Category Archives: Worst Films

Top 5 Ways I’d Fix the Film “Death Note” (2017)

       It has been a while since I’ve watched such a terrible film that rather than review it the only things I can think about are the ways it could have been saved, and at least been made passable. The last time I did this was for “Twilight” and this is that level of garbage quality. I’m working on a larger review for the anime of “Death Note” currently as I recently rewatched it and the level of quality holds up. It was one of the first animes I ever saw and it is what made me appreciate how anime can be used to discover deeper philosophical ideas and gives us complex characters. This film has none of that and is a failure on nearly every level with the exception of Willem Dafoe as Ryuk. So that is the 1 / 10 I would have given this film, it is all thanks to a single actor’s performance.

In setting the parameters for how I’d fix this film, I can’t change the casting. L is still black and Light, his father and Misa/Mia are white. I accept this could possibly still work and with this Top 5 I will show 5 ways that could have helped it work. Though with a mess like this, I know that not all of it will be salvageable. I’m here to save what I can and give you a passable film.

5 – Give It a Soundtrack Similar to the Show 

First lets start with the opening theme song, which is metal in theme and gives us the stakes right off the back. We have intensity and drama and the lyrics are meant to capture the revolution that Light wants to bring about with himself as God. It is full of rage and sadness which encapsulates the humans caught up in the drama of the “Death Note.” We also get some dark instrumentals, which capture the dark tone of the characters such as L’s theme, which is methodical and like a heartbeat. This is a show that is so compelling because the music pulls you into the characters’ heads and doesn’t let you out. The fact that it is a crime drama and thriller isn’t lost in the soundtrack that Yoshihisa Horano and Hideki Taniuchi created for the series. This is a soundtrack I will keep coming back to and getting rid of the cheesy 80’s score in the movie and creating a soundtrack pulling from these 2 themes could have helped carry the terrible writing that covered the script of this awful film.

4 – Give Us a Single Protagonist 

This is a film that did not know what it wanted. L and Light have no clear agenda or clear cut philosophy as we see Light ready to abandon his the moment Mia wants to kill his father and we see L abandon his when he is worried about Watari. Because there wasn’t a clear arc there was no clear story. We had 3 main characters – Mia, Light and L…but none of them had a clear agenda or were fleshed out all that well. Mia was a psychopath who just wanted to kill but we see that she loves L, L wanted to bring Light to justice but was ready to go all Kira to save Watari and Light spoke about wanting to bring criminals to justice but never did. If we had been given a clear protagonist this would have been solved. In the show it is easy to flesh out the themes and arcs because Light drives the action and L, the Police, Near or Mello are a reaction to his actions, this keeps the narrative going and in the end, “Death Note” is about Light and exploring the premise of his utopia. This film had no real protagonist and in doing so none of the characters were fleshed out or clearly defined. I couldn’t tell you what any of these characters want and that is due to lack of a clear focus or single driving force for the narrative.

3 – Show Don’t Tell

One of the major problems the show had is it revealed everyone’s role in the plot right off the back. Light reveals he has a Death Note to Mia and brings her in on his game of becoming Kira and L reveals his face to Light and says he knows he is Kira and will bring him to justice. This is all tell and no show. One thing that could have saved this script is if it had taken a note from the show. We should be getting reveals during the climax and when it will make the greatest impact upon our characters. In the show L tells Light he is a suspect but it isn’t until much later that he speaks about certainty he is Kira and Light plays the role of dutiful son. In this Light is a brat and crybaby who pretty much admits to L that he is Kira when they first meet. It is shoddy, crappy storytelling and if the reveals had been held off later so they actually meant something we’d have more time to explore and see who these characters are. That way the reveals give us another dimension. The only reveal that is in this film is that Light was manipulating Mia the entire time…though given she’s presented as the primary antagonist it doesn’t reveal Light to be evil, it just shows he has some level of self-preservation.

