) a little silly. Especially when your film opens with your lead breaking into a grocery store to steal a chicken burrito to the sounds of the Pink Panther theme.
Yes, that happens.
Even having giant metal alien bowling balls smashing around cities and freeways, miles away from the ocean, has little to nothing to do with anything. All it does is waste time, waste money and make trailer-fodder. Why couldn’t we have just had ships trapped at sea, fighting each other? Why do we need a girlfriend and an amputee subplot, why do we need computer nerds quoting ET, why do we need a tired romance subplot that gets completely sidelined by ocean battles?

Make things short, concise and clever! Not bigger, dumber and noisier!

It is a popcorn movie; it is loud and stupid and has no elements to warrant any real praise other than flashy special effects. If you want to waste some time, go for it, but you might find you’ve wasted too much time.

Additional Marshmallows: My argument for less-is-more would be perfectly described if I could only find the original, initial teaser trailer Battleship had. All it showed was Neeson on his ship’s bridge, the energy shield locking off a section of ocean, battleships and alien ships facing off. That was it, and you know something? When I saw that trailer, I thought the film looked excellent!
Then the full trailer came out.

I had the unfortunate situation of watching one of my favourite television channels all day only for them to put this on. Good god.

So I can vaguely remember seeing Vin Diesel’s XXX in the cinema, and what I recall was a brazen attempt at a bigger, bolder, American version of James Bond (it even opened with a Bond-esque secret agent getting killed). I also remember my eardrums nearly exploding (no film since has matched the noise that film produced). Overall, it was a mindless but entertaining mess.
I never saw XXX2.
For a start, you cannot replace Vin Diesel with a podgy looking Ice Cube and say he’s “even meaner”, it… its laughable. Replace the director of the first Fast and the Furious Rob Cohen with the director of… oh god… Die Another Day (this was his follow up film!) and we have a recipe for horror.

So why am I filling this review with facts rather than opinions? Because trust me, the facts are more interesting! XXX2 starts with the triple-x base compromised by high-tech ninjas. Samuel L. Jackson (yes he will do anything for a paycheck) decides a new agent is needed (Diesel’s Xander Cage apparently died between films). Enter Ice Cube, a man who isn’t convincing in any of his action scenes.
The threat? The Secretary of Defense is looking to overthrow the US government and the ex-convict Darius Stone is the only one to stop him.
The film is awful. I don’t know why Samuel L. or Willem Dafoe are in this (yes, Dafoe is in here too). But don’t worry, it isn’t exclusively big actors involved, we also have the woman from Species III! That’s more like this film’s caliber! The grade of film that settles for woeful dialogue and an unsettling need to embrace every sort of character stereotype around.

We see Darius up against a rogue military army (tanks and all) and his plan is to rally a bunch of gangsters and street cretins against them… and it actually works? I have to spoil the finale to give you a sense of how this film apparently goes above and beyond its predecessor (you aren’t going to watch this, so it doesn’t matter!) It is the situation where reiterating what happens is easier than expressing how stupid the film is.
The President is kidnapped and onboard a high speed bullet train. Darius is in a sports car. His support helicopter cannot keep up with the train, but the car totally can! Darius guns it up onto the train tracks behind the train (keeping pace as he does!) we see the tyres shred and the car’s wheel rims lock onto the tracks. He then proceeds to gain speed on the frictionless train tracks, and then moves faster than the bullet train!

I… do I really need to say more? This review should have been one sentence only: Do not see this film. It makes 2 Fast 2 Furious and MegaShark look deep.

“XXX” usually means explicit content. Here “XXX” mean explicitly stupid.

(Oh yes, it requires the rarely seen HALF CUP OF COLD COCOA. I actually couldn’t find the image file it has been such a long time since I’ve used it!)

Oh dear, what have I got myself into now?

So, The Fast and the Furious was a niche film that really hit the culture of street racing on the head; it had average-to-good character driven elements and excellent stunt and vehicle work for a single film. So naturally Hollywood had to milk it to the point of lunacy, and as a fan of the first film (and the upcoming sixth film) I figured I’d see what’s going on with this newly made franchise.

