A Good Day to Die Hard Review

The camera tilts and zooms at rapid speed as tyres skid, cars crash, helicopters explode and glass shatters in excess. Tight close ups are cut together with shaky action shots in a disorienting and perplexing catastrophe. Ah shaky cam, my arch nemesis we meet again. Whoa, how many times did that truck flip?

Messy action is the hallmark of A Good Day to Die Hard, unquestionably the worst instalment in the Die Hard franchise.  The cinematography is so unabashingly awful it leaves us wondering whether Michael Bay himself was behind the camera. Alas, John Moore is the hack at the helm of this flick.

This time round John McClane (Bruce Willis) takes us to Russia to track down his son Jack (Jai Courtney) who has been charged for a serious crime. It turns out that Jack is an undercover CIA agent involved in a vague undercover operation described by Willis’ character as ‘spy stuff’. The action takes them to Chernobyl, Ukraine to locate some sort of file that contains secret information. More importantly, father and son take stunts to the highest level of improbability and bond over killing a bunch of Russian terrorists.

It’s safe to say A Good Day to Die Hard doesn’t care about plot. Bland and one-dimensional characters are forced to follow a paper-thin narrative that is severely underdeveloped. We are directed from one set piece into another only to see them destroyed by a shower of pelting bullets and explosions. In the midst of a ten-minute car chase one of the characters says, ‘I’ve had enough of this shit’. He’s not the only one.

In the original, John McClane was your everyday man, a regular Joe with a foul mouth and a wisecracking attitude. Once a reluctant hero, now his character is little more than a tired macho cliché. In spite of the title, A Good Day to Die Hard plays more as an average action adventure than a proper Die Hard movie.

But at least the trailer was good...

Great Expectations: Updating a Classic

In the latest adaptation of the Dickens classic, Helena Bonham Carter is doing what she does best. She plays Miss Haversham, a deeply damaged woman once jilted at the altar who is left literally decaying in a room for over 20 years. Dressed in an old wedding dress with big hair resembling the bride of Frankenstein, she looks as if she has stepped right out of a Tim Burton production. It appears to be the part she was born to play.

Given her track record, one could expect another brassy and unbridled performance. In this case, her portrayal is far more nuanced than that. She never borders on pantomime or caricature but instead brings a thoughtfulness and melancholy to the character. She is the defining ingredient in a great new cast of characters under the direction of Mike Newell (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Prince of Persia).

Newell’s Great Expectations is a solid adaptation of the book, faithfully Dickensian in its sentiment. He properly balances the comedy and tragedy of the narrative and brings out the best in his actors. Holliday Grainger gives a notable performance as Estella, giving her a humanity and emotional redemption sometimes overlooked in previous adaptations. And while Jeremy Irvine keeps in character, at times he lacks charisma and comes off a bit bland. Together however, they have just the right amount of chemistry. Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane and Jason Flemyng are also commendable in their individual roles.

Additionally, the stylished costuming and gothic production design is lushly produced. Although a good movie, it’s not a great one. Newell’s take isn’t particularly original or unique; nevertheless it’s a new adaptation for a new generation.

Oz the Great and Powerful Review

The much anticipated prequel to MGM’s The Wizard of Oz has finally arrived but does it live up to the hype?

With a budget of over 200 million dollars Disney has a lot riding on Oz the Great and Powerful, which they anticipate will recreate the commercial success of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. Given that it’s the first major 3D film and box office draw of 2013, I don’t think they have much to worry about.

Director Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead, Spiderman trilogy) delivers an entertaining albeit predictable adventure that is visually impressive but altogether unmemorable.  Don’t get me wrong, there are great moments in Oz but like Alice, the whole isn’t greater than the sum of its parts.

The opening credits are the best I’ve ever seen, an impressive array of mesmeric animated images set to a hypnotic soundtrack that are reminiscent of those at the end of A Series of Unfortunate Events. Akin to the 1939 film, the first 15 minutes are in black-and-white where we are introduced to Oz (James Franco) from Kansas, a struggling circus magician searching for greatness. This sequence is presented in a 4:3 aspect ratio and gives an old timey feel to the general aesthetic, that for me, is the best part of the film. Soon Oz is transported by a tornado to the magical land of Oz at which point we transition into colour and 16:9 Widescreen. Here he meets Theodora (Mila Kunis), a young and naïve witch who mistakes him for a great wizard and whisks him away to the emerald city. Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams) are the bad and good witches respectively, both of who attempt to persuade Oz to restore order to the land.

