ANCC: What Makes a Christmas Movie?

It’s Christmas!  This week, the All-New Four talk about what makes a Christmas movie as opposed to a movie that just takes place at Christmas Time, Nick plays the Grinch towards It’s A Wonderful Life, and the gang talk some of their favorite Xmas movies!

To listen to the episode, click here or on the image below!

 

ANCC: It Follows

Welcome back to an all-new episode of the All-New Culture Cast!  Tonight, Nick and the Gorehound discuss the 2015 horror film, It Follows.  But that’s not all!  Listen to Nick ramble on about the dream he had about Die Hard 6 and to the Gorehound as hey professes his love for It Follows‘s spiritual cousin, Teeth!

Click HERE or on the image to listen to the podcast.

We are still working on iTunes!

A Good Day to Die Hard Podcast

Zack and Nick sit down to discuss the crime against film that is A Good Day to Die Hard.  Listen to their utter disappointment and disgust when they watched Bruce Willis take a giant dump on the iconic role that once propelled him into movie stardom.

Click HERE or on the image to listen to the podcast.

As always, click HERE to follow us on iTunes!

Be sure to also check out our other Die Hard-related coverage:

25 Days of Christmas: Die Hard
25 Days of Christmas: Die Hard 2
Franchise Fracas: Die Hard
Die Hard 5 May Have Killed the Franchise
I Saw A Good Day to Die Hard (A Culture Cast Second Opinion)

I Saw A Good Day to Die Hard (A Culture Cast Second Opinion)

Note: A few days ago, Nick posted his review of the new film A Good Day to Die Hard. You can find that review right here.

When I heard Fox was making another Die Hard movie, I was pretty happy. I consider myself a huge fan of the franchise and have seen each film in the series several times. The original Die Hard is one of my favorite films of all time, and is rightly considered an action-movie classic. The second has its detractors, but it’s an incredibly fun film if somewhat redundant. Die Hard with a Vengeance is better than part two, and the first half of that film almost lives up to the original movie. Live Free or Die Hard was crucified on the internet (especially due to its controversial PG-13 rating), but I found it a decent action flick, if a bit over-the-top. The latest, the poorly titled A Good Day to Die Hard, is one of the worst movies I’ve ever paid to see in theaters. It is a travesty of a film with zero redeeming qualities, and it is a massive embarrassment for everyone involved.

The film opens the way all action films should: with an extended scene of two men having a conversation in a foreign language that does nothing whatsoever to establish their characters, instead serving only to confuse audiences for the entirety of the movie as it is never really quite explained why these two men are at odds in the first place. One of them apparently is a political prisoner of some kind, and also apparently has a secret file with information or such contained within that may or may not be able to do something important perhaps. A cursory glance of Wikipedia tells me one of the men’s names is Komarov. The other man, apparently in the Russian mafia or the KGB or something, is named Chagarin, though I’m not sure if his name is ever spoken aloud in the movie or not.

Meanwhile, a young man, who we eventually find out is Jack McClane (Jai Courtney, who is terrible), son of John McClane of the previous films, is arrested for assassinating some guy the audience is never given a reason to know or care about. Turns out he did it on purpose in order to get arrested and then testify on Komarov’s behalf. Why he couldn’t testify for Komarov without murdering someone in cold blood is never explained. The twist is that Jack is actually in the CIA, who have set up shop in Russia despite the Cold War ending over twenty years ago. John (a bored Bruce Willis), under the guise that his son is in major trouble, heads out of New York City and into Moscow in order to somehow help or free his son (it’s never quite clear). None of this is really a spoiler, as it happens within the first twenty minutes or so. The rest of the plot is almost a paint-by-numbers action cliché, and really isn’t worth explaining except for key details that will continue to make up this overwhelmingly negative review.

