Mama (2013)

March 13, 2013 by The Phage

Horror. The genre has the potential for producing the most memorable films you’ll ever see. The ones you can’t escape, not even in your dreams; they haunt you and pursue you. For me, it was all about Ghostbusters II when I was a little Phage. That film spooked me something wicked. Every night I’d see Vigor, the scourge of Carpathia, warping his way out of a wall and walking downstairs to get me. That was terror. Since then, I’d say I’d been spooked by the finale of The Ring when I was in my mid-teens and by the closing sequence of Rec, which was intense to say the least. But everything else? Meh. Nothing terrifying has come my way. A horror doesn’t have to be terrifying, but if it chooses not to go that route, it best opt to have one hell of a story. Luckily, Mama delivers in this department.

Mama comes with the name of Guillermo del Toro flanking it on every piece of press and publicity. However, it’s important to note that he’s merely an executive producer. Nothing wrong with that, but all too often these types of producers have little-to-no impact on what you’re seeing on screen. But all that being said, don’t let this dissuade you off the film. The premise of the film is quite simple: two young girls, Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse) are kidnapped by their homicidal father and taken to a cabin in the woods, where he plans to finish his series of executions. However, something’s lurking in that cabin. Something paranormal. And this paranormal entity doesn’t like homicidal fathers. So once he’s taken care of, the spirit chooses to take care of the girls as its own, as their Mama. So when the girls are found living wild like savages, they’re taken back into the real world. But Mama likes to keep an eye on her girls… even when they’re housed with their Uncle (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain).

Essentially, Mama struck me as a cross between Paranormal Activity, Poltergeist and something akin to The Ring / Dark Water, all with a very “outworldy”, del Toro-esque layer of makeup. Now, this sentence may have put you off entirely, but that’s just the vibe of the film. What lies within is arguably far better than I’ve made it sound. I use these films as reference points owing to the fact the film focuses on children and their interaction with an ethereal being. It definitely has that sense of innocence about it where children will happily befriend a demon… something they always seem to do in these movies. Funnily enough, I actually befriended Vigor in my dreams eventually. I went for a swim in the pink ooze and all was well. I cured myself of those nightmares forever, but that was thanks to some lucid dreaming techniques that I picked up and less to do with me wanting to be best mates with a ghoul.

So far, so good. But what really held my attention here was the story, and not the scares. Horror movies nowadays are horribly shallow affairs filled with LOUD NOISES and jarring camera angles. This isn’t horror to me. Whilst Mama has some effective scares and some memorable frights, I was just intrigued as to how the film was going to conclude. All too often, you know exactly how a horror will end. Either the killer is demasked and killed, someone will wander away into the distance for the sequel, or the demon lives on. Tick box 1, 2 or 3 right there. Mama is different because I couldn’t predict how it was going to end. And when the climax appeared to be going in the stale “oh, what a cop out” direction, it takes a left turn and catches you off-guard. I like this! Keep me off-guard, please!

Typically, the actors in a horror movie rarely merit a discussion. They’re dispensable and are merely bodies for the bashing and slaughtering. Whilst I’m not going to praise the actors here for being a revelation in how to act in a horror movie, it’s all admirably done. Jessica Chastain sports a rocking new punky look, which suits the tone of the movie, and sells you her despair and pain. Similarly, the young actresses playing Victoria and Lilly do their best “creepy child” routines. But yet again… they’re no Pierce Gagnon. Speaking of which, why is his only upcoming movie Rio 2? Put him in more live action movies!

Ultimately, Mama delivers where so many recent horror movies have failed; it gives you a compelling plot. Whilst I didn’t fall asleep terrified by the underside of my bed or the agape cupboard in the corner, the film did its job. The visual scares are here and the film doesn’t rely on cheap, loud noise scare tactics to get you to jump. This automatically makes me like it a lot more. And if you’ve glanced down and seen the score we’ve given it and are wondering how we can classify it as that…. well, we’ve been constantly disappointed by horrors over the past year or so and this was a refreshing change of pace. No, it doesn’t reinvent the genre or flaunt any conventions, but it delivers a hugely enjoyable ride thanks in no small part to an intriguing plot.