2 – Adapt An Arc From the Show

Okay, I can’t change the fact that the leads have been cast and it takes place in Seattle. This will make it difficult given their acting isn’t all that great, but they can still be in an interesting story. Give us an arc from the show. Give us the Yotsuba Arc where the Death Note has passed onto the member or a corporation who is killing off his competition and it is up to Mia, L and Light to work together. They can still debate the ideas of the Death Note and be under suspicion but now we get a thriller and a mystery as we don’t know who holds the Death Note. All we know is one of the leaders in a Corporation has the Death Note…and given this takes place in Seattle they could Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks or countless others to explore it which would give us more nuance and depth and pull us away from the awful teen romance that was the focus of the film this time around. This is only one of the arcs from the show, they could also have Kira’s Cult be explored and Have L in the place of Near and Mello and show the means he has to go to in order to reveal Light as Kira or they could give Mia and Death Note and have her actually act like Misa’s character and have them both under suspicion of L doing the main arc L goes through in the show. That is 3 arcs they could have used right there and they don’t have to change casting or anything, they just have to know the subject matter they are adapting and pull from the great stories that already exist within the show. Any of these could have given us a clear theme versus the listless mess we get with the film.

1 – An Unambiguous Ending 

This is a film that sucks all the way through, from start to finish…it messed up so bad it couldn’t even give us a clear ending. At the end Light is talking to his Dad and he mentions that he realizes he was choosing between 2 evils and his father asks him which one he is. Did they expect a sequel to come out of this? Light or L should be dead and Light should be free showing us that his ends were justified or that he can no walk away and give up the Death Note or with him dead and L finally bringing him and Mia to justice with Ryuk ending it with writing Light’s name in the Death Note. Hell I’d settle for the death of either L or Light because it would give clarity to a film that had none. A good ending can make a bad film okay. This film had a terrible ending and all it had to do to fix it was give us the death of Light or L and with it a clear point on what side was correct.

These are the Top 5 Ways I’d fix this god awful travesty of a film. Again if I was scoring it it would be 1 / 10, so a lot could be done to fix it, and most of these things are basic storytelling ideas. How would you fix this film if you were given the chance? If you had to adapt “Death Note” how would you go about doing so? Curious to hear your thoughts and it is a shame this film wasn’t deleted before Netflix brought it to the small screen.

Advertisements

The Dark Tower (2017): They Should Have Just Adapted the First Book

    It is possible to have a good or even great adaptation of a book or book series. This sadly is not one of them. I haven’t been this bored and dissapointed in a film since “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” as that film as well had so much potential and so much amazing source material it was pulling from, only to end up on a list of films that I can’t stand and will offer ways to fix later (much like how I approached “Twilight”).

I have a bias (I loved the first book and am reading the rest of the series currently), but like I said before in regards to adaptations…it is possible to make a great adaptation of source material…”Atonement” succeeded, Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” succeeded and countless others. This one does not and for the non-spoiler reasons why, it had a bland protagonist, the world is boring and we aren’t given a chance to really know the leads, so even great performances by Elba and McConaughey can’t save the poorly written characters they are given. I’ll elaborate on my points further down in the review, suffice to say, save your money and go see something better.

“The Dark Tower” was directed by Nicolej Arcel who co-wrote it with a committee (4 writers wrote this script – Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinker, Anders Thomas Jensen and of Arcel himself).

The story follows Jake (Tom Taylor), a psychic boy who dreams about the Gunslinger (Idris Elba) and the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) who seeks to tear down the Dark Tower and bring hell upon all worlds.

SPOILERS ahead

The Pros: The Main Leads – The best part of this film is Idris Elba as the Gunslinger Roland and Matthew McConaughey as the Man in Black Walter. Now the characters don’t have the complexity that they have in the first book, there isn’t the weight or history behind their actions and we never really know it. The story is from Jake’s perspective and that was the biggest mistakes this film could have made. Our leads are wonderful at working with what they are given, Elba is hardened and distant and McConaughey has a lot of fun hamming it up as the villain. He’s wonderfully sly and oily and it works well when he is on screen. Sadly they are trapped in a dull universe where neither character feels fully realized.

