Sunday, August 4, 2013

Summer 2013 Blockbuster Massacre

Summer Massacre 2013

This summer has been one hell of a season for blockbusters, and I mean that in the fire and brimstone, sulfur-burning eyes, unending torture, non-sense driven, bullshit religion type of Hell and damnation kind of way.
What is a blockbuster? Well, in movie terms, it's a film that is a great commercial success. But I prefer to use it as a description for any movie that tries way too hard to achieve that success (usually failing miserably). Like that one kid who tries out for the baseball team, he has a lot of heart and drive but absolutely no physical prowess. If we were Spartans, he probably would have been thrown off a cliff at birth.

Everyone knows this kid
I wish someone would have thrown most of the scripts for these movies and everyone associated with them off the same cliff.

The Good

Pacific Rim

This movie was goddamn fun, even if you don't have that one go-to anime movie reference that features giant robots. The only way it could have been better is if Charlie Hunnam had either died in the first second of the movie or just never been in it at all. Every time that guy talks all I can think is "stop talking like that. you're killin' me here."

"You're KILLIN' me HUNNAM!"
Giant robots fighting giant monsters in a world destroyed, on the brink of total annihilation. The plot is basic but it isn't tossed to the wind. Don't expect to throw up every time there is a fight either. Unlike other films that throw so much random shit at the screen to give the illusion of action, all of the fights in Pacific Rim are easy to watch. It's satisfying to watch a horrible monster get bludgeoned with an oil tanker. 

The Conjuring

Fuuuuuuck this movie. And I mean that in the best possible way. I was on edge the whole time, despite the typical setting and story. The scares weren't so thrown in your face as much as an implied presence most of the time. So when we finally saw something it was more terrifying having built off the tension. 

I kept thinking this was going on while I watched the movie
It just so happens that the actual paranormal investigators this movie is based on are the basis for the Amityville Horror, so I attribute the basic plot to being their overused REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. 
Think about that the next time something goes bump in the night.

The Wolverine

This one was a big surprise to me. It had all the trappings of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, that piece of shit movie proved that something CAN be worse than X-Men 3. Somehow, the creative gods smiled on this flick. You'll always find directors expressing their love for the source material when it comes to any iconic figure, but James Mangold really seems to have a love for the character and making the Wolverine a movie that hinges on one word: Badass. Wolverine spends his time killing and dealing with his past kills, including his beloved Jean Grey. It was a step in the right direction, a cathartic film for this character to be set up for a return to the X-Men in Days of Future Past.

Photo Op opop op op
 My only gripe with The Wolverine is the ending battle. People are getting put to sleep for no reason and in some old Japanese tower that, for some reason, is like some strange missile
/ laboratory thing? In which everyone is falling and fighting and falling some more. They made up for all of it by having Viper die in a more gruesome way than I expected. Overall, a pleasant surprise.

The Bad

I'll build this up in order of my displeasure with each. I'll keep it concise because most of these movies are so bad that they don't warrant much more than a sentence to explain. Plus, I'm really going to enjoy tearing into the last couple.


R.I.P.D.

I watched Men In Black instead.  Did anybody see this movie? Hello?

The Heat

Miss Congeniality 3, this time, with a fat chick trying to do physical comedy. It's always funny to watch fat people struggle! Right?

Why couldn't Ryan Renolds and Sandra Bullock just do The Proposal 2: The Marriage instead, or something? These were quality choices?

Someone give these roles to Charlize next time

The Lone Ranger

I'm surprised anyone even tried to go see this movie. Even the trailers were such dog shit footage, I couldn't imagine what the rest would be like if what I saw in the preview was supposed to hook me. Johnny Depp has done everything except literally jumping over a shark. Quirky and weird doesn't fit EVERY character.

This isn't even a character....
Stop trying to force it. Go back to making a movie every 6 years or something. Just because you are an actor doesn't mean you can pull off another race in a different time. You're just Johnny Depp with stupid makeup.

And now.... the real massacre...
Click the pic!

Man of Steel Review

Man of Steel

Everyone claims that Superman is the hardest character to bring to life on screen. Or to modernize. To humanize. He's too powerful. Nobody can stand up to him, unless you have Kryptonite, right? It's true, this mother-fucker is a powerhouse but he is not without enemies that push him to his limits or even to the brink of death. But it shouldn't be all about an enemy that could kill Superman.  His greatest stories focus on the moral dilemmas associated with the power he has and having to uphold justice for all of humanity, not just one country or another. Fuck right off. I liked 3 things about this movie. AND THAT IS IT.

The Good

1. The casting. I think every character was cast well. I don't think that every character was explored well. Although Charlize Theron may have been a better choice...

For Lex Luthor
2. Lois Lane was great. I don't care that she figures out Superman's identity. It was a great way to display her skills as a reporter, and her integrity when she did not reveal the truth to the world, or the Kryptonians.
I'll get to the third like in awhile.

