MULTI-REVIEW!!!

I've let this place go to the dogs after being threatened by lawyers reprisenting big business. But that doesn't mean I have stopped watching movies. Although 2010 has been pretty bad apart from one or two absolute gems scattered throughout. Anyway, this is what I've seen recently-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) David Yates - I haven't been a big fan of the last few Harry Potter films. In fact, I haven't really thought they were great since The Prisoner Of Azkeban. However, this film bucked that trend. There are some really quirky choices in direction which let the film down a bit. And even after seven films, Daniel Radcliffe still really sucks at acting. But Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are excellent, the film feels tonally like Fellowship Of The Ring. And it sets up really nicely for Part 2. Good job everyone!

9/10






The Social Network (2010) David Fincher - David Fincher is one of the few really really special directors working today. His films are worth looking out for as soon as they're announced. So it comes as no surprise that he could make a film about computer coding so damn exciting. Charting the early meteorical rise of Facebook, focusing on the relationships between Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, The Social Network is like All The President's Men for the 21st Century. Superbly written by The West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and featuring excellent performances from all, but primarily Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, The Social Network is one of the best films of 2010.

9/10





R.E.D. (2010)
Robert Schwentke - Based on Warren Ellis' comic book of the same name, RED is about retired assassins who are being targeted by an unknown source, possibly connected to the CIA. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast are clearly in it for the fun, and that's what the film is. It's not outstanding by any measure, but it is entertaining and easy to watch.

7/10






Centurion (2010) Neil Marshall - I'll admit, I really just watched this out of morbid curiosity. Neil Marshall's films can go either way. And going in with zero expectations probably saved the film for me. It's absolute schlock. And Marshall loves his gore. It's rubbish, but again, there are worse ways to spend 97 minutes. Worth it for Michael Fassbender actually doing a decent job with a terrible script, Dominic West chewing up the scenery, Olga Kurylenko being terrifyingly hot and seeing a head being chopped in half the same way about 3 times.

5/10





I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - This was surprisingly decent. It's the true story of a conman who basically took the piss out of George W. Bush's Texas penal system continuously for years. All in the name of love of another man. Surprisingly funny and with two really great performances from Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, it's a very over-looked film. Really entertaining.

7/10






Jackass 3D (2010) Jeff Tremaine - Awesome. There's not much to say really, you know what to expect. Except in 3D. Nearly puked. Laughed my ass off. No apologies!

8/10














Four Lions (2010) Chris Morris - I'm a big fan of Chris Morris. So when I heard he was doing a comedy about four suicide bombers, I chuckled away to myself. The film is pretty shocking in parts, but then having seen Morris' other work, that comes as no surprise. Very well performed low-budget comedy about a subject most people wont touch, Four Lions is exactly the right type of satire in this current climate. Really excellent.

9/10






[REC] 2 (2010) Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza - I thought this would suck. It takes place roughly five minutes after the first REC finished, and picks up exactly where that film left off. It's incredibly creepy, gory, and features quite a few jumps. A horror sequel that expands on the original in a very inventive way. And while some complain that it takes a bit of the mysetery out of the first film, which admittedly, it does, it doesn't rest on it's laurels and instead expands on the story. Proper horror done really well.

8/10



So there you go. Some more films I've watched recently. The end of the year review will be coming soon, which should cover a few more of the films I've seen. Some good, some rotten. Hopefully I'll get a full top and bottom 10. But I wouldn't count on it! The cinema is costing more and putting out crap, so it really puts me off going. However, we shall see.

DIE HARD 4.0 (2007) - Len Wiseman

In the past, I've made a lot of sounds about the decisions 20th Century Fox were making with the production of Die Hard 4.0, or Live Free or Die Hard as it's known in the US. And last night, I finally got to witness the all the decisions put together into the third sequel in the John McClane saga. The hiring of Len Wiseman as director, the decision to tailor the film to the PG-13 market, the signs were not good for the film. However, as with all films, it deserved it's chance to impress, so I walked in with as open a mind as I could manage. And for the next two hours, I watched a film that is in no way, shape, or form, a Die Hard film.

Die Hard 4.0 opens with a bunch of computer geeks doing some computer stuff that leads to a bunch of FBI agents getting all hot and bothered. They send out a call for police departments all over the US to bring the top 1000 computer hackers in for questioning. In New York, John McClane (Bruce Willis back for a fourth outing) is spying on his daughter getting jiggy with a young fella. McClane steps in, only to have his daughter chastise him for never being around and telling her pop she doesn't want to see him anymore. That's their relationship firmly established. McClane is ordered to go pick up Matt Farrell (Justing Long), one of the hackers on the FBI's list. McClane arrives to pick up Farrell and that's when the bullets begin to fly. A group of cyber terrorists want Farrell dead for his part in their grand plan to bring the US to a stand-still. And thus begins the chasing and killing as McClane struggles to keep Farrell alive and bring down the terrorists. Oh yeah, there's a bit where the terrorists kidnap McClane's daughter, just to up the stakes a little.