The Cons: Presentation of the World – The world is presented through our protagonists Jake’s eyes. He sees the Gunslinger’s dimension and the Man in Black in dreams before they finally arrive into his life when he is running from the Man in Black’s minions who want to use him as a weapon to bring down the Dark Tower. The special effects aren’t all that good and we hardly spend anytime in the Gunslinger’s post-apocalyptic world and instead spend most of it in our New York. Given how rich the Gunslinger’s world is and all the stories in it, this was a mistake. There is nothing special about New York in this beyond it having ways to dimension hop between worlds.

In the first book we only follow the Gunslinger and we get to know Roland’s past and how he lost everything as well as how his following the Man in Black has lead to him losing so many others, and that to defeat the Man in Black he’ll have to give up everything again. The book is a powerful story of loss and the Man in Black is more a subtle agent of chaos (resurrecting the dead, giving people riddles to drive them mad) and sadly you don’t get any of that in this. This world isn’t even apparent in this film, the only thing from the first book that is in any way similar is the wasteland being largely empty…but the mutants and mad people who make up the landscape are nowhere to be found in this film. Seriously, they should have adapted the first book and it could have been at least good. There is more than enough material to make it happen.

The Protagonist – Jake is such a worthless protagonist. Sadly the actor can’t act and his cliched family life is really uninteresting. His dad died and him mom got into another relationship but by the time the supernatural catches up with her Jake has moved on and adopted the Gunslinger as his new parent. I don’t remember him ever caring about her being at risk or what happened to her after the Man in Black is defeated. Apparently the writers couldn’t even care enough about their main character to care about mattered to him. Having a young protagonist is hard to do, “Harry Potter” pulled it off but it is one of the few stories outside of “Stranger Things” that has well written kids who drive the story. The protagonist should have been Roland the Gunslinger like in the first book. What a waste of a main character.

Story Structure – We get flashbacks through Jake’s dreams and after that is him running from the Man in Black and his forces through the film before the Gunslinger has to rescue him and after the story ends when he is saved. It is simple but surprisingly incoherent, thanks largely to how the dreams are interspersed through the story. This hurt any chance we had to care about any of the characters which is in the end the biggest reason why this film fails. We are never given a reason to care about anyone in this film.

As you can tell I didn’t enjoy this film. This is film I plan to come back to in the future and in it go over ways that could have saved this film and made it at least good…Just like what I plan to do with “Batman v Superman” when I eventually suffer through a re-watch. The actors in this deserved a so much better script as they are good with what little they are given, but good actors can’t save a poorly told story, and at the end of the day that is exactly what this is. Unless you want to do a hate-watch, don’t check out this film.

Final Score: 4 / 10.  2 points for Elba and 2 points for McConaughey.

 

Top 5 Ways I Would Fix “Twilight”

    “Twilight” is a film in a movie that in my opinion are just awful. I got a third of the way through the book and only got through the movie because I was watching it with close friends so it was fun to make fun of how cheap it all looked and how hackney the writing was and how problematic many of the themes are. Now usually I’d do a review with a score but criticisms of “Twilight” have been done to death so I decided to take a different approach. Why not instead of just critiquing it I offer solutions to fix it, and well here are my Top 5 Solutions to make “Twilight” a good movie. Keep in mind that I am just going off the movie and not the extended universe. I don’t care about that stuff. These are just 5 solutions to fix the film based off the characters that make up the film. So without further ado, here are my Top 5 Ways I’d Fix “Twilight.”