The Massacre

So let's see just how poorly Man of Steel touched on the problems of Modernization, Humanizing, and his Power, before moving into what else sucked a big supercock in this movie. Sometimes I wish I could just sit back and enjoy, but...


That's right Batman

Modernization. What a pointless goddamn argument. The only thing modern in this shit-hole movie was the existence of cell phones and satellites only used ONCE for Zod to broadcast a dumb message of "psychological warfare" to Earth demanding that the Kryptonian living here turn itself over. Wowee guys. Now I really feel like Superman fits into our era.

Humanizing. Superman is, at his core, a representative of the best parts of humanity because of the values instilled into him as a child by two wholesome farmers, the Kents. His childhood is spent hiding his abilities while he learns what self control and compassion for his fellow man is. There is no need to change any of it. The very notion that it has to be explored in a new way, like sending him on a journey of self discovery wherein he learns of the plights of the middle and lower class is such a garbage, overdone trope that is completely unnecessary. Superman, who is faster than a speeding bullet, travels the world by boat and hitching rides just to blend in and see how the other half lives (the other half being humanity). He's not watching the news and learning of dictatorships or visiting third world countries that present such despair and need that he is pushed to stand up for what is right. He just wants to defend a bar waitress.

Haven't we all stared blankly into the distance as we sit upon a dilapidated stair? How AVERAGE!
Power. Superman is probably the most powerful superhero ever, but as I mentioned earlier, he has a lineup of the most formidable foes of any superhero. Brainiac, Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday, Parasite. Finding an enemy to face shouldn't be an issue. Testing Superman's power isn't just about the fight, it's about the choices he has to make with that power.

In 1978 this motherfucker pushed Superman to such limits physically and emotionally that he had to fly around the Earth so fast that he rewound fucking time! That's Lex Luthor, and he is human. No superpowers. Just intellect, and the resentment of a powerful human toward a living god.
For the sake of your eyeballs, if you have survived the blog so far, I will list everything I hate about Man of Steel with the speed of bullets. (see what i did there? no? fuck you)
  • Every Kryptonian is born to a certain profession, yet nobody believes the opinion of the other. The fucking Council doesn't believe Jor-El when he says the world is about to explode, even though this dude was bred to become a goddamn scientist. And Jor-El disagrees with Zod's militaristic tactics even though he was bred to be a soldier. How did this society thrive for so long genetically altering their spawn to disagree all the fucking time?
  • All of Kryptons genetic information is stored in a codex that is then dispersed into Superman himself?! Does this mean he is like a Super-kryptonian too? Why the fuck would Jor-El put the one thing that could bring his species back to life, inside his beloved child? He blatantly states that he hoped one day kryptonians and humans could live together, with his son as the one who can join them. Why not just put the stupid codex in the ship?
  • The stupid key with the letter S. Oh wait, it's not an S, on Krypton it stands for hope. Fuck whoever thought that up just to explain a big ol S on the suit. More importantly, fuck whoever decided to give Superman a key that is able to work in ancient, 18,000 year old Kryptonian technology. 
  • Speaking of 18,000 year old bullshit, not only does the key work in some Kryptonian scout ship that is uncovered on the North Pole, but there just so happens to be the suit there?
  • Jonathan Kent thinks young Clark maybe should have let a school bus full of kids die. Real great values Pa.
"We could have put the bodies here. Nobody would ever know, son."
  •  Clark finds the 18,000 year old Kryptonian scout ship, inserts the stupid key which produces a hologram of his father who describes the history of Krypton, with a main focus on General Zod, who's acts of terrorism resulted in Jor-El's death. How does this hologram know? Why is this such pertinent information considering that nobody yet knows that Zod even survived? I would think that in the vast history of Krypton, there would be more important cultural and historical events to discuss.
  • Clark finds the suit on the scout ship, like it's some millennia old pajamas or something, puts it on and only then figures out how to fly? He's like 30 fucking years old at this point. He never thought to run and jump as far as he could before?
  • General Zod and all of the Kryptonians have scoured the galaxy for other Kryptonian settlements, going to planets where terraforming crews have been sent. All of the crews are failures, most everyone is dead. What the fuck makes them think they can terraform Earth when they haven't found one successful terraform operation in all of their journeys?
  • The Kryptonian's suits supposedly keep their personal atmosphere the same as on krypton, yet they are still able to use super speed and strength immediately upon landing on Earth and this comes as no surprise to them. Yet when Supes breaks Zod's helmet, exposing him to Earth's atmosphere, Zod acts like he is getting fucked by a cactus.
He's probably into that kind of thing anyway
  • Random characters and under-explored supporting characters. Perry White is basically in the movie just to tell Lois Lane that she is crazy and then admit that she isn't. And then, with the help of some other forgetful reporter person, try to save some random woman (who maybe had a line at some point? who the hell remembers) from the rubble of a building.
  • "You can save them. You can save them all." A quote from Jor-El to Superman before the conclusion of the film. Yet Superman basically saves no one. Firstly he flies off to stop one piece of the terraform machine which
  • For some reason can sprout tentacles? That was necessary to install? What the hell would a terraform machine need with self defense tentacles? Are Kryptonians likely to use these machines on planets where life exists? I think David Goyer, Zach Snyder and Chris Nolan basically just thought Superman needs an epic robot to fight, so lets just throw some tentacles on this machine, place it across the world and then he will have to fly super fast back in order to save Metropolis! Because fuck it! Nothing needs a logical explanation with enough chaos going on!
  • How about Metropolis! Aside from a passing mention and the cop car with the name of the city on it, the fight could have been anywhere. There was no exploration of the city as an entity and that is important when you are bringing to life this kind of iconic mythology. Superman lives in Metropolis. Everyone knows. But just showing a city getting destroyed doesn't make us care about it. Especially given the wanton destruction that occurs in the final fight.
  • This movie should have been called Dragon Ball Z: Superman. Just because these people have the power to level a city, doesn't mean it would happen. Certainly not with Superman. In some scenes we see Supes and Zod fly through a building, then we see the terrified bystanders on the street. A moment later, the building begins to collapse. Superman is nowhere around to catch the building. To save the people. He is off punching Zod into another building. In the 1980 flick, Superman 2, Superman faces the same enemy, General Zod, and after Zod almost kills a bus load of people, Superman leads the Kryptonians away from the heavily populated area, to avoid collateral damage. 
Pa Kent would have told you to let them die.
  • Also, why the hell are the Kryptonians terraforming Earth, a place where they have super powers?! Does anyone else think this is a step in the wrong direction?
Of course, all of these issues culminate in the biggest problem most everyone has with the movie, and that is the choice Superman makes to kill General Zod. Personally, I liked it. I think the pain it causes Superman is palpable, and this is warfare after all. Yet, I don't understand why Supes couldn't just fly straight up with Zod? Just fly up, save the people who are a couple laser eyes away from death and toss the douche into space. And wouldn't snapping Zod's neck swing those laser beams through the people before that spine snaps anyway? It felt more like a superhuman kick to my human balls to show something so unexpected from a character so well known but I do think it's the one thing in this film giving Superman a little more depth for the future. 