Okay. Die Hard is a modern classic. In it, we had a normal, blue-collar cop trading bullets and one-liners with Euro-trash terrorists, and coming out on top. The key to the success of the film was the fact that McClane was an average guy. He hurt, he bled, he looked like he suffered. Sure, this was diminished slightly in the two immediate sequels, but the essence remained. What we have in Die Hard 4.0 is an indestructible, superhero. This is the first problem with the movie. Willis, who is pretty much reliably entertaining in most of what he does, really gives it his best shot to recapture some of the character he created way back in 1988. He cracks wise at the appropriate times. He punches and fires a gun with suitable conviction. But taken in context with the rest of the movie, this just isn't McClane. The action is so utterly over the top and unrealistic, that the character becomes a tiny element in the overall spectacle. McClane takes on wave after wave of bad guy, helicopters, even a fighter jet (which is piloted by the most incompetent pilot in the USAF) and walks away unscathed.

There are some interesting set pieces in Die Hard 4.0, but absolutely nothing original. Director Len Wiseman, who has previously only made two pretty dire Underworld movies, plagiarises everything from The Lost World: Jurassic Park II to True Lies in a desperate attempt to prove he can make big budget action. And because of this, the film becomes tiresome pretty quickly. The script, written by Mark Bomback, really tries to make this a Die Hard film by putting as many references to the previous films as possible, but in the end, this is just an action film with a character and title that's familiar. Other than these weak references, there's little else to make this a Die Hard film.



Remarkably, Justin Long is watchable in the film. I really expected to hate his character, as with most of these cliched smart-ass young characters, but he does a fairly credible job as Willis' side-kick. Timothy Olyphant is absolutely ineffectual as bad guy Thomas Gabriel, not even scratching the surface of the brilliance of Alan Rickman in Die Hard or even Jeremy Irons in Die Hard: With A Vengeance. The most interesting bad guys are Maggie Q as Gabriel's kung-fu cyber geek girlfriend and Cyril Raffaelli, who's stunts were previously showcased in the highly entertaining Banlieue 13. Cliff Curtis, who popped up in this year's Sunshine plays the FBI agent in charge of stopping Gabriel, but apart from a weak and highly cliched interdepartmental competition subplot between the FBI and NSA, has little to do. And Kevin Smith also appears... nuff said about that.

Finally, something must be said about the way the film is edited. The reason I bring this up is I found that there was something very wrong with this aspect of the film. As previously mentioned, Fox decided to make this film a PG-13 movie, where as the previous films were 18's (UK) or R (US). This appears to be a decision that was made after the filming was completed. Throughout the film there were a number of occasions where the film was edited extremely poorly, cutting away from characters (most of the time McClane) mid-sentence. I get the feeling that it was at moments where expletives were being uttered. The shots cut away so redubbing could be applied and audio and visuals wouldn't appear out of sync. In one scene in particular, characters speak (albeit in the background) but their mouths don't move, and they face different angles in different shots. Now, I will admit, this is speculation on my part. But given that Fox wanted a cleaned-up version of the film for the theatres, I wouldn't be surprised if an 'Uncut' version of this film appears on DVD with all the original edits in place. If this is the case, it speaks volumes for how dire the state of the film industry is. Anything for a quick buck.

All said and done, there are some sweet little moments in Die Hard 4.0. McClane gets one or two laughs, and Willis does pull off the tough guy thing quite well (even if the action is over the top). But this isn't a Die Hard movie. It's a very very average action movie with the Die Hard title slapped on it.


4/10

The unfortunate case of Live Free Or Die Hard (Or How I Learned to Stop Having Faith and Hate Hollywood)

PART I (originally posted on April 5th 2007)



And so we see why cinema is getting worse and worse every day. This trailer looks terrible. Sure, if you're into 'splosions and the kind of 'realism' reserved strictly for Michael Bay type films, the trailer probably gave you a hard-on. But this, and every trailer for 'Live Free or Die Hard' look NOTHING like a John McClane film. Die Hard was about a blue-collar cop facing off against a bunch of international thieves. He was in WAY over his head. He was an average guy, flaws a-plenty, losing his temper, almost crying at points, but still, overcame the obstacles and saved the day.

Now, we have this superman. Crashing cars into helicopters, taking down harrier jump jets, blowing shit up and cracking wise. Sure, the cracking wise is essential to McClane's character, but the rest of it is bullshit. Where's the wife-beater? Where's the alcoholism? Where's the dirt, grime and fu ck you attitude we've come to know and love from this character? Instead we have a shadow of McClane. A leather-clad, grinning imitation of his former self, PC-d up and shaven headed for this brain-dead generation. God forbid he'd have thinning hair. That'd be too real. And then, the worst part is, they throw in a dumb-ass computer geek character to ya know, appeal to the younger demographic. To bring in the kids. Someone they can identify with. We identified with McClane in Die Hard. All you have to do is stay true to the character, and all will be well.