 

5 – Make it About Laurent 

The film I imagine is more akin to “Interview With a Vampire,” with Bella getting the story of Vampires from an actual vampire who eats people but keeps it on the down low. This is exactly what this character does and because of it he never stops being threatening and cool. I wanted more about this guy as he was traveler so had no doubt seen a lot. The fact that he was based in the States means he could have been a former slave and seeing that perspective, especially in a vampire film would be something completely new. This side character was the best part of the film and if the film had bothered to be about him could have been great. This is more of a traditional vampire story and is a whole lot better than “Twilight” and it leaves Bella with the choice to join or fight against what he is doing. Keep in mind, I don’t know his story in the books or in later films, this is based off the first impression I got from “Twilight” the film.

4 – Give a Reason for Wanting to be a Vampire – Terminal Illness 

Bella needs a reason to risk everything including her life possibly…having mortality or suffering at stake makes that possible. Whether it is Bella wanting to turn so she can save her father or simply to save herself it gives a dilemma as it shows the Vampires as selfish if there are no real consequences to becoming a vampire (there aren’t any downsides in the film really), though if we get that becoming a vampire is an actual curse because like traditional you become a parasite who kills or turns others and needs humans as a source for food…well that is different and it takes the same premise as stated above and raises the threat. This isn’t a romance, though there can be some romance there…it is a matter of survival and the choices of desperation and mortality.

3 – Cullen Civil War 

Vampires are ancient beings so you get that there would be different ideologies. The Cullens are bland and are the weakest part of this film. What could have fixed that is giving a dilemma. We can still have the vampires who don’t eat humans, but there should be conflict over that. Some of the family should hunt humans making the romance more dangerous as well as making Bella pulled into something much bigger than herself. I think they do this in later movies but we don’t need other vampires when you can achieve the same thing with the Cullens. Make them scary and give different ideologies that are in play, those who want to get along with the humans and remain invisible (Professor X mentality to some degree) or to subjugate the humans and who plot to enslave or control the food source (Magneto’s mindset to some degree). This drama alone could be explored in a fascinating way through the film, you don’t even need the romance for it to work as Bella could be our audience insert into exploring this conflict through her friendship with one of the people (Alice or Edward most likely).

2 – The Cullens Attack the School – Survival Horror film 

This could have been a horror film. Bella’s friends are some of the more interesting characters in the film. Anna Kendrick is the popular girl, she’s friends with a jock, a stoner and quite a few nerds. Hell I wanted to see a film about this group of kids fighting vampires in their school. This is a book that could have gone full Buffy. What if the Cullens decide to use the school as a feeding ground during the eclipse or a dance…this could be a fun and campy horror film with actual tension and the characters who I liked could become fully fleshed out rather than being left behind to explore the bland Cullens, Bella and Edward. More Vampire films and stories need more “Buffy,” one of the best shows that made vampires scary and complex. If you truly have to throw in a romance make Edward more than a cipher and have him actually dealing with the curse and being a murder rather than the moody guy who hunts deer. Hell he can be our Angel in the story if there “has” to be a romance rather than the organic romance between friends in a survival situation.

1 – Leaving a Toxic Relationship – An Empowerment Story

       The final way that “Twilight” could be fixed is being more explicit in the toxic nature of the romance going on. This could be a story of Bella escaping abuse from a controlling stalker boyfriend and her realizing that he is those things is what happens as well as her taking control of her agency to free herself. He is vampire so the threat is even greater as we see her slowly put her life back together, find allies in her school friends and in the end take out Edward when he doesn’t take no for answer, since the character we meet is a toxic, controlling stalker anyway. This is a story about empowerment and a fully fleshed out Bella rather than the cipher who rewards toxic behavior and abuse that we see in the film and in the book.

I hope you liked my list. If you have ideas if your own I’d like to hear them. I plan to do more lists like this in the future as simply scoring a bad film and ranting about it gets old, and it is so much more fun coming up with solutions rather than just ranting about problems.

The Circle (2017): Just Watch “Black Mirror” Instead

      “The Circle” is an unfocused mess full of hack characters and no discernible theme. I hear the book is good so just read the book. I’ll go into why I went from disliking to hating this film in a moment because there is quite a lot to unload on this film, but the biggest parts are that lack of theme, half-formed characters and with all of that, failure to go full ham. If you are going to be cheesy you should bank on it and in doing so create your own form of malformed beauty.