The Verdict

I feel that the future of this franchise is doomed, however, to continue exploiting these characters to generate the next big fight scene and the next incredible CG moment at the expense of real depth and more interesting plot. Yet another spoon-fed movie, unimaginative and generic, trying to be exceptional and inspired, but only resembling s Michael Bay Transformers movie. 

At least this never happened
If I had the power, I would fly around the Earth and turn back time and go snap the neck of the horse the broke Christopher Reeves' back.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? NO! It's another fucking awful Superman movie! Woah!

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness Review by Special Guest Blogger Chris Birdman!


Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness was a mostly terrible movie, which managed to disappoint not only the Trek fan in me, but also the fan of logic and good writing.

"Highly Illogical"
While it was not without a handful of positives, overall the film felt poorly thought out, afraid to move beyond previously-told stories, and ultimately was not an enjoyable trek through the stars.

The Good

Benedict Cumberbatch: He does mostly well in a role that could’ve been a no-win scenario.
Kobiyashi Maru, anyone?
It’s never easy for an actor to step into a role that someone else has so thoroughly made his own, but Cumberbatch brought confidence and menace to the role of Khan Noonien Singh. While his actions didn’t always make much sense, and there were some missed opportunities to show rather than just tell how dangerous he was, I won’t blame writing problems on Cumberbatch.
Leonard Nimoy’s appearance: If it weren’t addressed in this film, the question would hang out there of what old Spock was up to, and if he was being pumped for information on future events. It turns out that the Elder Spock has refused to discuss his knowledge of his past/this universe’s future. Although he makes an exception in this case based on his experience fighting Kahn all those years ago, and the heavy (and particularly personal) cost of victory. This scene could have just been an opportunistic attempt to work Leonard Nimoy into the script, but his revelations help push young Spock to evolve as a character. Understanding the gravity of Kahn’s threat, Spock lies to Kahn, while simultaneously citing his species’ inherent trustworthiness. This suggests a Spock who is becoming more comfortable with himself, and in particular comfortable tapping into the human aspects of his character. Contrast this Spock with the man earlier in the film who felt duty-bound to submit his report on the Nibiru mission, even knowing it may damage a friendship, and a friend’s career (or at least, it would’ve damaged Kirk’s career if the movie had any balls; hold this thought). Spock calling Kirk “Jim” at the end: One of the small, subtle, effective moments that the film seemed otherwise incapable of generating, I have to give credit for Spock’s informal addressing of Kirk in the hospital near the end. The use of “Jim” neatly symbolized the collapsed distance and strengthened bonds between the two men.