Now, I'll admit, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance had elements that were different from the McClane of Die Hard. But it was still McClane. This new version has nothing but the wise cracks. And that ain't good enough.
I'll admit, I may be jumping the gun. We've yet to actually see the film. But what we have seen of it is a bad indication of what is to come. I sincerely hope that the film proves me wrong. I want to see Johnny boy fight his way out of another mess. I want him to overcome the odds and beat the Euro-trash bastards with a yipee-ki-yay motherfucker! But I fear that what we'll be seeing will be a caricature of our former hero. A shadow of the bare-foot, thinning hair, wise cracking, Roy Rogers loving blue collar cop. You want to make a Bruce Willis over-the-top action flick? By all means, I'll pay to see it. But don't call it Die Hard.


PART II (originally posted May 3rd 2007)


Last month, I posted a little tirade on the state of the upcoming Die Hard sequel, Live Free or Die Hard. Having given out about the piss-poor state of the trailer, and how the film was shaping up to be a Die Hard imitation rather than a Die Hard film, I signed off with the following quote-

I'll admit, I may be jumping the gun. We've yet to actually see the film. But what we have seen of it is a bad indication of what is to come. I sincerely hope that the film proves me wrong. I want to see Johnny boy fight his way out of another mess. I want him to overcome the odds and beat the Euro-trash bastards with a yipee-ki-yay motherfucker!

Well it seems, we wont even get to see McClane kick some ass. Well not some hardcore kicking, anyway. Maybe a bit of a slap, and a telling-off. For, according to a quote from McClane himself, Bruce Willis in trade publication, Vanity Fair, Live Free Or Die Hard may very well be tailored to appeal to a PG-13 audience. That's right. All you parents are going to able to bring your kiddies along to the film as it is being cut for an age group that weren't even born when Die Hard was released in 1988.
It seems that Fox aren't willing to take the chance on a film rated R (or 15's here in Ireland and the UK, depending on the film). Because, you know, there's just way too much money to be made by tailoring the film to a younger audience. It doesn't matter that ALL THREE PREVIOUS DIE HARD FILMS were rated R. In this age of money obsessed film studios, making something with cahonies, just isn't going to bring in enough green.



Now, I was pretty pissed with the way Live Free Or Die Hard was shaping up. But man alive, I was more than willing to go see it for myself. However, now that the film is being neutered for a young audience, I will find it hard to bring myself to attend. I mentioned before how [Fox] throw in a dumb-ass computer geek character to ya know, appeal to the younger demographic, but I seriously did not expect them to take it this far. People my age, heck even a few years younger than me, grew up with Die Hard movies. Yet now we're being subjected to this shoddy treatment? We should be the ones the movie is aimed at. We're the loyal fans. And Fox is willing to sacrifice our loyalty for the sake of a few bucks? For shame.



Sure, the movie wont diminish the quality of Die Hard. But forever, fans will mention the Die Hard saga with a little grimace of pain. Live Free Or Die Hard will be associated with the previous movies. It's inevitable. If it's just a bad film, so be it. But one that's stripped of the balls of it's older brothers for the sake of cash? Unforgivable. This is Die HARD we're talking about. Not Die Soft.

And then we have Grindhouse. Many of you Yanks will have had the privilege by now of seen Messrs Tarantino and Rodriguez double feature complete in it's 191 minute entirety. 2 feature films, 3 fake trailers, absolute value for money. Something original. Reviews have been mixed, but for the most part, very positive in terms of the scope and originality of the film (for an homage to a long-dead genre, that is).



Yet somehow, the film didn't do too well at the box office in the States. And in a move that is absolutely appalling in it's indifference towards the art of cinema, Dimension Films, the studio behind Grindhouse, has decided, in all it's wisdom to ship Deathproof and Planet Terror to the rest of the world as two separate features. The whole purpose of the venture was to recapture the essence of the 1970's exploitation double feature. But none of us in Europe or the rest of the world will get this opportunity. Because in a move that is motivated purely by money (and don't pretend for a second it's something else), the film is going to be cut up and shown in different releases.

I, for one, was looking forward to paying to see two movies for the price of one. I wanted to get absorbed into the experience these directors were trying to bring to us. But now, I, and everyone else outside the US wont get the opportunity. Is there a possible solution to this dilema? Yes. But it's not ideal. It's barely acceptable. The solution, as I see it, is to wait until the Region 1 DVD release of Grindhouse (presuming it wont be butchered in that format too) and watch it on the small screen. So no cinema viewing for me.