We are about to dive into nitrous oxide fueled mayhem, where the women never wear more than four pieces of clothes after sundown, where the beats are so fat they can’t fit onto public transport, and where Paul Walker’s legs appear to have a life of their own…

(What, is it just me who noticed that? Seriously, all of his fight scenes his legs are flying all over the place, hell even when he’s lying on the ground they are flopping about. He even tries to strangle, strangle Vin Diesel with them at one point…!

Anyway.)   

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

The surprisingly humble beginnings (by comparison) of what is now a six film series, The Fast and the Furious was a hit for bringing a new lease of life to the racing film.

An undercover cop, Brian O’Conner, must discover who is to blame for goods trucks being hi-jacked and stolen by drivers in high performance street cars. He puts himself into the urban culture of street racing where he meets Dominic Toretto and his team. Brian falls for Dominic’s sister, Mia, in the process and threatens his investigation and his life.

The film is quite a brainless piece of entertainment, its story is predictable, it follows an undercover cop who starts to sympathize with his targets, and the characters are written spontaneously to fit the demands of the plot. You gotta love the opening dialogue: “I like the tuna here,” “Nobody likes the tuna here!” Plus, Paul Walker really is a bland actor.

But, that isn’t why we watch the film. The Fast and the Furious does have some great car racing scenes and director Rob Cohen can shoot the cars and make them look great. What is most appealing is the physicality of the stunts and the racing; there’s no CGI tomfoolery here, and there is a simplicity about the film that makes it worth watching. You don’t need to suspend your disbelief, the plot doesn’t shovel many excuses for racing into your face.

It is a neat, nitrous oxide powered glamour film. It doesn’t say much, and it will probably age badly over time (and get a remake) but it is a must for every petrol-head and car racing fan out there.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

This is the cheesy, twisted wreckage of carbon fiber, bad acting, bikinis and awful acting that I imagine a lot of people think the first film is like.

Brian O’Conner, GAP store mannequin Paul Walker, is now a former cop on the verge of arrest, but to avoid consequences he teams up with an old college friend, Tyrese Gibson, to help the police stop a drug dealer. This… somehow involves car racing.

So, unlike the first film, the childishly named 2 Fast 2 Furious (whoever came up with that deserves a punch in the stomach) removes any sense of worth and just goes straight for the ham and cheese. Tyrese Gibson’s “acting” is totally overboard, he has to be high on something during filming, he’s acting like a human Jar Jar Binks. Next to him is Paul Walker, the least interesting element of the first film.

The plot is… I don’t even know. It bounces around between police business to shoved in car chases. At least The Fast and the Furious had a sense of community; a family unit that has racing at its heart, here, we get Walker and Gibson strutting into parties going “Aw man, check this out, bro!” at all the cars/car parts/girls in bikinis. Several times, and virtually shot-by-shot repeats! Utterly vapid screenplay. Plus, the sets and interior design work are horrendous! I know its set in Miami, but most of it is so gaudy with bright colours I swear I’m looking at some VIP section of McDonalds.

But as we all know, surely the car action is the reason for being here? Well the film starts much like the first, only now we have the cardboard standee Walker pretending he’s king of the hill, which is embarrassing. The girl drives the pink car, the boy drives the blue car, etc, making it feel like a game of Mario Kart (not to mention the CGI tinkered stunts).
Later in the movie we have Tyrese doing his best to eat the scenery during car chases (and nobody here seems to realise that their racing opponents cannot hear their street trash talk during the race…) which definitely ruins any sense of excitement. The soundtrack is nowhere near as effective either.

My brain was turned off so completely that I lost interest in what was happening. There was a freaky moment where the villain puts a rat in a bucket on a fat guy’s stomach and proceeds to blowtorch the bucket though, that got my attention.
Yeah, that was a thing.