The Massacre

The writing in this film was downright terrible. The film goes off the rails from the very beginning. It may not have even had rails to begin with. So many things aren’t explained or don’t make sense when subjected to cursory thought. Examples? Let’s start from the beginning on Nibiru. Why is the Enterprise parked underwater? How did it get there without being seen by the natives - their temple is pretty damn close to the water, after all. How did the shuttle get from the ship to the ash cloud without being spotted? What’s their plan to leave without being seen? We’re only 5 minutes into the movie, and here’s another question – How does Spock come to spearhead the mission into the volcano? I highlight this question not because Spock shouldn’t be performing this mission, but because it’s the first of many missed opportunities in the script. So, why? Well, he’s the science officer, and a “cold fusion device” sounds pretty science-y.
“Captain, I’m detecting high concentrations of technobabble here!”
And he’s first officer; leading away missions is a major component of first-officer duties in Starfleet (or at least that’s protocol in the TNG era). But a mission to save a species would have particular resonance with this timeline’s Spock. Having watched his planet die in Star Trek (2009), I would’ve expected some dialogue or acknowledgement of the very personal nature of this self-assigned mission to save a species they’re only supposed to be observing. This would’ve been fertile territory for exploration of Spock’s dual heritages, and the internal conflict between his human emotions and Vulcan logic. Instead, the pre-mission dialogue is a chance for Spock and Uhura to have a tiff. Gee, that’s sure compelling.
So after the crew returns to Earth, Kirk is relieved of command by old pal Admiral Pike. Here’s another missed opportunity in the story. Kirk is no longer the captain of the Enterprise, and Pike is even sending him back to the academy. How will our hero deal with this reversal? The stakes for Kirk’s story have changed, and there’s an opportunity for personal growth through facing adversity. Going from Captain of the Federation’s flagship to remedial classes back at City College must be pretty humiliating. Watching Kirk approach this disciplinary assignment will reveal new facets of his character. The potential to contrast Kirk’s lessons in humility, as he learns to follow orders and temper his self-assurance, with Khan Harrison’s supreme sense of self and confidence in his own superiority will set these characters on a collision course for the latter half of the story.
This is going to be fucking awesome!
Just kidding! Kirk ain’t going to school, that’s for nerds! This is a summer blockbuster, you didn’t come here to see a character grow or change in response to hardship. So 5 minutes later, we get practically the same bar scene from the first movie. Given the number of quotations lifted from Wrath of Kahn, I’m surprised the bar scene didn’t entirely consist of reused dialogue from Star Trek. But just incase you forgot that Pike and Kirk spoke in a bar once before, they’re sure to mention it. So Pike decides that he was too mean to Kirk before, and instead of teaching him some humility and respect for procedure by sending him back to the Academy, he’ll teach him that he can keep lucking his way through his career by appointing him first officer on the Enterprise. 10 minutes after this, of course, John Harrison has shot the shit out of Starfleet HQ (and poor Admiral Pike), and Kirk has talked himself back into command of the Enterprise. I’ll circle back and talk about Khan Harrison in a moment, but I want to focus on Kirk’s “arc” first.
“””Arc”””
This lightning-quick, un-earned reversal of Kirk’s fortunes perfectly encapsulates the competing agendas that pretty clearly underlie the making of this film. Let’s take a step back for a moment. 2009’s Star Trek was a desperate gamble by Paramount. Star Trek films had been declining since 1995’s excellent Star Trek: First Contact, and the television arm of the franchise had seen a rapid decline in quality from the brilliance of TNG and DS9, to Voyager’s mediocrity and wasted potential, to the disaster of Enterprise’s first 3 seasons (a solid fourth season regrettably saw the show finally finding competent direction too late to reverse terrible ratings and stave off cancellation). In this context, a Star Trek film helmed by an avowed non-Trek fan in JJ Abrams, who set out to create an entirely new continuity, was a risk the franchise needed to take. And the film succeeded on several levels, entertaining and being embraced by both Star Trek fans and moviegoers in general. And so, with box-office success, a new cast, and a newly reset timeline, the stage was seemingly set for an ambitious sequel that could boldly go where no one had gone before. And instead we get a half-hearted remake of Wrath of Kahn. Instead of continuing to gamble on the fresh approach, and tell a new story, somehow it was decided that the second Star Trek movie needed to show fealty to previous canon by bringing in Kahn, as if it’s somehow impossible that a Star Trek 2 might not include him. Of course things have been changed to reflect modern topics of interest (terrorism!). And Kahn and Kirk don’t have a history. And there are Klingons, because why not, this is Star Trek, right? But despite these changes, there are numerous instances of what might charitably be called “homage”, or could instead be called “We copied this line/scene out of that other movie, because it was pretty memorable”. And it’s this unresolved tension between wanting a new direction and wanting to recreate the (arguable) pinnacle of the series that’s perfectly encapsulated in the 15 minutes that Kirk isn’t Captain of the Enterprise: The movie seems like it’s daring to raise the stakes, and set out in a new and interesting direction, but then suddenly pulls it back for the flimsiest of reasons. (Kirk to Admiral Robocop: “Starfleet can’t go after him, but I can.” “Ok, you’re back in command.” Uhm, what?)
Pretty sure you’re still in Starfleet, dude.
Why can’t Star Fleet go after Kahn Harrison? Because he teleported to Kronos, and tensions are pretty high with the Klingons right now. This sort of makes sense if you only think about it for three seconds - a man on the run hides among the enemies of his enemies. EXCEPT, Kahn knows that Admiral Robocop thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable anyway. EXCEPT, Kahn helped him build a new class of warship that he’s just waiting for an excuse to use (and which can conveniently be piloted by a crew of 1, if need be; so even if a sanctioned Starfleet mission isn’t possible, a pissed-off Admiral can just fly himself there). So Kahn goes to Kronos, why? It really seems like a flimsy excuse to work Klingons into the mix. I feel like they just put some classic Trek villains in a hat and picked one out. “Ok, we’ve got Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, and Malcolm McDowell.” 
“Uh shouldn’t we talk about this?” 
“No, it doesn’t matter, we’re only going to spend 10 minutes with them anyway.” 