  The film was directed by James Ponsoldt who was also one of the producers, written by Dave Eggers who also wrote the book and produced by Anthony Bregman and Gary Goetzman.

    The story involves Mae (Emma Watson) getting a job at The Circle (A facebookish tech. company) thanks to her friend Annie (Karen Gillan). She soon finds it is not the paradise it seems to be when the public sharing among the circle and constant call for interaction begins to unfold leading to dark consequences.

SPOILERS ahead

The Pros: The Concept – The concept is a lot like a “Black Mirror” episode. What happens when social media becomes a society and you are under pressure to reveal your life and what you are doing at all times? I like this concept but this isn’t the focus or the theme of the film, even though the trailers seem to set it up that way.

The Cinematography – The cinematography looks great, there are great uses of shadow and holograms to really illustrate the future. You can tell the director put a lot of love into this film…

The Cons: Hack Characters – Dave Eggars wrote the book, but apparently can’t write screenplays. None of these characters feel fully fleshed out. Mae the main character is almost set up to have a rise to power only to become a reformer…but the reasons with that don’t feel all that explored.

   She has an off the grid ex who is the “hero” of the film, which in turn shuts down her becoming a professional within her own life. He also gets harassed for his antler art? What the hell. He is a paranoid guy in the woods whose paranoia ends up being justified but we never get to know him. He is an idealized version of the off the grid blue collar hero. What the ever living hell…He’s not a character and they turn him into a martyr when people stalk him on a new program and he drives off a bridge. We are told they do things together or did things together, but we never see it. It is all tell and now show. Again, he’s an idea not a character.

Her best friend Annie is rising in the company and disappears. I wanted to see her rise and fall arc. But she is barely around…Same Ty Lafitte…John Boyega’s character who is fighting the Circle and invented another giant tech. media company…and finally Hanks’s Eamon, one of the founders whose agenda is never known and who is only around as a vague threat. These aren’t characters, these are concepts in a terrible script.

Social Media and Tech. Paranoia – We are told to fear tech. (her parents telling her not to trust the Circle and her ex being off the Grid) and we see how it turns her and Annie into monsters at times…but that is also contradicted with the ending. This is a vague theme that exists but doesn’t go anywhere and is never fully explored.

A Missed Corruption Arc – This is a hackneyed script in a hammy story…so knowing this, they should have just made Mae a villain. Her life is public, make her a Trump figure who can lampoon people she talks too and win by being horrible…since we see her do this a few times till “noble” ex gets the axe. I wanted her to take out the owners and gain control of the company. That would have made this film a beautiful disaster that is “So bad it’s good.” Sadly this potential is missed. They should have embraced tech and information as power that corrupts…what a waste.

Lack of any Theme – There is no core theme. There is a vague sense of distrusting smart phones and social media…but Mae makes everything public in the end to take out The Circle’s founders. So, what was the ever living point of this film? If you don’t have a purpose, why were you made? The sad thing is the author of the book was the screenwriter…A writer should know the themes they intend to explore.

  I don’t recommend this garbage. This was a film that could have been “So Bad it’s Good,” if it had been comfortable in tech. and information as corrupting influences of power theme, or it could have gone full revolution and had Boyega, Gillan and Watson team up early to take on the Founders. That’d be asking too much of this film though. This is a film that doesn’t know what it wants and doesn’t have any real characters, jut half formed ideas in a broken mess. Seriously, save your money and watch “Black Mirror,” you’ll get well focused themes of technology fears that have a clear focus in theme and character. This film is one of the worst I’ve watched in quite some time.

Final Score: 3 / 10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984): A Horror Film That Doesn’t Know What Point It Wants to Make

a-nightmare-on-elm-street

    We continue “Horror Month” with  “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is not very good. This is a film that has hocky flat acting, doesn’t know the point it wants to make in the premise and fails to fully define the monsters so all the actions the protagonist takes throughout the film end up meaning absolutely nothing. I’m curious if the remake will fair any better as I plan on comparing and contrasting the two after I review it. For the record though, the remake doesn’t have to do much to beat this film.