You want a good analogy of this film? This is the film equivalent of that moment when you are walking along the pavement, when suddenly a car flies past you and its driver shouts at you something like: “FFFWwweeeerhghgh Aggfhh!!”
It is fast, you have no idea what possessed the person to do it, and instantly forgettable.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

Branching away from any original cast members of the first two films, thankfully, Tokyo Drift provides a refreshingly new look to the franchise.

Tokyo Drift is possibly my favourite of the series, or at least its up there with the first film; it only has a few problems that can be swept under the “Its Fast and the Furious, what do you expect” carpet.
The story follows American teenager Sean Boswell (Lucas Black) whose reckless driving lands him prison time, but to avoid this he moves in with his father in Tokyo. He attempts to move on a dangerous rival’s girl, and must become a competitor in the street racing’s drifting scene.

I say “teenager” as that’s what IMDB says, and he does go to school in the movie… but honestly, he’s the oldest teen I’ve ever seen. Along with every other “teen” in this movie!
While I talk negatives, the majority of the film is set in Tokyo yet 95% of the dialogue is English and Sean has a knack of meeting every foreigner in the city. I don’t mind this so much, but I fully expect all of the Japanese characters to speak Japanese, especially when Sean isn’t present!

But, unlike 2 Fast 2 Furious (choke) this film actually cares for its characters and their personalities (as Sean says early on: “Its not about the ride, its about the rider”) from Sean’s fish-out-of-water acceptance, to his mentor Han’s closet of skeletons. The villain isn’t ridiculous either, his uncle is part of the Yakuza and he has a serious “king of a little hill” problem.
Again unlike 2 Fast 2 Furious (gag) the cars have never looked better, sleek and refined and the drifting action is spectacular, especially when synchronized. Plus, no CGI, just skilled professional drivers, making the film worth seeing solely for the racing.

There’s no stupid Tyrese Gibson mugging at the camera, no rats in buckets, no CGI, just an entertaining (albeit poorly localized) flick featuring excellent car racing and professional stunts.

Fast and Furious (2009)

It is back to the beginning, back to familiar faces and a surprisingly serious tone for the series.

But we still get a stupid naming committee. Yeah, Fast and Furious isn’t at all confusing when looking back at the series, is it the first, second, third film? Who knows! What’s wrong calling it The Fast and the Furious 4?

To make things more unnecessarily complicated, Fast and Furious is a prequel/sequel, taking place after the first film but before the third film (so it should technically be No.1.5) due to Sung Kang’s character Han returning to the series. Whether it acknowledges the second film or not is ambiguous.

When running from the law begins to get to him, Dominic (Vin Diesel) is looking for revenge after a drug dealer kills his partner Letty. At the same time, the FBI is looking for the same man, spearheading the operation is a reinstated Brian O’Conner. Naturally, the way they must infiltrate this heroin ring is through the dealer’s love for performance car racing.

I’m happy to see the return of the moodier tone; this feels like a direct sequel to the first film rather than a spin-off or a parody. A lot of the film is set at night with deep shadows. They even made Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner bearable! His character is rejected from the others since the first film and he starts out as more of an anti-hero lawman.

I was quite surprised at the apparent restraint at glorifying the cars themselves; the camera seems to linger less over them as the film ploughes through its exposition and story. Of course that could just be me desensitized to it… I have watched four of these films now! It still hasthe usual trappings, don’t worry.

It is ultimately a solid story and a decent sequel to the first film, if you liked The Fast and the Furious you shouldn’t have any problem with it. This does make the series more traditional, which is a shame;the reason I enjoy Tokyo Drift so much was that it offered a new direction for the franchise, each new film being a unique take on driving, following different characters each time. But that’s not the way to make money, but as it stands, this is good too.

Fast Five (2011)

Fast Five, more like… Ocean’s Eleven?

Well that was disappointing, and when a Fast and Furious film disappoints, that’s pretty bad.

Brian O’Conner is on the side of the thieves now as the film picks up where the last left off with him, Mia and others rescuing Dominic from prison. Now they all have the law’s worst, most ruthless officer hunting them down… The Rock, I mean… Dwayne Johnson… I mean the The Rock… never mind.