So, why are we there? What’s Kahn’s motivation? Maybe Kahn was hoping to draw the Federation into war with the Klingons? If so, why go to an abandoned province and then just hang out there? Why not go bomb the capital and let yourself be seen? Given the Klingon commander’s attitude about humans killing humans being of no interest, I doubt the Klingon high council would particularly care whether or not Starfleet disavowed the attack. Especially given that the perpetrator has a false identity prepared for him by Starfleet, for whom he used to do weapons research.

Or maybe Kahn needs some disposable shock troops to help him get his frozen buddies back? While he’d probably look down on Klingons the same way he’d look down on non-enhanced humans, Kahn shows himself during the film to be pragmatic and always looking for an advantage. Knowing that someone would eventually come after him, why not recruit some meat shields? Between his physical and mental abilities, he could probably find a number of Klingon followers by alternately manipulating their sense honor and demonstrating his superiority in a few fights.

But no, he seemingly goes there for no reason at all, other than to be alone. One wonders what he would’ve done if Kirk hadn’t come after him. What if Admiral Robocop didn’t give Kirk the Enterprise and the long-range torpedoes? What if he just took his Dreadnought-class Vengeance out to the edge of Klingon space and turned the province into ashes without transmitting a warning? Kahn seems to have no goal or motivation from the time he teleports away from the attack on Starfleet HQ until the time he kills a bunch of Klingons so that he can ask Kirk how many missile/freezers Kirk’s got on board.

Rosencrantz and GuildenKahn
I won’t even go into the last 45 minutes of the movie in detail. Here are a few quick thoughts:

How does Scotty get onboard the Vengeance without getting discovered? It’s one thing to fly up to a secret shipyard orbiting Jupiter; arguably having no defenses or fleet presence makes it more secret through unobtrusiveness. But letting an unknown shuttle fly in without issue? And why did none of the maintenance flotilla say “Oh yeah by the way a shuttle came out of nowhere and joined us as we went to access the super-secret shipyard.”

Why does the Vengeance, which is designed for minimal crew, have a seemingly mile-long empty warehouse in the middle of it, leading to a very small hatch? And why are the controls for the hatch at the other end of the fucking room?

The Enterprise gets knocked out of warp “237,000 km” from Earth. They appear to be in deep space, but at 237,000 km they’d be inside the Moon’s orbit. Somehow they can’t raise Starfleet HQ or any other ships - in the heart of the Federation, there’s nobody else in-system? -

Guys, nobody tell the Klingons that Earth is undefended, ok?

- but Spock can contact oldSpock on New Vulcan?

Suffice it to say that the set-pieces get bigger and bigger to the point of absurdity. The good guys win, and the movie that wouldn’t let Kirk be out of the Captain’s chair for more than 15 minutes DEFINITELY won’t let him stay dead until the next movie; he’s back and does get his nice little moment with Spock before closing on a speech that he’s giving for some reason at Starfleet. I didn’t quite understand why he was the memorial service speaker and closed by bragging about getting the 5-year mission he wanted in the beginning of the movie, but at least the movie was over. And then the credits roll.

And as I sat in the theatre pondering everything wrong with this half-baked concoction of a movie, rife with missed opportunities to tell an actually interesting story, whose name appears as a writer? Damon Lindelof. Suddenly everything wrong made perfect sense. That name answered all my questions.

Unlike the final season of LOST

After squandering the potentials of Lost, Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, and now Star Trek Into Darkness, and with the sure-to-be terrible World War Z upcoming, I may have to avoid any future film on which he has a writing credit. Discounting the yet-unreleased WWZ, the frustrating thing about each of these projects is that solid ideas formed their foundations, but Lindelof seemed content to tell a story full of explosions, conveniently plot-driven character behaviors, and gratuitous Carol-Marcus-changing-clothes-in-shuttlecraft moments, rather than attempting to tell compelling stories driven by rational character motivations and conflicts.  Like Star Trek Into Darkness, each of these projects had opportunities to be great, but ended up disappointments. I can only hope that he either adjusts his writing process going forward, rejecting the first, obvious ideas that spring to mind in favor of deeper, more satisfying exploration of concepts; or, barring that, that he stays the hell away from franchises I care about in the future.
Please god no

Friday, March 1, 2013

A Good Day to Die Hard Review

A Good Day to Die Hard

Buckle up for what could very well be my longest massacre yet. Many who know me also know my love for Die Hard. I don't even celebrate my birthday. Instead I celebrate surviving for another year, overcoming obstacles, facing fears, and generally not dying hard....
I fucking love Die Hard for the same reason many people have deemed it the best action movie of all time. If you are one of those people who are like "what's the big deal with Die Hard? I thought that movie was terrible" get the fuck out of here right now before you end up like Takagi.

