Review: A Most Wanted Man

A troubling, quiet but politically charged spy thriller starring the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his final leading role.

After the attack on New York's Trade Centre in 2001 the dock city of Hamburg in Germany was identified as a security risk; allowing those responsible for the attacks access to the western world and continues to do so for other Islamic extremists. Hoffman plays as the head of a small German spy network who feels personally responsible for the city's increased security.

But when one suspicious man appears from the docks his spy team leap into action, but while the man appears inoffensive, red flags are raised when he attempts to acquire a huge amount of money from a local bank. Things are made worse for Hoffman when the American CIA come to intervene.

Spy work is often over dramatised, indulgent on the action or romanticized, but A Most Wanted Man is none of those things. While Hoffman's target is of ambiguous intent or purpose throughout the film, we see the security organisations fighting over the moral actions they should take while monitoring his movements. The need to spy from a distance and learn more about terrorist cells, against the need to clamp down immediately on any suspects before they can cause devastation.

Things become even more complicated when a young social worker, a self-styled lawyer, takes the immigrant into her care in hope of giving him a new life in the country.

It is a fascinating film purely from the characters and the organisations they answer to, as well as a contemporary look at what our society acts upon and what governments consider just cause. This actually provides most of the conflict rather than simply making it a racial struggle like most other stories of this type would.

The characters are all given backstories and motivations for their actions without ham-fistedly ramming flashbacks or monologues into our faces. Hoffman is excellent throughout, and Willem Dafoe is always a good addition in my opinion.

Everything is very muted and quiet. This isn't an action movie, or a chase movie, it is slow and steady in pacing and this might lose some audiences expecting something else. Personally I found its character work and slow build very intriguing and the ending was excellent.

Review: White House Down

Probably one of blockbuster-director Roland Emmerich's better movies over the last ten years or more, White House Down ticks all the boxes as a solid action film.

John Cale (Channing Tatum) is a man out to prove himself to his wife and emotionally distant daughter by signing up to become one of the US President's (Jamie Foxx) bodyguards. But just as he is declined, his chances arises when the White House is taken over from the inside by terrorists and everyone inside is held hostage.

It is undeniable that the comparisons to Olympus has Fallen are rife with reviewers, both films released last year with barely a month between them (one of the reasons I wanted to review both back-to-back). There are weirdly similar elements besides the blatantly obvious (the titles are effectively the same!) both have scenes referring to the British attack on the White House from American history, and I'm sure both have a villain say the line: "Welcome to my house".

For all its infrequent cheesiness and let's be honest here, "Emmerichisms", this film is better paced and has more emotional connection than its overly-serious counterpart. The setup feels more believable (incredibly, considering the tonal differences of both films!) our villains appear to have a thought out plan, the heroes become tied into the action with actual reasons. Heck, I even felt these characters were actually vulnerable, unlike the scenery-chewing Gerald Butler. 
Sure, when action hero Cale teams up with the US President we get quips, we get wise cracks and the film starts to become a surreal buddy action movie that... for all intensive purposes... makes no realistic sense. But at least White House Down runs with it, it knows what it is: a bit of entertainment!

(there's no overbearing and trumpeting score, or any all-praise-America baggage here!)

It is by far a good movie, its characters are pretty stock, the action and effects aren't actually as good as Olympus in my opinion, and it may have been a little long in the tooth by the end. But it has good pacing otherwise and doesn't feel restricted by its own presence and gravity. The levity comes from the dialogue, both from heroes and villains.

Like with Olympus, I doubt I will remember this film for much longer, but I can tell you right now that this film was more enjoyable and... paradoxically for Emmerich... felt more genuine than the serious-toned alternative.

A bit of high grade action fun, the sort of thing Emmerich is good for, without the ghastly ham-fisted nature of his worst movies! 

Review: Olympus has Fallen

Well I had always intended to watch this... but now that I have I have discovered some awful not-supposed-to-be-funny 'Murica trite.

When a terrorist attack on the American White House ends with the President and his aids taken hostage and the House turned into a fortress, only an ex-Secret Service agent (who was retired due to an earlier accident that caused the death of the President's wife) can save the day.

The 1990s were full of action political thrillers and Olympus has Fallen appears to be trying to rekindle that genre of film: grounded, realistic and most importantly contemporary stories based around sieges, hostages or conspiracies. But either Olympus has missed the point completely, or something has been lost over the last fifteen years.
First of all, this film (as someone from the UK) is so overwhelmingly America, just... in your face AMERICA. Okay, that's fine for a while. But when every single scene for the first twenty minutes is noble politicans striding boldly through corridors while the score blares with trumpets and warbles with drums, over and over again, I'm sorry but you lose any sense of nobility.
We then have the actual attack on the White House which is spectacular, there's no denying that the action in the film is well done (there's no obnoxious shaky-cam for a start, I generally knew where everything was!) but again the total lack of defense around Washington DC was outright laughable.
"Suspension of disbelief" is all well and good, but when a tone of a film is generally seen as realistic or gritty, behaving like an action thriller than a standard popcorn flick, these sorts of issues become targets for criticism. Sure, trumpet how awesome America is just before obliterating everything it stands for a moment later! ...
The film is a bloody sequence too: televised executions, beatings, stabbings, traitors, all shown through a lens of gritty hardship. I can't actually call this pro-America, it comes across more like self-defecation!

Then there is Gerald Butler... Oh boy. I don't dislike the man; I enjoyed Law Abiding Citizen (for example) but this film's script and acting is atrocious. I've already said this film is bringing the 1990s back, and that is right. I've seen all of these cliche sequences before. I had all of the emotional attachment for him and his wife/girlfriend/partner/person as I do for my toothbrush: every now and then, I am reminded that it's there.
Butler's character is, for want of a better analogy, The Terminator. We see these terrorists enter the story by massacring hundreds of civilians, and so naturally Butler can go on a bloody rampage executing any terrorist he sees with impunity. Imagine Die Hard, but without the sense of humour or self awareness. He just growls and murders his way to inevitable victory (oh, could that be a spoiler? You mean you weren't sure if the personification of America would survive this ordeal?)

Ugh. Suspension of disbelief can carry you so far, but after that you need to tone down the pretentiousness. It is a forgettable action film that doesn't know how to act. "We are realistic and contemporary: We... have hi-tech Hydra weapon platforms. We Stand for American integrity: We use a three-code nuclear activation system called Cerberus."

I need a good note to finish on... uhm... uhm... It is better than A Good Day to Die Hard?

Avoid, unless you want to have some noise in the background while you do something productive.
 

     

Saga Review: Die Hard

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?

Additional marshmallows: And what is with this film's soundtrack? Seriously, there is something really odd and perplexing about it using "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" a Civil War song based off an Irish Folk tune? All I think of is "The Animals go in Two by Two" (ala Noah's Ark) which uses the same tune! Google the tune, it is a tune with an interesting heritage.
 

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...