To finally get away from the law and live free, the team must assemble all of their allies from previous films into a group to rob from the richest Brazilian drug cartel leader.

The potential for ridiculous amounts of car racing and chasing could never be higher; the franchise’s deliberate step to make things before Tokyo Drift and having all noteworthy characters involved in a heist has to pay off. Well, that does mean we get Tyrese Gibson again…….. But on top of that, it really doesn’t work.

The Fast and the Furious has now officially stepped over the line from being relatively easy going, entertaining racer films, to becoming anever-ending series of “serious business”. The series has literally forgotten about the cars and instead feels we like the characters enough now to base the entire focus on them (to the point of having Brian and Mia about to have a child…)

That isn’t an overstatement either, asides an opening act train heist, the film takes an hour, an hour, to get into what the series is good at. Street racing. But we don’t even see the race, we just get a cheeky cut away since Brian and Dom are obviously going to win it.

The assembled team spend most of their time sitting around chatting and being their individual selves from other films (Avengers Assemble, this ain’t) and nothing gets done. Most of the film appears to gear towards the two big, burly bald men (Diesel and Johnson) fighting each other… which… I don’t care for, where is the… y’know, car racing?

The finale is fun to watch as well as ridiculous, and the Ocean’s Eleven reference earlier is not unfounded (seems like any film can get away with twists like that nowadays) but it takes so long to get there it doesn’t feel particularly tense. This is the first film in the series to go over the two hour runtime, and it did not need it! 

It isn’t precisely a bad film, but it has lost its identity as a niche piece of entertainment and instead settles into generic action movie zone. Sad really, but when you try to stretch “street racing” into multiple films, it’ll happen.

And no, it isn’t as bad as the second one.

So that’s the series as it stands today! Its sequelThe Fast and the Furious 6 (look at that, a proper, numeric, understandable title for once!) is released here in the UK in a couple of months. I guess I am obligated to go and see it now… despite Fast Five ending on a stupid, stupid cliffhanger (it reminded me of the Saw series, and how desperate that became to keep its momentum going…)

Over all, there are some goodness in the series, at least for a brainless, urban sub-cultural trip. The racing can be intense, the stunts can be genuine, and the characters bland but watchable, it is just a matter of dodging the less-than-perfect entries, and here is my guide:

Watch:

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

followed by

Fast and Furious (2009)

followed by

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

Golden rules: Never watch 2 Fast 2 Furious, and always watch Tokyo Drift last.

I hope you have enjoyed this rather B-movie-esque Saga Review, it isn’t up there with Star Trek or Bond… but that’s the way things are sometimes!

If you follow Cinema Cocoa then you are already aware of my disdain for this film having a 12A (PG-13) rating. Yet, many people suggested I watch it for sake of having my opinion. What do I think now? An unsurprising test in mediocrity.

If you go into it, A Good Day to Die Hard is probably the worst example of reviving “old school” action movies of the 80s and 90s (up there with The Expendables) as the fifth in the series is possibly the most watered down and derivative example of what Die Hard actually is as a franchise.

So when he discovers his son has been imprisoned in Russia, John McClane takes it upon himself to go out there and… save him?… Only for the political prisoner his son was protecting to be attacked by terrorists. The two McClanes must settle their broken relationship if they want to get to the bottom of a political conspiracy.

See how I couldn’t go through the synopsis without struggling? Die Hard 5 has so many ambiguous plot devices and derivative excuses for having action sequences. It isn’t explained why John McClane goes to Russia, in fact he is constantly reminded how he causes trouble wherever he goes, and… twenty minutes in he does. He barges into a CIA operation and complains he was only on a vacation.
This isn’t John McClane acting like John McClane… the formula for Die Hard films is that he finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, not barging in to other people’s problems to blow stuff up! (even Die Hard 4.0 got this right!)

Whoever directed this needs to be introduced to something. It is called a steady-cam. Good lord I thought the movie business learned after Quantum of Solace that shaky camera doesn‘t work. This actually makes Michael Bay’s direction feel poised and controlled! Even atmospheric, slow shots are wobbling all over the place like the cameraman’s drunk; your eye gets misled constantly as the camera skews left and right, it is haphazard while characters are so much as walking!