The theatrical performances are a mixed bag here. Williams gives a heartfelt and balanced nobility to Glinda, while Weisz is wickedly entertaining as an imperial dictator (she looks to be having the most fun here). Unfortunately Kunis is miscast and although Franco brings charm to the role his overall character arc feels insincere.

Visually and technically, the film is impeccable. The CGI and production design is above and beyond that of Alice in Wonderland. Finley the flying monkey and China girl are of the highest visual effects standard and provide a great amount of comedy onscreen. For once, the 3D isn’t blurry or distracting and helps to enhance the visual design and colour.

Oz the Great and Powerful struggles with bad pacing, giving too much screen time to secondary characters and not enough establishing backstory. The Wicked Witch of the West’s transformation is flimsy and uninspiring and it is at this point that the film loses focus. Due to an unconvincing acting performance so does the audience. The major flaw here is a script let down by bad lines, many of them given to Kunis’ character.

The narrative starts strong only to lose it’s footing half way through culminating in a dazzling but generic witch battle. Still, it’s worth the watch if only to admire the sheer ambition.

MOVIE REWATCH - Joe Wright’s Atonement: An Instant Classic

Before taking on Leo Tolstoy’s classic Anna Karenina, Joe Wright last collaborated with costume drama veteran Keira Knightley on Atonement, a screen adaptation of the book of the same name by Ian McEwan. First released in 2007 and nominated for Best Picture, Atonement was one of the best films of the year and had instant classic written all over it. Now six years later, having rewatched it over a dozen times, it is one of my favourite films.

The film opens on the hottest day of the summer of 1935, where we are first introduced to 13-year-old Briony Tallis who is perched over a typewriter, fervently taping away at the keys to a story. She is God of this narrative, and the subsequent events are told from her perspective. She witnesses a distant scene from her bedroom window that she dosen’t understand between her sister Cecelia (Keira Knightley) and Robbie (James McAvoy), the son of the family housekeeper. It is her overactive imagination that leads to Robbie being wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. By the end of the day, the lives of all three characters are changed forever and Briony will spend the rest of her life trying to atone for her mistake.

At the helm of the film is Joe Wright who masterfully directs the narrative, elliptically cutting from one period into the next, interlacing and interconnecting the realities between characters.  He remains loyal to the books main theme of the power of writing and manipulation of fiction. Seamus Mcgarvey’s photography is superb with every shot having been purposefully choreographed with precision. Screencaps could be captured and framed like paintings. 

Knightley and McAvoy succeed as tragic romantics, but the real stars of the film are the three Briony’s played by Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai and Vanessa Redgrave. All three actresses in each time period perfectly convey the complexity and coldness of the troubled character.

Although considered a sweeping romance with the backdrop of war, Atonement is primarily a character study of a writer. It is a story about storytelling. Devastatingly brutal yet beautifully lyrical, it is Joe Wright’s best work. A remarkable success.

If you haven’t heard or seen Atonement, it is absolutely worth the watch. But be warned, it is not for the faint of heart and could leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Pixar follows Brave with Monsters, Inc. Prequel

After Pixar’s last two disappoints, Cars 2 and Brave, fans we’re hoping for 2013 to mark the year of redemption for the multi-billion dollar animation studio. Unfortunately, what they have cooked up is another franchise of films that appear to be aimed at exploiting the interest of loyal fans of the originals. This time round it’s not a sequel, but a prequel to the much-loved Monsters, Inc. called Monsters University, and if the trailer is anything to go by it looks to be another run-of-the-mill effort.

Studios are intent on pandering to fans of the original movies with sequels, prequels and spin offs, but why do they have to be so lacklustre? Judging by promotional material, Monsters University looks to be a romping adventure set ten years prior to the events of Monsters, Inc. at the college where Mike and Sully first met. A fraternity movie for kids that includes parties where monsters get drunk (presumably on ‘monster cordial’) and even American football.  Here’s hoping that they manage to make friends and get graduate diplomas in the process! Doesn’t it sound like fun? Not really.

Sure, it will please young kids and their sappy parents but the rest of us are unlikely to catch on. And to hear that Finding Nemo 2 and Toy story 4 are currently in the works isn’t an encouraging thought.

Perhaps I am being presumptuous and it may be too early to tell but I predict this will only further tarnish Pixar’s once glowing reputation. On behalf of us fans, please Pixar, give it a rest, take some time and go back to making original and intelligent animation like you once did. 

How long will we have to wait for an original Pixar installment? At least another year.