Total honesty time: I went into A Good Day to Die Hard with absolutely no expectations whatsoever. I had an open mind, and at least expected to be entertained. However, as noted earlier, I knew I was going to hate this movie five minutes in. I didn’t think that I would become actively bored, but that’s exactly what happened. I’m no stranger to seeing bad movies in cinema – it’s actually a hobby of mine. A Good Day to Die Hard isn’t just actively bad – it’s fucking atrocious. It is almost offensive how bad this movie is, and like Nick noted in his review, it will probably kill the franchise (the film has done well overseas but has met with incredibly limited box office in America).

There are several reasons why A Good Day to Die Hard is a bad movie. The first is with the writing. Skip Woods, he of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The A-Team (which I liked but isn’t good art), and Swordfish, is the credited writer for this film. Not only is Wood’s script illogical, humorless, and bland, it also fails at grasping basic concepts like time and place (characters run from one place to the next without a thought as to where they’re going or why continually in this film). The direction isn’t much better, and director John Moore is no stranger to bad cinema (Behind Enemy Lines, the remake of Flight of the Phoenix, and the cinematic adaptation of Max Payne are just a few of his awful credits). There are parts of the direction in this movie that are incredibly illogical, including a scene where our characters tumble down a red tube of some kind that, when shot from the inside, the tube appears connected but when shot from the outside, it does not. There are also parts where the direction is mainly just bland – these parts make up the bulk of the film.

The acting is also incredibly weak in this film. The villains are un-menacing, ineffective, and not memorable in the slightest. Everyone remembers Hans Gruber from the original Die Hard – he is an iconic villain in movie history. I can’t even remember the name of the villain from this movie without the aid of Wikipedia as a reference. The motivation behind the villain’s actions is never all that clear either. Apparently, the villain wants to maybe use plutonium to make weapons or something, but it’s never explained how he’s going to do that or who he’s even making them for. It isn’t even explained why he’s making them – he just is. Is he planning on selling them? Who knows. A good performance can override such bad writing, but the performances in this movie are again, as noted, completely ineffectual.

Willis himself looks incredibly bored and out of place. He is noticeably old and slow, especially in scenes involving hand-to-hand combat. The indestructible Willis of the latter Die Hard films is back here as well, and some of the shit he survives is just downright unbelievable. Not even the suspension of disbelief is enough to mask the incredulous falls this guy takes. Special reservation must be made for Jai Courtney, who is probably Australia’s worst export since Sam Worthington (and I’m a Worthington defender). He’s a bland, incredibly poor actor without an ounce of charisma in this role. He’s a lunky meathead who we’re supposed to believe is a CIA agent on assignment in a deep undercover covert operation for three years. I wouldn’t trust this guy to run the counter at a GNC. Also, he looks nothing like Bruce Willis, even with a shaved head. I have no idea why it was so hard for them to cast this role, but they made about the worst possible choice they could have with Courtney.

The first Die Hard movie is an action classic. Willis plays an everyman-type of character. He’s a good-hearted, stubborn guy thrust into a bad situation. Subsequent Die Hard films lost a bit of what the first one meant, but they were in no way bad movies (even Live Free has its moments, and is better than a lot of people give it credit for, Justin Long and all). The latest, A Good Day to Die Hard, is an atrocious, odious film without a single good thing worth mentioning. It’s ridiculous just how fair this film franchise has fallen. I have no clue why Fox would take what should be a marquee franchise and just crap all over it the way that they have with A Good Day to Die Hard. This movie should be avoided at all costs – even a cheap rental in two months when this is out on DVD would be a mistake.

-Z-

‘Die Hard 5’ May Have Killed the Franchise

The other day, I watched A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth entry in the long-running/recently resurrected franchise.  My goodness, was it terrible.  It fails at being both a Die Hard flick and an action movie in general.

Bruce Willis returns as John McClane.  It is clear that he is there only for the paycheck, because he completely sleepwalks through his role.  Joining him this time as his sidekick is his estranged son, Jack played by Jai Courtney.  Courtney is fine in the role, but unfortunately for him, Jack is such a paper-thin character that he becomes tedious as the movie goes on.