The film itself is mercifully short, though you will find yourself begging for more to give the spontaneous and juvenile plot some sustenance! What kills this film and renders it little more than a line of explosion effects (asides an over-complicated twisty-turn plot) are the villains themselves. Die Hard villains are mostly pretty fun! Jeremy Irons and Alan Rickman were gloriously silly. Even the guy in 4.0 was interesting. Here the villains barely exist! We don’t get to know them, we have no idea who they are… and the film is so badly paced that it kills them off before the audience can truly appreciate them.

So what works in A Good Day to Die Hard, if anything? Well, if you forgive them being shot in horrendous shaky-cam, the action sequences are pretty excitingly executed, and I do appreciate the franchise clearly continuing with a family theme: McClane hits rock bottom in the third film Vengeance, and 4.0 and 5 are about him trying to reach out to his kids. It’s just a shame this film couldn’t make that more prominent with a better screenplay.

I haven’t even gotten to the part where John McClane couldn’t say his catchphrase because of the stupid 12A rating…

It is quite sad then that this has happened to the franchise, then again, you can just get the trilogy. Die Hard 1 - 3 are excellent and have very little wrong with them!

Additional Marshmallows: Yes, I saw your references to the original Die Hard… They hurt me… They made me want to watch a better movie.

Also, I would like to stress that this film cannot be excused by the theory: “Oh, it is just a Die Hard movie, it isn’t meant to be intelligent”. While the previous films weren’t world changing drama by any means, they were a hell of a lot more rewarding than this. I know, I rewatched them only a few weeks ago.

From the creators of The Matrix comes an adaptation that could not have split opinion more completely when it released in the USA. I have been itching for months to see it.

Adapted from the novel of the same name, Cloud Atlas is an ambitious undertaking, to the point of foolish; a multi-faceted science fiction drama epic spanning across continents and millennia, delving into all subjects of morality; greed, love, slavery, life, death, reincarnation, religion, fate and destiny.

The film spans across mutliple stories in different time periods; one in the 1800s, another in the 1970s, present day, in the 2100s, and within a post-apocolyptic future. These stories play out simultaneously, edited together with the fateful ties that one character has to another. The actors and actresses involved fill the roles of completely different characters who could be ancestorally connected over the centuries! The mysterious theme of the film is hard to pin down, but it addresses inter-connectivity between every single person, about how lives can be changed before they have even begun, how one life can be set on a world-changing revolution without knowing that its destiny had been pre-determined.

Ooft. To say the premise is ambitious is an understatement! Yet Cloud Atlas really works, especially as a creative drama stuffed to capacity with unique visuals and attention to detail. One minute you will be onboard a seventeenth century galleon, the next you will be dodging futuristic hover-bikes or evading cannibalistic tribesmen. Oh, and the comedic stylings of escaping an old folks home! Its editing is remarkable because all of these separate events appear to merge into one cohesive narrative!

Tom Hanks is an example of the great acting here; playing an intellectual scientist, a murderous doctor, a haunted tribesman and a thuggish author! And every single actor gets this much scope, and this film doesn’t scrimp on actors either! Hugo Weaving, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw, to name just a few! They all play different people in each time frame, as different races, even different genders!

And here is the rub. Cloud Atlas has received a hail of hatred for apparent negligence and dare I say racism for using (for example) white actors as Korean characters. It is a very strange concept, and takes some getting used to (it is clearly Jim Sturgess or Weaving with Asian make-up) but the film’s deliberateness in this device is because it is telling a story of destiny and connectivity; we are all the same, regardless of race or gender or age, and come from the same source. Once you get used to that, you will learn the film’s eye-opening integrity and see the complete narrative coming through.
(it isn’t shabby make-up either, becoming downright impressive under the scrutiny of High Definition!)

It is an incredible feat and remarkably unique in an age when blockbuster cinema is full of remakes, sequels and prequels. Will everyone like it? Evidentally not! But I am exhilerated to say I have not seen anything like it before, and I want to see it again!