So will Mama give youngsters nightmares, like Ghostbusters II gave me nightmares? Well, I think it could do! Sure, this chick isn’t Vigor, the scourge of Carpathia – she can’t walk out of paintings (Vigor beat Samara to that coming out of an image trick), she doesn’t turn New York into a city of pink slime, and nor can she make a toaster dance with the aforementioned slime – but she does look quite horrendous. So that’ll do the job. Therefore, if you too want to give your kid recurring nightmares in order to teach them how to lucid dream (a neat trick to pick up), then invite Mama into your home… she’ll take care of it for you.

Phage Factor:

Side Effects (2013)

March 10, 2013 by The Phage

Who doesn’t love looking over the side effects of a medication? Well, if you’re American, you get told the side effects during your television adverts. This is still something I find hilariously shocking each and every time I’m over in your beautiful country. Who’d ever take a medication that “may cause loss of memory, sickness, diarrhoea, impotence or death”. Seriously? You’d still take that?! Over here in the UK we find all that out via a little slip of paper that’s in the drug’s box. If you’re a hypochondriac you then give yourself all of the ill effects! Well, except the “death” risk. Not many people can fake death. Except David Blaine. So what about Side Effects, the latest film from Steven Soderbergh? Is its sole side effect euphoria, or is it one of those that’s going to incurably blind you… and give you diarrhoea?

Contagion and Side Effects… effectively sister films!

Now, those that know The Phage personally (beyond my alias) will know how intimately I know the film Contagion. I use it as a reference point a lot in my professional life. And to those that don’t know me in that capacity? Well, I’m The Phage… and you know what that means if you’ve read our “Introduction” section on the left over there. A Phage has a natural affinity for any film about viruses, plagues and biology. So when a new film comes over the horizon in much the same mould as Contagion, The Phage pays attention. Especially when the posters look near identical and it’s from Steven Soderbergh again.

Briefly, Side Effects follows the story of Emily (Rooney Mara), whose husband Martin (Channing Tatum) has recently been released from prison. But Emily’s life isn’t all cheer and happiness… she’s quite depressed, manically so, in fact. After a failed suicide attempt, Dr. Jonathon Blake (Jude Law) – a psychiatrist – enters into her life to try and help her out and return her happiness. His innocent attempts to help her leads him to prescribing her a new drug called Ablixa, on the advice of her previous psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones). But that leads to all manner of crazy occurrences… but is everything that happens down to the drug, or something entirely more sinister?

Side Effects is an out-and-out thriller. And a damn good one at that. If you read my review of Broken City, you’ll note that the biggest flaw we saw was how “analogue” the plot was; you could see where the film was heading within the first 20 minutes. You certainly can’t say the same of Side Effects. What you have here is an extremely effective thriller with an exquisitely outrageous twist in its tail. You won’t see it coming – I can guarantee that. Maybe though that’s also the flaw in the film because it seems so outlandish! Not in the same way that Indiana Jones: Kingdom of The Crystal Skull was ruined by aliens, but it’s still a little “out of nowhere”.

One of the things I quite enjoyed about Contagion was that massive ensemble cast that was put together. Whilst Side Effects doesn’t quite replicate the large cast, it still features some superb displays of acting. Firstly, we’ve got to talk about the return of Jude Law, who was actually in Contagion. Thankfully, he’s abandoned his quasi-Australian accent here in favour of his natural British accent. Law puts in a great turn here as the plagued psychiatrist Dr. Blake. Similarly, you’ve got to again recognise Rooney Mara for another brilliant role portrayal. She really drew my attention in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and this really showcases her talents yet again. Please, give her more roles. And can I just mention how beautiful she looks here? Oh, I already did? Good. However, I must say I was less convinced by Catherine Zeta-Jones; mainly because of those glasses she wears throughout. They just don’t suit her. I also can’t imagine her as a psychiatrist if I’m honest. Her performance just came across quite stale and added little to the film.

