A Good Day to Die Hard.

Review #1609: A Good Day to Die Hard.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Jai Courtney (John "Jack" McClane, Jr), Sebastian Koch (Yuri Komarov), Yulia Snigir (Irina Komarov), Radivoje Bukvic (Alik), Sergei Kolesnikov (Viktor Chagarin), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy McClane), Cole Hauser (Mike Collins), Aldis Hodge (Lt. Foxy), and Amaury Nolasco (Murphy) Directed by John Moore.

Review: 
"I have a warm spot in my heart for Die Hard...It’s just the sheer novelty of being able to play the same character over 25 years and still be asked back is fun. It’s much more challenging to have to do a film again and try to compete with myself, which is what I do in Die Hard. I try to improve my work every time. I get to do different things and look differently, and it’s still accepted, and people come out. It’s just an amazing thing.”

Sometimes one should just start with something cordial before the storm hits. After all, this is the fifth and presumably last installment in the Die Hard franchise, one that has had such irregularity with its sequels that followed since the original icon that came out in 1988 (a great action film and Christmas movie). Granted, I didn't hate any of the sequels, but I certainly grew up with enough viewings of the first three to see how much charisma and action can be carried with Bruce Willis as a star. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) is probably the one I've seen the least amount of times (one), but that didn't mean it was bad or anything, it's just a byproduct of not going around to watch modern films more than once (unless I really want to). So, here we are, with an R-rated Die Hard film again, and it happens to be the only one that is an entirely original work (the first two were loosely based on books, the third was an unused script and the fourth was a Wired article and a separate script) that was written by Skip Woods, writer of films such as Swordfish (2001) and The A-Team (2010). One working title was apparently "Die Hard 24/7", which I can only imagine would have been just as silly in whatever it would have to do in 24/7 mayhem (or a crossover with some number-related TV show that I've never seen). The director for this film is Irish director John Moore, a graduate of Dublin Institute of Technology that made his own short films and commercials alongside work for the camera before being brought in to direct for 20th Century Fox with Behind Enemy Lines (2001), with this being the fifth and last film Moore has made for the studio.

One knows they are in for some trouble when they realize it is only 97 minutes long. Every one of the previous films was two hours long, and that is likely because those actually seemed to have a useful structure built in that made for useful entertainment without being just a vehicle for action and cardboard. Besides, those films generally had a set-up of a man caught in the middle of violent crisis that is usually one's only hope, whether that involves terrorists on a building, planes stalling, robbing the Federal Reserve, or cyberterrorism. Now, we have a film that takes its cue from the last film in making it a family affair, now set mostly in Russia (or rather Hungary with location shooting) that finds itself involving McClane in a plot with the CIA and secret files involving Chernobyl, and hues of blues and oranges that will make one blur their eyes in agony. The film that comes from it isn't too much better, as it is the worst of the five Die Hard films without any doubt, committing the clearest sin imaginable: being just a bland action movie. Its attempt at blurring the lines with who its villain is alongside a middling father-son act mean that we have a muddy movie, one that might as well be turned into one of those "choose your own adventure" books or video games, being the equivalent of a three-day old cheeseburger with flat soda. One won't hate what they see play out on screen because they will probably be bored stiff by it instead. At the time of the release of this film, Willis was the same age as another icon at the end of his tenure in Roger Moore for A View to a Kill (1985). Strangely enough, I don't see this film receiving any sort of lingering campy sentimental push like that film has. Willis isn't quite at the point where he seems a bit too old to still be an action star, but he sure doesn't seem like he is having much to do here, doing a few quips that have the hitting power of one going through the motions. Courtney isn't too much better either, since one doesn't really feel (or care) about their bond as father and son and therefore just sees an action film that gives them a gruff attitude and not much else. Koch joins them for a time as the target of interest that has a resolution that is meant to be a surprise but is instead a yawning sigh. Snigir isn't too much better, because there really is nothing here to grab on to in scenery or with drama - so one can't find much to point and laugh with in bland popcorn. By the time the climax happens, I'm just trying to make sure my eyes don't strain from how murky it looks (no, cheating by simply turning the brightness all the way up won't help), and I can't imagine how a sixth film would have looked, honestly. Look, if you want to see things explode or people jumping through windows, you will likely find it done in better films, and they might seem less murky in enjoyment and/or the laws of physics. Truly, it should have ended after four films (or three). It comes, it goes, it bores, it snores, it stinks. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Man (2020).