Additional Marshmallows: It must be seen to be believed; a film like this never gets this much love, attention and money thrown at it!

For me the Die Hard series began with the third film, Die Hard with a Vengeance, mostly because I was eleven when it came out, then television showed it later with a censored cut. It would be a little while before the first two would be brought to my attention!

So what can you say about the series in general? Watching them all again, they are goofy, gory, solid action movies born from the late eighties. Now we have the strange situation where the series has been prolonged with the sequel-boom of the last decade, and many people believe Die Hard to have lost its way.
But has it really? We are talking about a pretty lighthearted shooting spree series here, where none (I repeat, none) of the villains are in anyway terrifying or truly sadistic.

Let the Yippy-Ki-Yay’s commence!

Die Hard (1988)

What can you say about the original Die Hard, a classic, an action juggernaut that is one of many benchmarks in the genre?

Bruce Willis stars in his film debut as John McClane, a New York cop who finds himself very much in the wrong place at the wrong time while off duty in Los Angeles. The tower block where his wife works, and he visits, is attacked and held hostage by German terrorists led by Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber. McClane is the only cop who knows what’s going on, and he has to use his initiative, guile and rogue wits to save his wife and prevent disaster!
All on Christmas Day!
Willis is on fire here (and looking ridiculously young) in his first role, McClane immediately jumps off the screen and you are with him every grueling step of the way.
Die Hard has a very simple premise and a narrow scope; ninety-eight percent of the action takes place within the one building, and perhaps seventy percent is following McClane on his own, talking to himself, as he battles thugs and elevator shafts. Always elevator shafts, and C4 explosives. For a man’s first film role, that is very impressive to carry off so well, and proves the man’s capabilities!

The rest of the cast is effective at their supporting roles. Alan Rickman is positively ridiculous with his German accent (which slips and slides towards his angry Sheriff of Nottingham voice) but I would be lying if I said I didn’t find him a joy to watch here! Plus, to be an Englishman playing a German pulling an American accent? That’s… impressive.

Ultimately what can be said about this film is that it still holds up today. It is surprisingly slow paced too, roaring up to crazed shoot-outs and battles when necessary as McClane does his best to sneak around undetected. A great cat and mouse film.
If the mouse was armed with a machine gun…
Ho
Ho
Ho.

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990)

Being obviously wary of messing up Die Hard’s formula, Die Harder proves to be a little too safe and ultimately feels a little… forgettable.

John McClane is back, and it is his favourite time of year again, and his wife is in danger again! A crazed American military officer takes control of an airport and all of its systems, ultimately holding half a dozen passenger jets hostage and unable to land. With planes threatening to fall from the skies, McClane must stop this madman quickly!

One thing that can be said about Die Hard 2 is that it is a fast film. It literally flies by, none of it drags or feels redundant. However, problematically we get possibly the most cardboard and unremarkable villain(s) yet, a proper 1980s action movie cliche.

Anyone who has seen this, tell me, what is the villain’s objective here? Can you remember without looking at IMDB?
I’ll tell you. These terrorists… want to go on holiday. Seriously, that is what it boils down to!

So yeah, I am a little sad when I watch the second film, it feels rushed; side characters and villains aren’t given any time to shine. The crazy janitor guy? The cop who tows McClane’s car? The villain?? The political prisoner?? They all feel like filler before McClane can say more witty things about being trapped in a air vent again. Which is fun, don’t get me wrong.

Possibly the best part of Die Hard 2 is William Atherton’s role as the selfish, snooping reporter Richard Thornburg who, despite also being trapped on one of the planes, attempts to benefit from his dangerous predicament. It is a great use of a relatively minor character from the first film.

So, it isn’t bad, but it isn’t great either. Die Harder isn’t the sequel the classic film deserved, even if Willis remains on top form.

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

The one Die Hard film I know almost beat-for-beat! A terrorist calling himself Simon makes things very personal with john McClane, forcing the suspended cop to complete life-threatening tasks across New York, the penalty being various chemical bombs to explode.