But her minor misgivings can be overlooked owing to the fantastic overarching plot here. As I said earlier, I dabble in this general field outside of my film life, so I found the content enthralling; just as I did with Contagion. But I’d say that Side Effects is done far better than its spiritual predecessor, as its a lot more coherently put together with far fewer interweaving narratives. Not every film needs a Crash style overcross and I’m glad that Side Effects recognises that. Overall, it’s more straight forward than Soderbergh‘s last effort, but that makes for a far more honed and effective machine that deserves to be viewed.

Side Effects is 2013’s first example of a solid thriller that’ll keep you enraptured from beginning to end. It boasts a cast that (largely) lives up to your expectations and a plot that keeps you guessing where it’ll turn to next. It’s only real drawback is that the end feels somewhat “cheap” and from out of nowhere. The film tries to show you that it’s been hinting at this all along, but ultimately, it wasn’t hinting at this at all. Regardless, Side Effects demands to be seen if you’re a fan of the genre.

So it looks like the only side effects of Side Effects are a slight chance of confusion that will pass with time. Nothing too serious! It’s not like those god awful US infomertials (I love that crazy word… something else we don’t have in the UK… like Vanilla Coke, which I miss). There’s nothing to be particularly scared of with this medication. Just swallow it down and enjoy the ride!

Phage Factor:

Broken City (2013)

March 6, 2013 by The Phage

I love watching actors do press for their latest releases. Not just because it’s a chance to see them talking outside of their roles / hyping up a film that I may or may not give half a damn about, but because of how they “act”. It’s very telling when you see an actor looking unexcited about a project. Generally, that film isn’t going to be worth the film its burned onto. Yes, I’m looking at you Bruce Willis in your TV interviews for A Good Day To Die Hard. You looked disinterested, and boy was I disinterested in the final film. So when I saw Mark Wahlberg on British TV, getting all drunk and lairy when promoting Broken City… well, I knew I had to see the film.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the review, I want to dwell on Wahlberg‘s appearance on a show we have over here called The Graham Norton Show. His fellow guests? Sarah Silverman and Michael Fassbender. These aren’t two unknowns; especially Fassbender who’s now arguably bigger than Wahlberg both sides of the Atlantic. The video above is taken from YouTube and showcases the best bits. I really recommend watching it, as Wahlberg is hilarious / infuriating and gets more rowdy as the video progresses. I loved his drunken approach to selling a movie. Television gold. Seriously, watch the above video. It’s worth it! Even if you just skip to 11min in, it’s worth it.

So, what is Broken City? Well, I’m happy to report that Mark Wahlberg actually starts the movie “on the wagon”… so maybe he was playing this up? Or maybe he just loves the claret? Who doesn’t? The movie focuses on Billy Taggart (Mark Wahlberg) an ex-New York cop who’s now living out his days as a private detective / snoop for anyone that’ll pay him. He’s suddenly offered business by the Mayor of New York: a Mr. Hostetler (Russell Crowe). The task? Spy on his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who he suspects of cheating on him. Simple enough? Now add in the backdrop of this being during the election campaign in which Hostetler seeks to retain his role in the city. But things aren’t always as clear as they first appear. There’s a hell of a lot of dirt in this Broken City.

Yeah, I probably should write promo spiel right? In between slurring and interrupting guests, Wahlberg pitched Broken City as an old school film focused on a character driven plot. And he’s right. The film is very much driven by its protagonists and does very well from it. Especially for the first half of the movie. Now, I thought this first half was pacey, had a clear narrative and some really involving characters. The second half? Wow… things quickly became clouded and more and more plot points got thrown into the mix. So much so that I feel it detracted somewhat from the main themes of the film.

What the film did do well was characterisation, so I’ll hand it to Wahlberg there. I thought his and Crowe‘s performances were great. They were never going to set the world alight, as neither stretched themselves to any degree. In fact, you could argue that Mark Wahlberg was once again playing Mark Wahlberg… but I’m cool with that. I can relate to the guy for some reason. He’s an every-man. And Crowe? Well, as you’ll remember from my Les Misérables review, I just like the guy.