Why is it that Hollywood is so motivated by cash and not art? Everyone would love to be rich, that's true. But would releasing films as they are originally envisioned really mean that the studios would lose money? Would having a little courage to release movies that aren't suitable for children mean that the film would be a failure? I really don't think so. Ticket prices are high as they are, and most people take a trip to the cinema quite often. There's money to be made here, without having to take the safe route.

Film-making is an art. But when money becomes the primary focus of those with the means to create art, the art itself is going to suffer. Sure, these are just two films. But they are just examples of a bigger problem. The sacrifice of originality and courage in film-making for the promise of a quick buck. And it's a very very sad thing to see happening to an industry that can produce such amazing works of art.

The unfortunate case of Live Free Or Die Hard

And so we see why cinema is getting worse and worse every day. This trailer looks terrible. Sure, if you're into 'splosions and the kind of 'realism' reserved strictly for Michael Bay type films, the trailer probably gave you a hard-on. But this, and every trailer for 'Live Free or Die Hard' look NOTHING like a John McClane film. Die Hard was about a blue-collar cop facing off against a bunch of international thieves. He was in WAY over his head. He was an average guy, flaws a-plenty, losing his temper, almost crying at points, but still, overcame the obstacles and saved the day.

Now, we have this superman. Crashing cars into helicopters, taking down harrier jump jets, blowing shit up and cracking wise. Sure, the cracking wise is essential to McClane's character, but the rest of it is bullshit. Where's the wife-beater? Where's the alcoholism? Where's the dirt, grime and fu ck you attitude we've come to know and love from this character? Instead we have a shadow of McClane. A leather-clad, grinning imitation of his former self, PC-d up and shaven headed for this brain-dead generation. God forbid he'd have thinning hair. That'd be too real. And then, the worst part is, they throw in a dumb-ass computer geek character to ya know, appeal to the younger demographic. To bring in the kids. Someone they can identify with. We identified with McClane in Die Hard. All you have to do is stay true to the character, and all will be well.

Now, I'll admit, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance had elements that were different from the McClane of Die Hard. But it was still McClane. This new version has nothing but the wise cracks. And that ain't good enough.
I'll admit, I may be jumping the gun. We've yet to actually see the film. But what we have seen of it is a bad indication of what is to come. I sincerely hope that the film proves me wrong. I want to see Johnny boy fight his way out of another mess. I want him to overcome the odds and beat the Euro-trash bastards with a yipee-ki-yay motherfucker! But I fear that what we'll be seeing will be a caricature of our former hero. A shadow of the bare-foot, thinning hair, wise cracking, Roy Rogers loving blue collar cop. You want to make a Bruce Willis over-the-top action flick? By all means, I'll pay to see it. But don't call it Die Hard.

ALPHA DOG (2006) - Nick Cassavetes

Based on the true-story of Jesse James Hollywood, a southern California drug dealer, and the youngest person ever to make the FBI's 10 most wanted list, Alpha Dog brings together a cast of young actors headed by Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster and Brittney-Spears-trainwreck-escapee, Justin Timberlake. Hirsch plays Johnny Truelove, the fictitious version of Jesse James Hollywood. One of his clients, meth-addled psycho Jake Mazursky (Foster) refuses to pay Truelove the money he owes him, so Truelove and his cronies (Timberlake, Shawn Hatosy) kidnap Mazursky's younger brother, Zack (Anton Yelchin) and hold him as collateral until Jake pays up. Mazursky's parents involve the police, and Truelove and his gang realize they're in a mess way over their heads, with time and options running out.

Alpha Dog suffers from one huge problem, and surprisingly, it's not the acting (although there are some appalling performances). The script is appalling. The dialogue sounds as though it was written by an obsessed Keanu Reeves fan. Every character reacts with a 'dude' or a 'whoah' and little else. There is not one likeable character in the film. Even Zack, the kidnapee, the character we're supposed to feel sympathetic towards, is incredibly naive and annoying. Everyone else in the film seems to have their heads jammed firmly where the sun doesn't shine. Not one of them seems to have an iota of sense. The performances range from mildly interesting from Foster, to somewhat adequate from Timberlake (although maybe he shouldn't hand in the notice at the day-job just yet) to appalling from pretty much everyone else. Bruce Willis pops up, but is inconsequential. And then there's Sharon Stone. If there's one reason to see this film, it's her. But not for the reasons you may think. At one point, she dons a fat suit for one of the most unintentionally funny scenes of the year. She looks like she just left the set of Eddie Murphy's latest gravitationally-challenged comedy. Other than that, there's no reason to see the film. Director Nick Cassavetes is less interested in plot development than promoting the SoCal gangsta lifestyle,yo! And for this reason, the film fails. Rubbish.

Alpha Dog @ IMDB