Some people may remember this as Die Hard with Samuel L. Jackson, and rightly so, Jackson transforms the series’ formula into a buddy cop movie and gives Willis’ McClane even more outrageous dialogue (even if most of it is complaining about his headache). Of course, Jackson is equally outrageous, and constantly bringing up the issue of race (which is curious, considering the Die Hard films have had no mention of it to this degree despite having several African-American characters)
Jeremy Irons is this film’s antagonist, with a legion of German ex-military types and mercenaries, and while terrorising McClane he is obviously enjoying the role a lot! Positively silly at times, yet rewarding with his intelligence and underhanded methods!

It is a packed film too; it doesn’t hang around to get going or introduce characters again, all we get is a terrorist threat followed by John McClane having to wear a questionable sandwich board in Harlem. Little to no backstory, it reveals its ties to previous films later and expects you to have watched the previous two films (or at least Die Hard).

My only problem with Vengeance is the ending, which seems to come out of nowhere. True it could just be a deliberately unusual, unorthadox finale made to take you by surprise… but it feels tagged on after the consistency of the overall movie. Plus, not the most fitting final battle either.

It is funnier, more blood-soaked and way more action packed than Die Hard 2, I still love watching McClane driving the taxi through Central Park. Definitely recommended to any action movie fan, especially after watching the original Die Hard. 

Given how CGI happy and outrageous films are getting with action sequences, might Vengeance be the last Die Hard to have these more down-to-earth physical stunts?

Die Hard 4.0: Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

So twelve years after his last outing, twelve, Bruce Willis steps into the shoes of John McClane once again to fight cyber-terrorists!

When young computer hackers are systematically wiped out and American cities are losing control over electronic devices, John McClane finds himself protecting the last hacker alive who knows how to prevent a power hungry terrorist from taking total control.

Die Hard 4.0 is definitely different from the first three films; it is taking a leap forward into a new generation, and as such we see McClane as an older, “senior official” having to deal with the new technology of the new millennium. There isn’t as many “McClane is old” jokes as I remember, but I must admit the film takes a long time to grow on me…

The film opens not only with the first deliberate “hot femme fatale” in the entire series, and a whole lot of swish digital and super high-tech visuals, no more big and noisy credits now! It then cuts to footage of the Gears of War video game. Oooooh dear. I have developed a dislike of films that open with video game footage… its like saying: “Hey, geeky-young-single-males, you know what this is! You’ll love this movie!”
I don’t particularly like Justin Long’s hacker character Matthew either, he just whines and complains about McClane being old and uncool for the first half of the film. I’m sorry, clearly I (a twenty-three year old when the film released) am supposed to relate to this guy? Uhm… no, McClane is awesome, I grew up with his films! This hacker is the one who’s uncool.
The middle of the film improves though as McClane disrupts the god-like powers of control the terrorist exerts over the city. Using a fire hydrant to take a gunner out of a helicopter? Awesome.

But then the conclusion happens… and McClane surfs on a concept F-22 fighter jet for… no reason at all, except to have an over-the-top action sequence for the trailer. Die Hard films are action films, but they aren’t meant to be that ludicrous or unnecessary. This villain too, I’m not fully convinced by, he also comes off as a techno whiner, plus his backstory makes the government (naturally in films today) appear incredibly retarded.

I think you may love or hate it… Die Hard 4.0 is a definite shift in the series since, well, Willis is older now! It is impressive however that it still works to some degree. It was fun to see McClane on the big screen again, and it didn’t let me down as much as other returning franchises have done.

Additional Marshmallows: Justin Long also features as the “Apple Mac” in some of the old “PC versus Mac” adverts. Yeah… really selling him aren’t I?


A Good Day to Die Hard is releasing here in just a few days time, continuing the series formula of releasing on festive days with Valentine’s Day.
I was really excited to see the new film but as of today, as I finish this saga review, I learned the appalling news that it has been rated a 12A in the United Kingdom.

…12A.

*barely contained rage*

 More on that later…