      The film was directed by Wes Craven who also wrote the film and produced by Robert Shaye.

    The story involves Nancy and her friends be stalked in their dreams by a mysterious clawed man. As each of her friends keep getting killed off Nancy must figure out who is killing them and how stop him before she is killed too.

The Pros: The Premise – The premise of a killer killing people in their dreams is pretty cool. It reminds me of a conceptualized boogy man and just increases the horror as we need sleep to live. Sadly this isn’t explored to it’s fullest degree.

The Idea of Freddy Krueger – Freddy is an interesting baddy it’s just a shame we never get his backstory beyond him being a child killer. He is a fantastic monster but his powers are never fully defined and the reason he keeps living is never defined either when he’s already been killed at least once.

Okay: The Kills – Some of the kills are really creative…from Rod being hung in prison, Tina being pushed against the sealing and Glen being pulled into his bed. Each of them are nightmarish and help establish the horror that is Freddy Krueger.

The Cons: The Acting – The acting is flat and none of the actors have any inflection. For this reason it is hard to get invested in the story and if you do mange to the writer ruins it with the ending.

The Characters  and Writing-The characters are one-dimensional characters in a morality play. Each of them usually gets killed after being sexually active and that is the only depth they get. There is even a hokey line of “I hate morality” form one of the characters…yes someone actually says that. This film is so bad.

The Ending – Nancy the protagonist learns that she can pull Freddy into the real world so sets traps for him and brings him into the real world killing him once with fire and later psychologically realizing that fear is what powers him up. This all gets canceled out in the next scene where Freddy kills her mother (he’s never targeted adults before) and traps all the kids who had died prior and also catches Nancy because I guess they were alive? The films ending cancels out everything it took to beat Freddy and makes it so he’s no longer a believable villain since nothing can stop him if he’s in the real world even after being killed physically and psychologically.

   This is a bad film, you might get some entertainment from the bad acting and writing but if you are looking for a good horror film do not look here. This is a film that doesn’t even know how to follow the rules it establishes for the world it takes place in. I can understand why it’s a classic a little bit because the idea of a dream killer and Freddy Krueger are pretty neat but the execution is so horrible that this film should have never turned into a Franchise.

Final Score: 3 / 10

The “Die Hard” Films – Worst to Best

Die Hard

    Going through the “Die Hard Franchise” was an experience of both the good and bad variety. There are very few Franchises that can boast having 2 of my favorite films in them and also some of the worst films that make the “Star Wars” prequels look good by comparison. When “Die Hard” gets bad it gives us some of the worst films in existence. Maybe they’ll recover after they make the 6th film but given how the last 2 films of the Franchise went I’m not counting on anything. So without further ado, here are the “Die Hard” films from worst to best.

a-good-day-to-die-hard

5th) A Good Day to Die Hard

    Jai Courtney is one of those rare actors who has such a non-presence in most things he’s in that his being there is rarely a pro or con in a film. In this film he’s awful and we get John McClane as a super cop James Bond like character in a story that takes place in Russia (Because his son is a secret agent apparently) where the villain’s plan is so incomprehensible even after reading wikipedia I had no idea what he’d wanted to achieve. McClane isn’t McClane and feels like a cartoon character of what the studious think McClane is and most of the plot is just pointless action, bad CGI and references to the better films in the series which makes this film feel like a scam. There are zero reasons to see this film unless you want to see how not to make an action movie.