Apparently junior has gotten himself into a jam in Russia, so dad is going to see what is up.  Then – gasp! – it turns out junior is a CIA agent causing a ruckus because of…erm…national security or something.  They have to get this file from some political prisoner, because it will expose some bad Russian politician.  Honestly, the whole story is both extremely thin and overly convoluted at the same time.  There are twists after twists after twists that by the time we learn what is really going on, the villain’s plot ultimately makes no sense and could have been accomplished without going through all the trouble the movie put them through.

Not helping matters at all is that there is zero character development and very generic and weak character arcs.  One of the things that made all the previous Die Hards work (particularly the first one) was that McClane and those around him were very well-developed to the point that you cared about what was happening.  Here, everyone is so one dimensional that the film gets incredibly dull.

The central “emotional theme” was that father and son are at odds and will learn to re-appreciate each other by the end.  That is all fine and good, but the way AGTDH executes that is horrible.  The narrative beats that this plotline goes through are completely forced and, subsequently, difficult to buy into.  I guess the producers figured that the story of McClane reuniting with a child worked for the last one.  Might as well repeat it (only terribly).

The direction is also awful.  Why do people keep hiring John Moore to direct things?  He has no style, no energy, and no creativity.  The first main action sequence in the film is an over-long car chase sequence.  This should have been exciting and impressive.  Instead it is dull and tired.  Not the best way to start off an action movie.  Also the editing in this was horrid, particularly during the action sequences.  There were times it was tough to follow what was happening and how it was happening.  There were times I was watching it and I would say to myself, “Oh, he has a gun now.  Somehow.  Um…ho, ho, ho?”

A Good Day to Die Hard (a terrible, meaningless title, by the way) is a waste of a movie.  As I mentioned before, it feels as if the studio had no faith in a fifth Die Hard movie, so they just gave it the Star Trek Nemesis treatment by giving the film to a couple of random nobodies to make so they can simply churn it out.  This series has been going downhill since Die Hard 2, but at least the subsequent sequels before this were entertaining on their own terms.  This one is a new low.  I fear what will happen if Die Hard 6 is made.

~N

Franchise Fracas: Die Hard

Next week, Bruce Willis returns as the iconic John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard.  This latest entry sees McClane team up with his estranged son (Jai Courtney) in Russia to take down terrorists or something.  Honestly, the trailers really have not gone into what this story is really about.  I suppose it does not need to.  The simple fact of the matter is that a new Die Hard movie is coming out.  And the fact it has the words “Die Hard” in the title and stars Willis are enough to sell it to audiences.

What is it about the Die Hard films that make them work?  To be honest, the series has a 50/50 good-to-bad ratio.  For me, each entry has gotten further and further away from what made the original such a classic film.  I previously reviewed Die Hard and Die Hard 2 (erroneously referred to as Die Harder) during our “25 Days of Christmas” event, so I do not plan to go into much detail about those films here.

The original Die Hard is a classic of the action genre.  What more can you really say about it?  Die Hard 2 gets a lot of flak from critics and fans of the series.  I do not find it that odious.  Granted, the story is a bit overly complicated, but I really like it for what it is.  I also really enjoy how over-the-top the movie can get at times.  It works for me, and I think why it does has to do with the fact that it comes at the tail end of the excessiveness of the 1980s.

1995’s Die Hard with a Vengeance is when the wheels begin falling off.  The story is sort of stupid and forces a connection to the original film (which ultimately is incidental in the grand scheme of things).  Certain elements (particularly the role of Samuel L. Jackson’s character) strain the suspension of disbelief.  More importantly, McClane becomes a dour, depressing, and dismissive (not to mention generic) character.  This is a far cry of how the character was originally displayed as someone who, while he might have bad luck, still had a never-say-die attitude (and was possibly a tad crazy).