Review #1359: The Invisible Man.

Cast: 
Elisabeth Moss (Cecilia "Cee" Kass), Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Adrian Griffin), Aldis Hodge (James Lanier), Storm Reid (Sydney Lanier), Harriet Dyer (Emily Kass), Michael Dorman (Tom Griffin), Benedict Hardie (Marc), and Amali Golden (Annie) Directed and Written by Leigh Whannell (#1093 - Upgrade)

Review: 
I don't know how to go with this one. On the one hand, it is admirable to see Universal Pictures try something different from their original intent in reviving The Invisible Man for a new audience, where the film (with thoughts of Johnny Depp in the main role) was set to be part of their star-crossed attempt at a cinematic monster universe, fittingly dubbed "Dark Universe", which essentially nosedived into oblivion with the release of The Mummy (2017), a film that coincidentally I forget to even think of ignoring. Instead, the focus is now to do individual story-telling (i.e. literally just doing a horror film a fresh take like the first time), with Blumhouse Productions being the prominent production company behind this film (with Universal as distributor). Like the 1933 film, it is a loose (insert adaptation joke here) adaptation of the H. G. Wells novel of the same name, set in contemporary times just as before. This of course isn't the first film inspired by the novel in this century, with Hollow Man (2000) existing as a sci-fi horror thriller with Kevin Bacon in the main role. This is a movie that re-directs the focus from its main horror figure, which I suppose does help in trying to deliver a fresh perspective on something that has inspired at least ten theatrical films (some involving horror and other mainly involving sci-fi). There certainly is a decent selection of casting, where no one really seems to stick out in error, mainly since Moss dominates the attention for its benefit. The film also does work itself out well for its effects with the titular character when it feels like doing so, since the idea of a monster you can't see is still a scary concept if done right.

On the other hand, the film is a mild disappointment in the long run. It is occasionally scary, but it is a ride that seems a bit too long at a 124 minute pace, particularly with an ending that seems too neatly-packaged up to really have that last punch. I suppose my horror tastes might differ a bit from the buzz that encompassed this film upon release, since it is probably the first horror film of the year that didn't seem doomed to fail. Maybe people really do find this incredibly relevant to the modern age with its mix of invisibility and gaslighting. While I do having sticking points with the occasional horror films (whether liked or disliked), it can be waved away if the overall experience seems right to do so (i.e. not simply saying "it's just a movie" over and over). Without seeming like a complete spoil-sport, the key sticking point is in a scene that actually is fairly tense. It's a scene in a house, where the main character is (conveniently) alone and is fearful of what the invisible stalker could do next to her. She goes to the attic after calling and hearing her ex's phone up there. After finding it...she just leaves it there. Even just having him just take the phone back would have sufficed as an easy out. Look, I don't go to movies to pick at things like supposed "plot-holes", but thinking things all the way through does help in the long run for films, especially horror. In comparison, the original moved at a rapid pace with Claude Rains doing a well-done job at conveying a creepy (and sometimes amusing) presence into interesting horror entertainment, and that film was nearly an hour shorter than this one. In that regard, Jackson-Cohen does fine taking the reins in a role that requires occasional dialogue to make for some decent tension. Moss, as I mentioned before, is our main focus for the movie. She does a capable job, a presence that is easy to follow along with from her perspective, resilience in panic. Hodge, Reid, and Dyer round out the main core quite completely in filling the straight-edge counterpart to the horror trappings without being lost in the background. Dorman makes for a slimy minor presence, desperately needing more time to be on-screen to really stand out. In any case, the film does tend to look nice, pointing its camera to make you look to see if you can detect another presence besides what you see initially. Sometimes the film has a sense of humor, which delivers a chuckle that at least isn't meant to distract. As a whole, this is an okay movie. It isn't as put together as Whannell's previous effort with Upgrade, but it does ultimately provide adequate enough scares to likely win over a shaky yet mostly there foundation. Would I be interested in whatever Blumhouse could do next with a classic monster? Perhaps, if the story seems right enough to give horror thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.