0 / 10

https://cameronmoviesandtv.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/a-good-day-to-die-hard-2013-john-mcclane-is-not-james-bond-and-this-film-is-a-cliched-mess/

live-free-or-die-hard

4th) Live Free or Die Hard

    “Live Free or Die Hard” is really where we first have the metaphorical death of John McClane. He no longer feels like a hardened cop in rough situations and begins to feel like a Super Cop James Bond as we see him get out of situations that are impossible on his own and exist only as catch phrases and references to the other better films. There is no longer McClane working with people it is just McClane being macho and having his cool rub off on other people. This film feels like what the Studio thought the other “Die Hard” films were but misses the point of them entirely. We no longer have a mortal hero who is deeply flawed and improvises his way out of situations, we have an unstoppable cop. The villains are lazy hackers who have no real motivation or threat to them and every guy in this is a sleaze besides McClane. This was a hack film and the only reason to see it is it has echoes of “Die Hard” buried underneath all the crap, which kept it from being a 0 like the film that came after this one. This film really dumbed down the entire Franchise and was the beginning of the end.

3 / 10

https://cameronmoviesandtv.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/live-free-or-die-hard-2007-the-dumbing-down-of-the-die-hard-franchise/

die-hard-2

3rd) Die Hard 2

   “Die Hard 2” is very much a sequel. It takes place on Christmas, McClane has to fight the local police to get anything done and the villains aren’t all that fleshed out. One thing that the film did that it could have done more with is why the U.S. soldiers joined up with the Dictator who they rescued…he has to be pretty amazing for them to be loyal to him and the fact that he was “Good at killing communists,” is a good place to start. This is a film that had the potential to be great and is still very good in it’s own right. The airport being held hostage with the planes above as the ticking clock to stop the villains is wonderful and McClane feels real and is only able to win at the end due to help from the local police in D.C. who’d been fighting against him. I recommend this film for sure. It is a solid action film and a good sequel.

8.2 / 10

https://cameronmoviesandtv.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/die-hard-2-1990-a-good-sequel-that-could-have-been-more/

Die Hard

2nd) Die Hard

    You might be wondering why “Die Hard” isn’t number one on the list given that it is a classic, it started everything and it is one of my all time favorite films. The reason it isn’t higher is so much of what is done is done by McClane alone so we aren’t given the chance to really get to know the people he relates to. Hans Gruber is an amazing villain and I like that he presents himself as a idealist terrorist but is really just a thief. Sadly we don’t get to find out what he wants to do with the money though and that is one of the few issues I have with the film that keep it from being perfect. The focus on McClane works but it also means other characters don’t get explored (like his wife) and Hans’s motivation was a missed opportunity to give an already amazing villain more depth. I still highly recommend this film and it is a favorite and easily one of the best action movies of all time. R.I.P. Alan Rickman, you played one of my favorite characters in cinema.

9.6 / 10

https://cameronmoviesandtv.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/die-hard-1988-an-amazing-and-classic-christmas-action-film/

hans-gruber

die-hard-with-a-vengeance

1st) Die Hard With a Vengeance

    “Die Hard With a Vengeance” is the perfect action film. The villain is amazing in how he’s able to manipulate situations and his motivations are fully explored. He wants money because it gives him sovereignty and power so that he and his men no longer have to answer to anyone. Jeremy Irons owns this role and has created an iconic villain in Simon Peter Gruber, a character just memorable as his brother, Rickman’s Hans Gruber. Samuel L. Jackson is fantastic as Zeus too and helps McClane pull his life together as we see “Die Hard” pull of the Buddy Cop film as well. Every character gets explored and the action and twists are amazing! I seriously recommend this film as it is the perfect action film, it takes everything that worked about the first film and does more as well as doing some things the first film was unable to achieve and gives us a fully developed cast of characters and an unforgettable action story.

10 / 10

https://cameronmoviesandtv.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/die-hard-with-a-vengeance-1995-the-perfect-die-hard-film/

simon-gruber

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013): John McClane is not James Bond and This Film is a Cliched Mess

a-good-day-to-die-hard

       “A Good Day to Die Hard” succeeds in meeting new lows for this Franchise. This film is lazy, continues all the problems of the last film and even adds some new ones, just in case you thought the other film didn’t have bad enough writing this film decides to add horrible CGI, a nonsensical part that doesn’t even know what it wants the threat to be in the end. This film is hands down, one of the worst films I have ever watched. I’ll get into more of the reasons why later in the review.