It also does not help that they completely destroyed McClane’s marriage (ridding the movie of Holly).  None of it really felt right considering where things were when we last saw these people.  Perhaps I am being too critical.  Word on the street is that the script for Die Hard with a Vengeance started out as a completely unrelated project.  It was eventually adapted into a Die Hard sequel.  This might explain why McClane seems like such a different character.

Twelve years later, Live Free or Die Hard (also known as Die Hard 4.0) was released into theaters.  Here is a movie which is okay on its own, but does not quite work as a Die Hard movie.  When I first saw it back in 2007, I could not put my finger on what it was.  Then, of all places, an episode of The Office put it into perspective for me when Michael Scott was discussing the series:

“You know what, here’s the thing about Die Hard 4. Die Hard 1, the original, John McClane was just this normal guy. You know, he’s just a normal New York City cop, who gets his feet cut, and gets beat up. But he’s an everyday guy. In Die Hard 4, he is jumping a motorcycle into a helicopter.  In air. You know? He’s invincible. It just sort of lost what Die Hard was. It’s not Terminator.”

That totally nails the major problem with Live Free or Die Hard.  It also does not help that it was incredibly toned down (in language and violence) to achieve a PG-13 rating.  And, is it me, or did Bruce Willis completely forget how to play John McClane?  It seems like Willis is sleepwalking through the role.  And, do not get me started on the completely worthless Kevin Smith extended cameo.

In any event, the film did well enough to warrant a fifth (and potential sixth) entry.  Thing is, despite the some of the weaker ones, people like these films.  They bring back a sense of magic from the 1980s.  The fourth doing as well as it did (financially) was due to the nostalgic nature it provided (in fact, most of the films from the 1980s-redux wave over the last five years did pretty well).  Before the fourth film came out, Bruce Willis rebounded his career and was a draw again.  John McClane is his most well-known character.  If you do the math, people will want to see it.

The real trick is to see if it works for next week’s A Good Day to Die Hard.  Was one trip down memory lane enough for most audiences?  Or will McClane’s reign remain strong?

Here is the thing I have noticed, though: is it me, or did the studio have no faith in the future of this series?   The marketing is ho-hum.  They give it to a director who has never proven himself critically or financially and a screenwriter whose scripts are generally unfocused and convoluted.  Maybe these things are completely incidental, and it is really Bruce Willis calling the shots.  I fully buy into that scenario.

And, the most damming of all, it is being released in February.  All the previous films have been released during the summer movie season.  February is still largely seen as a dumping ground for movies.  This is Die Hard we are talking about.  Why is this happening?  Additionally, is being released on Valentine’s Day.  I understand the nature of counter-programming and that some couples are all about action movies, but it still seems like such a bizarre release date.

Is this a hint of what is to come for A Good Day to Die Hard?  I hope not.  Though the previews suggest that we are going to get more of the “invincible-McClane” introduced in Live Free…, but they also suggest that Willis rediscovered how to play John McClane.  I want to see this.  I want it to be good.  However, the signs are a little worrisome.  Perhaps it is time for this series to die hard (see what I did there?).

~N

Trivia Fact: Did you know that Die Hard was originally conceived as a sequel to the Arnold Schwarzenegger film Commando?

Friday Five: Terrible “New Directions”

In recent years, I have noticed a new phrase used by those in Hollywood: “new direction”.  From my understanding, “new direction” means that the producers of a film series want to continue it, but want to do something very different in order to keep the series fresh for audiences.  A lot of things can fall underneath this definition from replacing actors/characters to changing the style/tone.  The Batman series has undergone this a lot and a good recent example would be the Jason Bourne franchise.  Sometimes, it is successful.  Most of the time…not as much.

Today, as a fun creative exercise, I want look at five films/film series and predict truly terrible “new directions” for them.