He gets murdered

If you are still reading, come with me as I explain the dream shattering shitfest that is the fifth installment in the saga of John McClane defying death in the most uneasy manner. 

The Good

This guy


That's John fucking McClane. He's older, wiser, and balder. 

He's a bit of a badass.
Oh were you waiting for more good stuff? Nope. That's it. Bruce Willis is always John McClane. He knows how to play the character. He's aged and it shows in his physicality and his mannerisms, which I think is fantastic. Nobody is the same person 20 years later. We evolve and mature. So has John McClane, as shown in these latest sequels.

Well, old habits die....um....hard....

The Massacre

Unlike many, I actually enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. I was afraid when I saw that McClane would be fighting a jet, and while it was a bit over the top, I felt like it fit the story. The issue with sequels is going bigger being better. Every Die Hard has gone bigger than its predecessor which hasn't always been a bad thing. What you have is the most basic of plots, after all. What distinguishes Die Hard from other films is how relatable, unique and invested the characters are. No wasted characters! That is the key to a great movie. In the two best Die Hard films, every character that is given a name has something valuable to contribute at some point, be it a quote, action, clue or some kind of tension relief. 

This is Uli, a henchman in Die Hard, and he is stealing a candy bar while waiting to kill some pesky cops!


This is Ellis, also in Die Hard, and snorting cocaine isn't the only mistake he is making tonight!
Yeah this is the same asshole who shuts down the Containment unit in Ghostbusters


Even Viggo the Carpathian is in the mix! 

The best films have a quality that reflects a genuine love of the story and the characters playing it out. They aren't just thrown in, one dimensional people we can forget about as soon as we see them. In the same way, the best sequels take the source material and treat it with respect, building upon the established characters while exploring some new facet of their personality. 
Take Aliens for example. Taking the kind of tense, rugged future atmosphere, the terror, the constant sense of danger and isolation from the first film and applying it to a larger scale. Then the character of Ellen Ripley, now safe and sound and home again must face the turmoil of her cryogenic freeze taking her a lifetime. The events of the first film leave her more alone in a future where her daughter has aged and died. Then she faces the choice of returning to the planet that started the horror. She is forced to grow, to adapt to the new world and move on. You get the picture?

Get out of this Blog you BITCH!

Anyway, enough setup. A Good Day to Die Hard didn't give a fuck about any of that. While I wouldn't say that this Die Hard was as big as the fourth, it certainly tried in the most contrite, incoherent story line this franchise has ever seen. Here, allow me to break it down for you:

1. John McClane's other estranged child (because that worked for the last one, right?!), his son, Jack, has gotten himself arrested in Russia. John McClane boards a plane and flies out there to find some way of rescuing his son.
2. Some Russian activist, named Kamarov has also been arrested by the Russian Prime Minister(?), an old friend turned enemy who is demanding a file.
3. Jack has purposely gotten himself arrested to implicate himself with Kamarov, counting on Russian the judicial system to put them side by side in the courtroom because
4. Jack is an undercover CIA operative whose mission is to break Komarov out and secure his file for the United States. An operation which hinges on
5. A completely unforseeable terrorist attack which in itself is poorly planned: Blowing up a wall of the courtroom, killing almost everyone within except for the key characters allowing the terrorists to enter, take Kamarov in an armored big rig truck to somehow evade the police.....
Only they didn't count on Jack McClane!
And Jack McClane didn't count on John McClane!


That's the first fifteen minutes...

Come out to Die Hard 5, we'll have a good time, enjoy a new adventure...

The rest of the film is just a race through the disgusting country of Russia full of homages to the first Die Hard film and father/son angst issues the ultimately resolve in a renewed bond over a common love for killing bad guys. Oh, did I mention it all ends at Chernobyl?


Fuck Russia

Yeah. Chernobyl. Because they needed some kind of cool place for a finale in Russia, I guess. Maybe that isn't so bad, right? It kind of fit the overall terrorist plot, but the real issues are in the films execution. 
Every actor except for Mggie Q's single minute scene and Bruce Willis, sucked asshole. Especially Jai Courtney who played Jack.