     The film was directed by John Moore, written by Skip Woods and produced by Alex Young and Wyck Godfrey.

       The story involves John McClane (Bruce Willis) going to Russia to rescue his son Jack (Jai Courtney) who has got himself arrested in order to help a political prisoner, Yuri (Sebastian Koch) escape Russia. They both soon find themselves in over their heads as John’s arrival puts his mission at risk.

   There aren’t any pros or okays to name in this film so I’m just going to through the list of the many ways this film didn’t work at all.

 The Cinematography – The cinematography is super lazy. It is “Terminator 3” level and looks like a made for tv movie. The CGI really stands out and there are no unique shots so it depends on the writing and the writing is awful.

The Writing – The writing is cliched and has McClane going full tough guy, which in the first 3 films he was macho but that wasn’t what defined his character. In this he is a cartoon character…even Bond is more subtle, and I’m talking the Brosnan Bond who had zero subtly.

The Action – The action is boring and predictable…the last film for being as bad as it was, at least had passable action. It wasn’t the same repeated shot…in this they fight the same helicopter fight and we never know what is going on with the villains. They take no time to develop them because they just want to get to explosions. This film makes Michael Bay films look good.

The Special Effects – There is a scene with a truck hanging out of the back of a helicopter…it looks like 90’s level special effects…and this is 2013 when the film was made. Seriously, screw this film.

The Characters – If you though McClane was a cartoon character last film, this is even worse! This is how Hollywood imagines James Bond as an everyman when he isn’t an every man and John McClane was never and never shall be James Bond.

The Villains – They are political exiles but I never knew what they wanted. There is talk about a file and Chernobyl. I read the Wikipedia page and I’m still confused about what they wanted. Scientist dad and his assassin daughter just exist as threats for the sake of being threats…

Jack McClane / John McClane Jr. – Jai Courtney puts in his most bland performance since ‘Terminator Genisys!” He is allways reacting to his dad and is daddy issues incarnate without any real explanation given John McClane was saving the world in the last 4 films. He’s a secret agent so I’m assuming he’d known that, but that is also assuming these writers aren’t hacks and going for easy drama rather than realistic drama…and that’d be too much to ask.

John McClane – It feels like Hollywood really wants him as Bond or the agent from “Taken.” McClane has never been that and will never be that and when you have him pulling off impossible feats he ceases to be a character. For all intents and purposes his name because it is profitable is tacked onto this film but the McClane that was in films 1-3 is gone.

pointless References that Insult the Audience – “Yippy-Ki-Yay,” Jack throwing the villain off the building in slow mow…it’s insulting fanservice. Hey, maybe the audience will swallow this shit if you throw in enough references to a better film…This film shows the danger of where Franchises can go where it is no longer about stories and just referencing things that were better because they actually made sense or were unique in their time and place. When you do it now…it just become parody.

John McClane is not James Bond – John McClane goes to Russia, John McClane fights a mad scientist and his assassin daughter. If this sounds like a James Bond film, well it might have worked if it was…a bad James Bond film but a James Bond film. This film doesn’t know what it wants to be and it can’t keep making McClane the secret agent when he is supposed to be the every man working stiff.

    This movie is a mess and easily one of the worst action movies I have ever watched. The entire thing feels lazy and that they just wrote a crappy Russian Spy film and just put John McClane’s name on it because they knew it would make money. There is zero reason for this to be a “Die Hard” film as the reason for McClane to be in Russia are contrived and he’s written like a cartoon James Bond. That was never the character but it feels like the version of McClane they created last film who they have hankered down on…leaving the fully formed character from films 1-3 in the dust. This film isn’t worth your time and is one of the worst films I’ve ever watched.

Final Score: 0 / 10