Having said all that, the film is “light” and the plot “twist” can be guessed within the first 10 minutes of the run time. This isn’t a great asset for a thriller. You want suspense, you want shock, you want to be guessing “what if?” But with this, you can pretty much surmise how things will turn out. It’s a shame, as I think deep down there’s a great film here. I liked the character-driven focus of the film, as opposed to a number of big, dumb set pieces where cars blow up or fly off freeways. I’m bored of that (although Michael Bay isn’t, so it would seem). If only the film had a deeper narrative then there’d really be something to rave about here.

Broken City isn’t going to set the world alight, nor is it going to be elected to the role of Mayor… if films could be elected Mayor! The film is driven admirably by Mark Wahlberg and Russell Crowe, but is let down by a predictable plot. You really can’t be doing with a weak plot when you’re dealing with a thriller. The clue’s in the word “thriller”. You need to be “thrilled”. Unfortunately, Broken City was mostly filler in the latter half, and not much thriller. Clever what I did there, right?

So it looks like Mark Wahlberg‘s appearance on British TV was incredibly representative of the film as a whole. It started off promising and had a coherent narrative that made me keep watching, but as the film / interview progressed, the plot / Mark gradually became far less discernable and increasingly distracted by what was going on around it. It just goes to show that you really can judge a ~~book by its cover~~ film by its press coverage.

Phage Factor:

Stoker (2013)

March 2, 2013 by The Phage

There are dark films… and there are dark films. For some, a straight-up horror movie with a somewhat glib ending constitutes a truly “dark” film, whilst some will consider the ending of The Empire Strikes Back as dark. Me? Well, you’ve got to do something pretty darn subversive for me to label a film as “dark”. Take the darling of controversy, The Human Centipede, as an example. For some, the material was considered so offensive that the film was labelled as filth. But me? I just thought it was a lazily constructed, terribly acted film. Nothing more, nothing less. But every so often, a film crawls along that makes me think “wow… this is a dark slice of cinema”. Stoker is that film.

Dark

Stoker primarily focuses on India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) following the death of her father. All she’s left with is her emotionally-detached and disturbed mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman), and the staff that work at their home. This all changes when her estranged uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) turns up at the funeral and stays for an extended period of time. She’s not alone any more, but the token of family solidarity isn’t what it initially seems to be either. Who is Charlie? Why hasn’t she heard of him before? And just why is he so weird?

To go into any more depth would destroy the film entirely. Chan-wook Park‘s Stoker is teed up as a psychological thriller that’s meant to harken back to Hitchcock films of yesteryear. The film oozes style in the way that it’s shot and it truly does harken back to that period… if only I really enjoyed that period of cinema. I’m much more of a modern cinema junkie than I am into the “classics” that people rave about. For some that’s blasphemy, but I couldn’t give a damn. I’m The Phage!

The aping of the “classics” style makes the initial 45 minutes excruciatingly hard to sit through, as the momentum is somewhat absent. There’s no immediate set up, nor a big hook to latch on to. The film is entirely character driven and no mystery really appears until about 30 minutes in. It’s only then that the film truly gets going. As you can probably tell, I wasn’t a fan of that initial period. I didn’t really know what was going on and so I started to piece together my own plot in my head. My own plot was exciting and to be honest, wasn’t far off the mark come the conclusion of the film. OK, so I didn’t predict just how bonkers it would get towards the end, but I at least knew something was awry.

While we’re on the topic of “bonkers”, let’s return back to the “dark” theme I talked about. Now, annoyingly, I can’t really tell you why I found the film so dark or crazy towards its conclusion lest I spoil the plot for you. Let’s just say that some of the scenes are quite peculiar to watch. To some they’ll actually be quite uncomfortable. Those initial 45 minutes made me question just why this film had received an 18 rating from the British Film Council… but it became apparent later on. Let’s just say that India gets a lot of “pleasure” from some of the more perverse events that unwind. And they really are perverse.