Guess what, they don't kill him off, no matter how much you want them to

His instant issue with his father in the middle of Russia, repeating over and over "Goddamn you John" with the conviction of a middle school play actor, and his tough guy persona, never felt right. It was like watching amateur hour. Even the shitty terrorist villains were better at conveying some sense of emotion with English as their second language.
Another issue is the element of fun. John McClane has fun killing bad guys. He ends up tortured and beaten, bloody and emotional by the end, but when he is killing, he finds some kind of sick humor in it. In this movie it just felt like a chore. "Oh ok, terrorist plot, I'll get it. Don't worry about it. No problem." 
Then there is the dubbing. Over and over again, lines from the beginning of the film and some lines straight out of Die Hard 4 crop up during some action sequence, as if they needed McClane to say...anything! Why not just throw more random shit in there!

Why not? Fuck it!

The entire film felt like a phoned in job. Mistakes in continuity and judgement. Zip tied hands suddenly not tied at all! A desperate need to get into the vault before someone dies, so lets climb around until we are on the roof and somehow find our way inside! Driving a Land Rover (or whatever fucking truck) over a gratuitous amount of cars in traffic! Guns are easy to find pretty much anywhere in Russia, apparently. Even the R rating couldn't redeem it. I don't even see why it got the R rating except for a few "Fucks"  in the dialogue. Out of the entire film, the highlight was John McClane flipping the bird to an exploding helicopter as he jumps to safety.
I'm going to blame this hell on a few people, because I don't think just the director is at fault here. If this situation was anything like Live Free or Die Hard, the director's cut could be better (though I seriously doubt it with such a shitty plot from the get go.)
John Moore directed this. Who? Yeah I had to look him up too. He's directed some other bullshit I have no interest in seeing. I did see Behind Enemy Lines. It was ok, I guess. I've only seen it once and never had the desire for a second viewing. 
I think I found the real problem here. 

Skip Woods wrote this failure. He seems to specialize in ruining things. Here are the movies he is 'Known For' according to IMDB. I'll link you to their Rotten Tomatoes rating's so you can understand just how bad this guy is.

If you enjoy any of those movies, chances are good that you fall into the fabled Nascar fan category, in which case, People like you are ruining quality movie making.

The Verdict

Check this out: 

Give me a break, I was a kid

That's the cover of a Die Hard story I wrote a long time ago. I dug it out of storage to remind myself what real love for something can produce. It's no masterpiece, and a video game ended up stealing my title anyway,

Who the hell would play this on Gamecube?

but reading through it, the plot is pretty exciting and suitable to the franchise.

Here it is: John McClane's best friend, Al Powell (of the first film and twinkie eating moment in Die Harder) is killed on duty. The film open with McClane mid action, taking down the killer, Adrienne (a man with a possibly female name gave McClane something to taunt with). McClane transports this killer to a new maximum security prison on an island whereupon it is revealed that Adrienne had intended to be taken there all along. With an escape in place, and a heist of confidential information with which to blackmail numerous public officials (including Holly Genaro, John's ex-wife), Adrienne breaks out of his cell and systematically works through the prison in a similar fashion to the young John McClane in Nakatomi tower. John, of course, tries to stop him, but with the release of the prisoners and Adrienne taking control of the prison, John must once again fight his way out of a tricky situation, or die trying. And die he does, in the end. Men like John McClane can't just fade away. They need an appropriate death at the hands of a capable enemy. 
Respect is given to all of the source material and characters while providing a fresh adventure and the emotions associated with facing death and loss. In my mind, that will always be how the saga ends, unless someone can do better.

Ultimately, A Good Day to Die Hard leaves me wanting for a sixth movie to redeem the franchise but also bring closure. It also leaves me pissed off because I wrote a better Die Hard when I was 11.

I wish this were real

I used to think that Die Hard 2: Die Harder was the worst in the franchise, until now. So thanks a lot A Good Day to Die Hard! You've given my Die Hard Day an agonizing ending until a sixth film comes along to hopefully redeem the franchise. 

Friday, January 4, 2013

The Hobbit Review

The Hobbit

The Hobbit is a widely revered and well known staple in the fantasy genre. Many of the ideas brought to life by J.R.R. Tolkien have molded the kind of world we think of today in the realm of magic and Goblins. World of Warcraft, for example, is an amalgamation of all things fantasy, including Goblins, Orcs, dreaded dragons and epic quests.

Adrianne Curry is also a fantasy of mine

While these ideas are not solely from the mind of Tolkien, his world of Middle-Earth, brought these creatures to life in popular culture after publication in 1937. It is such a beloved book that it has never been out of print. Because of the popularity, Tolkien created The Lord of the Rings and added some pieces to the Hobbit so the world and story would flow together more easily. Yet even with all of the revisions the book is little over 300 pages long. For comparison, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is over 1200 pages long. So, The Lord of the Rings was a trilogy of films. That seems appropriate for the amount of content. And the Hobbit is....wait....it's also a fucking trilogy? Why the fuck...oh, and he feels that 48 frames per second will look amazing in 3D? Can someone please tell me why Peter Jackson is allowed to suck his own fantasy cock?!


What a douche.