Taken 3
Going in a new direction, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) encounters a female former CIA operative who has just as many skills as he does.  This time around, the thing that gets taken….is Mills’s heart.  There could be a parallel subplot following Kim (Maggie Grace) and her new boyfriend.

The Hangover: Part IV
Going in a new direction, the Wolf Pack goes on a mountain climbing excursion.  However tragedy strikes when Alan (Zack Galifianakis) trips, and he gets his arm lodged between two outcroppings of stone while literally hanging over 500 feet from ground.  While Doug (Justin Bartha) runs back down the mountain to get help, Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) debate whether cutting Alan’s arm off would save him or cause him to plummet to his death.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Die Hard
Going in a new direction, John McClane (Bruce Willis) wins a trip on a commercial space flight.  What he doesn’t know is that terrorists from the planet Oonox have seized the spacecraft, loaded it with a nuclear weapon, and plan to destroy the moon.   McClane only has a few hours to disarm the nuke and save the moon (which his daughter happens to be on).

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never Again
Going in a new direction, music superstar Justin Bieber (played by himself) is recruited by an elite spy agency trained to become a ruthless killer.  Hiding under guise of his pop-culture persona, Bieber travels the world eliminating targets deemed a threat to national security.

Home Alone 6
Going in a new direction, an adult Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) lives a sad and lonely life.  With most of his family dead from a tragic Christmas accident years ago, he spends his days sitting around his apartment managing his internet-based company.  Upon hearing his old adversaries Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) have been released from jail, Kevin invites them to live with him in an attempt to no longer live home alone.

Bonus One!

The Expendables 3
Going in a new direction, Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) tasks Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his team to voyage to Mars to prevent an alien invasion led by the Lizard King (Nicolas Cage).  [Author’s Note: I would probably see this]

What do you think?  Can you come up with some terrible “new direction” ideas to extend a film series past their natural endings?

~N

25 Days of Christmas: ‘Die Hard’

Day 5

Die Hard is a Christmas movie.  What started out as an ironic statement has turned into an obnoxious internet meme.  But what makes Die Hard, an action movie classic, a Christmas movie?  It takes place during Christmas time, but it has little-to-nothing to do with Christmas (the time of year is incidental).  This is one of those films that play that balancing act of whether or not it is a holiday movie.  I think it is close enough to be included, but I would not go out of my way to watch it as a part of a Christmas movie marathon.

As I mentioned above, Die Hard is a classic.  What makes it that?  The answer is simple: Bruce Willis.  I cannot see any other actor portray John McClane the way Willis does in this movie.  He is completely manic and you can tell he has a wire or two missing.  However, he never goes over-the-top where everything becomes a farce.  Things are grounded, and we really see his humanity in several parts of the movie.  We have seen many McClane clones come since 1988, but none can really compare.  Even when Willis reprised the role in the later installments of this franchise, he seemed “off” as if he forgot how to play the role.  This was lightning in a bottle.

Almost as awesome as Willis is Alan Rickman as the villain Hans Gruber.  He is so calm and collected, even when his plans begin to go awry.  He is the type of bad guy who simply does not give to shits about anything.  Honestly, I really thing the Rickman redefined what an action movie villain is and should be.  I also think he established the cliché of movie terrorists being nothing more than Eurotrash in business suits, but that is a post for another time.

Die Hard also established a precedent of giving us some really dark humor.  Humor has always accompanied action movies in the 80s (think of any Arnold Schwarzenegger flick), but it was usually limited to some witty one-liner to relieve the tension.  Here, McClane continually taunts villains, and while it is funny, it ultimately has consequences (such as not being taken seriously when he needs to save his wife’s cokehead friend).

Die Hard was a very unique film for its time.  It revolutionized action films and how characters in these sorts of movies are done.  Is it a bona fide Christmas movie where people learn the true meaning of the holiday or some such?  No, not at all.  However, it is about him trying to get to his wife, and subsequently, his family.  In the end, is that not what Christmas is all about?

And running around barefoot?