So what of the acting? After all, the film doesn’t help itself by rolling out the plot as slow as is humanly possible. Well, it’s… it’s… it’s OK. Mia Wasikowsa is great as India, but she’s somewhat limited by the fact that India is an incredibly sour-faced girl whose emotions range from “I’m really sad” to “I’m petulant and sad”. Well, except for that “pleasure” scene! Similarly, Nicole Kidman plays the emotionally-disturbed mother to a tee too. But there’s just no range in the role. I understand that it’s not actually possible to show off all your range in a film like this, so it’s probably more a short-coming of the film, or my lack-of-appreciation for this style, that is to blame.

Thankfully, the final build-up has lots of pay-offs and really redeems the film for me, but it still ends on a somewhat odd note that doesn’t really stack up. You’ll find yourself asking “why did he/she do X, Y and Z?”. Whether this was the idea that Park had in mind when he cooked this up, I don’t know, but ultimately I didn’t care enough about the film to make me think this for long.

Stoker is an interesting piece of cinema in 2013. Its nods to the past will either thoroughly ignite your interest in it, or it’ll entirely put you off. If the trailers left you somewhat cold and perplexed, the film itself will do little to correct these opinions. However, if you love Hitchcock-era suspense classics, then you can pretty much disregard what I said in the past few paragraphs and thump another star onto the below score. I didn’t think the film was bad, far from it, but it just didn’t have enough pace or momentum to really engage me over its (relatively short) run time.

Whilst I actually found last week’s reviewed film, This Is 40, to be dark, it was for a completely different reason. This Is 40 painted a very realistic view of what life is like once you’ve “achieved” what you wanted to. But Stoker? Well, Stoker‘s an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish swimming in crude oil that’s being sucked into a black hole that ends in the negative zone ruled over by King Negative and his dark dominions. Yes, it’s that dark. And also slightly disturbing. If you’re curious, then head out and catch this film while you can. I can’t guarantee you’ll like what you see, but you’ll definitely have an opinion on the closing half of the film.

Phage Factor:

This Is 40 (2013)

February 24, 2013 by The Phage

Getting old. It’ll happen to us all at some point or other. But what about that in-between period… and hitting 40? It’s a time when you sit back and re-evaluate your life. Did you honestly think you’d be with him / her / alone? How about those kids or lack thereof? We’re always filled with ambition and drive when we’re young: so many hopes, so many dreams. But unfortunately, not all of them are realised for every one of us. That’s where This Is 40 steps in… so you’ve turned 40, you’re married and have two kids… is this it? Is it the bliss you expected back when you were 22?

Bliss?

This Is 40 is the “spiritual successor” to Judd Apatow‘s Knocked Up. This time however, instead of focusing on the pregnancy part of a relationship, it hones in on that tipping point: a good few years into a relationship, when you’ve planted your roots, have a couple of kids, and have to contend with the trials and tribulations of real life. The film focuses in on the lives of Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) and their two kids, Sadie and Charlotte (Maude & Iris Apatow, respectively), as Pete and Debbie approach their respective 40th birthdays. But all isn’t well in the household. The arrival of the big 4-0 scares Debbie and really highlights all the short-givings they have in their relationship.

Now, This Is 40 bills itself as a romantic comedy. It’s from Judd Apatow and was released on Valentine’s Day in the UK so all indications would point to yes, it’s a rom-com. But this film has a very serious undertone to it and it’s not a laugh-a-minute ride to the end. This isn’t Superbad. Now, I’m not nearing 40, in fact I won’t see that until the mid-2020’s, but I can still relate to all of their issues. If anything, this film succeeds at capturing a lot of the insecurities many of us has about life more than it succeeds at making us laugh about them. That’s not to say the film’s not funny and carrying some genuinely humorous moments, but you can’t get around the issues it raises.

I’m a fan of Paul Rudd. Some aren’t, but I am. And I thought he really played Pete with passion here. It wasn’t his normal “deadpan, aloof, cool man” performance. I’ve no doubts that Judd Apatow wrote the part for Rudd in particular, because it all just blends so seamlessly – he and the character are one. The reason the performance works is because of the counterbalance of Leslie Mann as Debbie. She too really brings the goods – maybe a little too much cheer and not enough sorrow, but she really conveys the emotions to the audience. The fact that I left the screening feeling somewhat saddened and deeply pessimistic about the future really shows that something worked here. I really believe it’s a combination of the protagonists’ writing and acting.