The Good News

Let me get this shit covered right away because all I want to do is bitch about Peter Fucking Jackson. Alright, so the Hobbit is a classic for good reason. It's a cool story set in a fantastic realm of magic and medieval warfare complete with monsters and wit and a goddamn dragon. All of the elements are there in the film. The casting was fantastic also, with one exception, which is Thorim Oakenshield. I felt like I was watching a normal guy who had been shrunk to child size. Like that part in Innerspace when the villains are partially miniaturized...

Yeah like this!!

The acting was great, especially Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Not only did I believe he was the younger version of the Bilbo from Jackson's LotR, but I got a real sense of adventurous spirit buried beneath a desire for comfort and safety. Once again, Andy Serkis is amazing as Gollum and Gandalf wouldn't be Gandalf if not for Ian McKellen's performance. OK?! Is this enough? You're going to like the movie so let me just get to the massacre portion already.

The Massacre

Peter Jackson is a waste of fucking time. He's basically a hipsters Michael Bay. Check out the IMDB list of films he has directed. If you haven't heard of it, nobody has. With the exception of the Frighteners, Jackson is only known for unoriginal content. The Hobbit and the LotR have been done. King Kong has been done like 30 times. Dead Alive is just a New Zealand ripoff of Evil Dead. Sure, he has an eye for grand scale, but if you look closely, he is just shitting all over the material. Example: in the original King Kong, the title character fights 1 T-Rex. JUST 1!!! In Jackson's remake, Kong fights 3 or 4. Bigger and more awesome! Spectacle for the sake of seeing it, not adding to the story or themes or character development. 
Why? Because some people just want to see cool things. Who doesn't! But there is an appropriate time and place. If you think a scene in which Jaws leaps from the water, somersaults and bites a surfers head off would have improved the movie, then you missed the suspense and the fear of the shark as a presence, a monster hidden in the ocean. These are the same fans that I imagine keep seeing Transformers movies...Probably Nascar fans. 



Anyway, there is a whole lot of spectacle for nothing in the Hobbit. Here's a sample: Radagast, (the wizard of the forest) rides a sleigh pulled by rabbits leading a band of Orcs riding atop Wargs (giant nasty dog monsters) on a chase across the Highlands.... Or perhaps a needless battle between Stone Giants (like 3 of them maybe?) hurling boulders at one another while the protagonists ride upon them...Or a fatass Goblin King who serves no purpose to the story except to give Gandalf something to slice open. OH, my favorite! The escape from the Goblin caves is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. Perhaps when the dwarves use a ladder to grab the heads of a pile of Goblins and rush them over a gap along the path of catwalks. Or riding one of said catwalks down a crevice as it shatters and splinters into pieces beneath them! I mean, pick a tone! You want this to be comical? Serious? I can't take that escape seriously. Or the bird shit on Radagast's bird nest hair. Jesus. What a shit storm. Instead of Michael Bay's gratuitous explosion, Jackson just loves to throw in dumb, silly scenes. 

Not as silly as some of the shit in this movie.

How about the length? Three movies! YAY! I know all of your Middle-Earth fans just love seeing the world brought to life, but come on. At some point you aren't telling a story, you're just milking you success and exploiting a fan base. It's the same way Friday the 13th has like 10 sequels. You might be thinking "Yeah, but those movies SUCK!" You're right. So does a drawn out, 9 hour trilogy of needless spectacle.
48 fps is also one huge, WASTE OF TIME. Great call on that one, Jackson. Supposedly, 48 fps would allow the 3D elements of the film to achieve "the potential that it can achieve". Well, I saw it and I found the exact opposite to be the case. The 3D creatures appeared more cartoon like and thus, SHITTIER than anything looked in the Lord of the Rings. This also added to the issue with tone. While a very serious event occurred, such as the attack of the Wargs, I could only see some shitty cartoon dog running around in a world to which it did not fit. Innovation makes headlines, especially wild new ideas such as Avatar (which I also hated but the new technique was incredible). In the case of 48fps, it made the Hobbit look like an episode of Masterpiece Theater on PBS. Top notch.



My last point is one that I am sure many of you either agree with or have some nerd-reasoning to rationalize and it's not even one of Peter Jackson's fuck-ups!
THE EAGLES. Did Tolkien have some kind of eagle fetish? Or did he just have no idea what to write next and thought "Well shit, I'll just throw in some giant eagles that are only a butterfly call away." Or is Gandalf supposed to be so damn stupid that he never thinks, "Maybe this trip would be faster and far more safe if we all rode some of these eagles I know."
I'm sure there is a reason why all of these eagles are always nearby enough for a butterfly, with all of it's majestic flight speed and aptitude, to make it in time for a daring rescue. 

Great comic from Dorkly

The Verdict

I like the movie, overall. It's the Hobbit. The story is great. I think that once I see it on DVD, some of the issues I had with the cartoon quality will be alleviated but the issues with tone and needless, tossed in bullshit will always be there (I'm sure there is much more to come with 6 more hours on the way). I love a good epic journey story, but turning a 3 hour story into 9 is no longer doing justice to the source material, that's just plain masturbation while you look into a mirror, PETER!

Maybe that's not bird shit in Radagast's hair....