But then again, this isn’t the perfect movie. For a start, I just felt that it’s run time was just a bit too long. The film felt a bit bloated with so many other sub-plots woven into it. Whilst I’m glad they were there to add complexity to the film, some of them could have probably been left on the cutting room floor, or at least parts of them should have. After all, we all needed a bikini scene AND a bra and panties scene for Megan Fox didn’t we? Both of those certainly had to be in the final film.

Megan Fox in a bra also had to make the final cut here too…

So, who is this film for? I don’t know if I’d recommend it to budding couples or those that are newly heartbroken as it’ll just make you despair for your own life and all the trials that are flying your way in the coming decades. Younger audiences won’t get the resonance of what’s going on on-screen and won’t feel those emotions. This film is probably best viewed by those in those “This Is 40” style relationships, or those who’ve battled through it. Actually, especially the latter group, as you’re surely the ones that won’t leave the screening feeling glum, like The Phage. I’m not sure what I was truly expecting from This Is 40, but I certainly wasn’t expecting this strange sense of sorrow after I left…

This Is 40 is an interesting take on a “romantic comedy”. Sure, it has the romance and it has the comedy, but both aren’t always at the forefronf of your mind. Be especially wary if you plan on taking your new boy / girlfriend to this. Similarly, if you’re newly single, and in your 20’s or 30’s, I’d avoid this too, as it’ll probably make you question your life. Then again, maybe you’re one of those carefree singletons and this movie will leave you feeling empowered that you’re not going to be shackled down, or as Jason Segel‘s character calls it, “doing a Clooney“.

This film, much like life, can throw a lot of curveballs at you over its run time. But also just like life, sometimes you need to sit through these curveballs and stay par for the course, because ultimately there’s something pretty darn good here. It may not be the “bliss” you were expecting when you bought your ticket (to the film, not life… I think that had something to do with your parents having one hell of a fun night after watching a far more romantic movie), but stick with it. It’s not the picture-perfect marriage / film, but it works.

Phage Factor:

A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

February 15, 2013 by The Phage

Starting a franchise is an interesting choice to make if your first instalment is considered hot property. You’re inevitably setting yourself up for a fall when the people return and bemoan the fact that “it’s just more of the same” or “why isn’t it more of the same?” Yes, people are indecisive, unappeasable drones it would seem. Some sequels do pull off the feat though and return even stronger. Some even go on to merit a third instalment, but these are rare beasts. Even rarer is the “threequel” that pulls it off. Look at Terminator – it didn’t fare too well! And time will tell if Iron Man 3 can achieve the hat-trick. But the Die Hard franchise IS that rare beast that produced three stunning instalments time after time. Hell, it even managed to throw in Die Hard 4.0 a few years back and it still hit all the right notes. But how does A Good Day To Die Hard fare? Can it really accomplish the lofty goal of being a smash-hit the fifth time around?!

I am a massive fan of John McClane and Bruce Willis. The guy’s a stalwart of the cinema and has been in some of my all-time favourite films and my pick of last year’s releases in Looper. The character of McClane has always struck a chord with me. He’s been the cop in the wrong place in the wrong time all the damn time. Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are some of the finest Christmas movies you’re likely to see and Die Hard With A Vengeance? Well, that’s just pure gold. Pairing Samuel L. Jackson with Jeremy Irons and Willis makes for a damn good time. Hell, in Die Hard 4.0 Willis proved he could still bring the goods, even if it wasn’t quite up to the original trilogy’s heady heights. He smashed a car into a helicopter… a HELICOPTER. Good man. But what of number five? Well… it just isn’t Die Hard is it?

Let me explain this. The things that make a Die Hard movie are the wry one-liners, the world-weary attitude, a nefarious evil-doer and a bucketload of pyro and demolished “things”. A Good Day To Die Hard has some of these, for sure, but not all of them. For me, it’s simply lacking a cohesive plot. It all seemed way too scrappy and all over the place…

Briefly, John McClane (Willis) discovers that his estranged son, Jack (Jai Courtney) has been hauled into prison in Moscow. So he decides to go over there. I’m not sure why he went over there though – certainly not to free him… he was “on vacation” (a line driven into the ground over the course of the film). But of course, this is John McClane and things fall apart around him and he finds himself and Jack on the cusp of a massive plot involving uranium… OK, it might seem that it has all the necessary components for a Die Hard film, but it doesn’t. It just doesn’t…

For a start, let’s get the “buddy film” issue out of the way. John McClane hasn’t worked alone in a movie for some years now – he’s had Samuel L. Jackson and Justin Long in recent instalments. But this whole dynamic with Jack McClane / Jai Courtney? It just doesn’t gel. Courtney plays a petulant little git who has real daddy issues. But he stomps around like a 13 year old who’s just been told he can’t stay up past 10 to watch a “really educational show about page 3 models”. I thought Jai Courtney functioned well in Jack Reacher earlier in the year… but back then I said he’s no Tom Hardy (similar build and look), and I’ll say the same now. I’d rather see Tom Hardy as Jack McClane, but then again… considering the poor scripting, I’m glad he didn’t take this dud of a movie…

We have to move onto Willis here. It hurts me to say it, but he just didn’t seem that into it this time around. There were some beautiful set pieces, but the writing left a hell of a lot to be desired. Lines were shoe-horned in, or repeated ad nausem so much that that dead horse was well and truly flogged to a pulp.

Alarm bells have been sounding everywhere about this movie even before release for a couple of reasons: 1) why no advance press screenings and reviews before release?, and 2) this interview with Bruce Willis on the UK’s One Show (part 2 is here). This didn’t look like the Bruce that was enthused about a movie… he didn’t want to talk about it one bit. Humble? Possibly. But more believable is the fact he wasn’t convinced of the movie’s worth. If you’ve got a star that’s not sold on a role, then it doesn’t bode well.

So who’s to blame for this sub-standard entry in the franchise? You can spin a bottle like some depressing game of truth or dare where no-one gets a smooch and a cuddle to be honest. People will have different issues with the movie, but for me it falls directly in the writers’ laps. The script is weak and the plot is even worse. This is from the guys that brought you Hitman, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The A-Team. Not all of them are stinkers, but they’re certainly derided by an equal-to-greater number than the people that enjoy them.

And finally… I need to deal with this furore about the UK version being censored. Over here we have a 12A rating on this film (equivalent to a PG-13 I’m led to believe). In the US, you have it rated R (equivalent to our 15 rating). Can one of our US readers chip in in the comments about the iconic Yippee-ki-yay-mo…..r phrase? In the UK we even lost the last word and it was said so quietly that you could have slept through it. Not that I want to hear swearing in a movie for the sake of it, I’m just puzzled as to why this decison was made…

Ultimately, this isn’t Die Hard. This is some other action movie featuring Bruce Willis playing an action hero… of sorts. I refuse to believe this is the fifth instalment in what has been an immensely successful and enjoyable franchise. If you’re a fan of the series, this will undoubtedly disappoint you. In fact, I struggle to even know anyone that would enjoy this above a level of “generic action movie”. Sure, it has all the whiz, bang and bluster you’d expect… but not much else. He doesn’t even wear a vest.

So what’s next for Die Hard? Is this is? Is this the final episode? Is John McClane going out with a fizzle? I hope not. Willis has indicated he’d be up for doing a sixth instalment, but please for the love of God hire a good writing team. Ideas for titles? How about Old Habits Die Hard and not How To Make A Franchise Die Hard, which should have been the title here.

Film Phage

… for infectious film reviews

Category Archives: Review

Mama (2013)

Phage Factor:

Side Effects (2013)

Phage Factor:

Broken City (2013)

Phage Factor:

Stoker (2013)

Phage Factor:

This Is 40 (2013)

Phage Factor:

A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

Phage Factor: