Need For Speed (2014)

2014-03-18

For a second he thought he'd spotted Mr White lurking nearby. — For a second he thought he’d spotted Mr White lurking nearby.

Twitter Plot Summary: Tobey seeks revenge on Dino for the death of his friend in a street race.

Five Point Summary:

1. Street racing and bad acting. Feels like 2001 all over again.
2. Finally, the plot gets moving.
3. A (very) brief chase to satisfy the “bounty” portion of the story.
4. That’s no way to treat a Bugatti Veyron.
5. Was it all worth it? Debatable.

Yet again we have a movie adaptation of a popular video game series to feast our eyes upon, this time in the slightly unexpected form of EA’s Need For Speed franchise. Unexpected because the Need for Speed franchise isn’t exactly known for its dedication to in depth storytelling.

Need for Speed is, surprisingly, not bad at all, but certainly not great. The storyline is as wafer thin as Mr Creosote’s wafer thin mint (as expected), with mechanic Tobey seeking revenge against villainous Dino (Cooper) for the death of Tobey’s friend in a street race. Whilst the story is equivalent to crepe paper (the bad guy wears black, just in case you weren’t sure who he was), the car stunts more than make up for this. Not resorting to CGI effects was a brave decision, but it does have the bonus of grounding the film in reality. Even more sensibly, if a stunt would break a car in real life , it breaks the car here too. On that front, it’s a win.

Going back to that story, it’s definitely not one to use as an example of positive role models for youngsters – our central quintet race cars illegally on the streets, they have no concerns about spending time in prison as a result of their street racing, and they also lack the ability to think up a decent plan. Yes, it’s quite an adventure whilst you’re in the middle of the adventure, but afterwards (much like Star Trek Into Darkness) there’s a definite sense of sequences being used just because they looked good. But again, the stars here are the cars, and in that respect Need For Speed delivers. Well, to an extent – the cars are mostly shells of popular vehicles on a custom chassis – I’d hate to see an actual Bugatti Veyron treated like the one in the film.

You'll believe a car can fly! — You’ll believe a car can fly!

There will be a few aspects familiar to those who have played the video games, most notably the race map that shows the racer’s progress in the super secret street race that apparently the police are entirely aware of from the start – no doubt from chasing Tobey halfway across the country, or maybe just by tuning in to Michael Keaton’s less than secret internet radio station. Yes, Michael Keaton shows up in an exotically located office to broadcast his thoughts on illegal street racing, and probably filmed all of his scenes in a day or two at most. One must question the logic of his approach to publicity – if it’s all supposed to be a big secret, why does he broadcast his face via webcam? I think this is perhaps one of many elements of the script that nobody gave much thought to, much like the contradictory role of Imogen Poots who, despite having an impressive knowledge of cars and driving in general, is then constantly berated as being a bad driver. Contradiction, much?

I would have preferred it if the script had made more of the bounty placed on Tobey as he tries to reach the big race – one sequence is all we get. Whilst the interplay between the five main characters is moderately believable, there isn’t much to define them beyond a couple of key characteristics apiece. One of them is so undefined that the only thing I can say about him is that he is a mechanic and he has a chin beard. That’s literally it. By comparison, Aaron Paul is rather good as Tobey, but then anyone who has seen Breaking Bad would expect as much. He doesn’t have much in the way of dialogue, but he pulls off what would in less capable hands be an incredibly poorly drawn persona.

So, a few interesting race sequences aside, the Fast and Furious franchise has little to worry about. Without some wholesale changes to the script and tone it’s unlikely there will be a Need For Speed movie franchise. Unless this one makes a huge amount of money, of course.

Score: 2.5/5

Imagine That (2009)

Simon Prior

2014-03-17

Sewing the blanket to their ears had seemed a good idea at the time.

Twitter Plot Summary: Eddie Murphy gets trading tips from his daughter’s imaginary friends. Seriously.

Five Point Summary:

1. Thomas Haden Church taking fashion tips from 80s hair metal bands…
2. One instance where a kid drawing on daddy’s work is actually a good thing.
3. Is he really a Native American?
4. The tables have turned. Or something.
5. Ahh, everyone learns something valuable. Of course they do.

Another of Eddie Murphy’s slightly ill-judged family friendly comedies, Imagine That should be approached with trepidation unless you have children. The tone is less zany than some of his more recent work, and it’s clear why Murphy chose to take on the script as it all comes from a genuine place. Murphy is Evan Danielson, a high flying business man who is more interested in his work than raising his daughter. Finding himself on the verge of the biggest deal of his career, he has to split his time between work and supporting his daughter. He’s divorced from her mother and, because of his work obsession finds himself distant from his daughter and struggling to connect with her. Evan has to work out how to connect with his inner child (or “Little Evan” as his best friend puts it – no sniggering please), which is helped by his daughter and her imaginary friends.

Yes, imaginary friends. It’s not all that bad though, honestly. There’s a feeling that it could lapse heavily into whimsy and fantasy, but its feet remain firmly in the realms of reality. That’s perhaps to its detriment, as a decent slice of fantasy may have saved this from the doldrums and given Murphy something to do other than gurn excessively. A welcome appearance from Martin Sheen adds an element of gravitas but for one he doesn’t have enough to do, and for another he shows up after you’ve already given up on the film and headed to the kitchen to make your lunch. Or your kid’s lunch, as applicable. They’d probably join you in the kitchen, thinking about it.

There was no hiding... from the Razzies. — There was no hiding… from the Razzies.

Somehow Thomas Haden Church is set up as the rival ideas man, one who claims to have extensive Native American heritage and backs this up with constant chatter about the elements and nature, converted into handy bite sized pieces of sage business advice. He also rocks an impressive mullet, which gives the impression that this was a script from the 80s that took nearly 30 years to see the light of day. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is the case. As events take an increasing turn for the silly and build towards the inevitable finale – the one where Evan learns a valuable lesson about not spending all of his time at work and establishing a work/life balance that let’s him spend time with his daughter – to be honest you probably won’t care enough by that point. There’s too much meandering nothingness in the second act to push you through to the end, so you’d probably miss out on that Martin Sheen appearance and the big message we’re all supposed to have learned.

The humour is gentle enough whilst being neither laugh out loud funny not absolutely diabolical. Disappointingly it’s very middle of the road, which can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing. Bad because it’s not the genuinely entertaining Eddie Murphy vehicle we’re all hoping will recapture the energy and wit of his 80s/90s output, but good because it’s not The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Score: 2.5/5

Weather Wars (2011)

Simon Prior

2014-03-16

"You're right... there's no way we'd fit this TV into our lounge." — “You’re right… there’s no way we’d fit this TV into our lounge.”

Twitter Plot Summary: When their insane scientist father plots revenge and death, his two estranged sons must stop him.

Five Point Summary:

1. Stacy Keach: insane genius.
2. So apparently pushing some tables over means you can escape unheeded.
3. Why have they put a little space dome in the middle of a sports arena?
4. So this inclement weather can destroy buildings, but a news van goes unharmed?
5. Finally, a soupçon of weather attacks.

Stacy Keach is the big name in this low budget weather related nonsense, playing a mad scientist who has the ability to control the weather. His performance is absolutely 100% in the modern day mad scientist mould, and he is almost the only reason for watching any of this. Whilst technically proficient, the majority of the film is an exercise in boredom, lightened only by Keach playing insane and the occasional moderately good special effects sequence. To sum up the plot, Keach is a formerly eminent scientist and meteorologist, now intent on taking down the entire world… and restricting his attacks to the United States only. Yeah, so that plan’s going to work out. His two sons are tasked with finding him and bringing to an end his slightly evil plans.

Once again the US army prove to be incapable at stopping a man who has basically thrown himself off the deep end, never to return. Only with the help of his sons and their attractive female colleague do they stand any chance of stopping him. They have to compete with the angry acting of Lance E Nichols’ Senator Aldrich. Most of their time is spent bickering over whether or not the brothers and attractive colleague, the appropriately named Samantha Winter, can be trusted. There’s a wealth of possible story depth right there, but it’s not exploited. Instead we’re left with a standard “I’m not sure if I can trust you!”/”You can trust us.”/”Okay then.” style of discussion.

Just a normal day at the office for Stacy Keach.

Now, bearing in mind this is a film called Weather Wars (or the much more dramatic Storm Wars on IMDB), there is very little in the way of weather related shenanigans until the final act, by which time you may have already slipped into a coma thanks to the slow and incredibly dull build up. Characters interact but don’t seem to develop over the course of the story, and whilst earlier events are acknowledged, nobody seems to be in a position to react emotionally in a consistent manner. One character death is met with your standard grief-stricken wail, and then the next scene any trace of said emotion is gone. You could argue that it’s a deliberate directorial/acting choice, but I doubt it very much.

Apart from that, it’s your usual TV movie fare – other than the named stars making an appearance, it’s mostly handed over to a group of moderately attractive unknown actors as they work their way through the plot, never showing any sign of charisma or evidence of anything more than basic acting ability. The direction is equally indistinct, however in this instance the script is perhaps the strongest aspect despite my earlier negative comments. That’s not to say it’s good, just that it’s the best part. As we meander through several scenes of people talking and talking, looking concerned and then talking some more, there’s also attempts to forge a link between one of the brothers and their insane father. Even better, the writer was confident enough to write an ending that leaves it open for a sequel. Given the amount of SyFy’s output, I’d say it stands a very good chance of happening.

Score: 1/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCl4l6w0Dc

World On Fire (2011)

Simon Prior

2014-03-15

"You won't believe what's happened to me, Cueball..." — “You won’t believe what’s happened to me, Cueball…”

Twitter Plot Summary: A vulcanologist tries to uncover an illegal oil drilling operation before it causes a volcanic explosion in Miami.

Five Point Summary:

1. Talking to his wife. He’s probably not going to make it.
2. Offered lots of money, his concerns are right out of the window.
3. That’s how you sack your tennis teacher.
4. CGI says he was shot 20 times, close-ups say once.
5. Terrible finale. Just terrible.

Also known as Miami Magma in some circles (which is a far more appropriate title seeing as it’s only Miami under threat), the opening minutes of World on Fire do not fill you with confidence. An opening montage of a peaceful looking Miami is overdubbed with some light hearted music sets its stall out from the start, making it abundantly clear that this is yet another of those films in the SyFy Channel’s pantheon of iffy direct to DVD quality TV movies. Those opening credits do however give you some hope about its final quality – Brad Dourif is the biggest name here by some distance, although he’s followed not too distantly by Cleavant Derricks, who I last saw rocking up the joint in Sliders in the 90s. The lead however seems to be Rachel Hunter, whose acting ability leaves a lot to be desired. Suffice to say, the majority of her credits are for straight to TV tosh, so that should be a clear indication as to her ability. Not that I’m really in a position to judge, but she should have stuck with modelling.

Dourif displays his typical level of excellence, although is horribly underused – when it comes to TV movies we should be used to this by now, the big name star shows up for a few days filming and then is heading off to make something with a budget and a purpose. Well, usually. Next up is Cleavant Derricks, who is reliable but hampered by a script that doesn’t so much as leave every character as wafer thin as an After Eight mint, but is woefully inadequate that literally any character could be replaced at any time and it wouldn’t make any difference to the quality of the film.

You can see how this will end. Not well.

To say there isn’t much logic to the plot would be an understatement, where a vulcanologist and her sister try and uncover an illegal oil mining operation a sudden change of heart from one character comes from nowhere, and then apparently he was the big bad pulling all the strings from the start. Clearly this wasn’t the case in the opening act, so other than the fact there’s a massive amount of lava heading towards Miami, the rest of this part of the story makes little sense. Furthermore, the final act and their resolution to prevent Miami being destroyed is, quite frankly, ludicrous. The army have a presence but they’re as neutered as the rest of the characters, ineffectual and prone to making unrealistic decisions. At least in this respect they’re consistent with the rest of the film.

It wouldn’t be a TV movie without some equally bad situations to pad out the running time, and World on Fire delivers on that front. From random lava flows to cracks opening up on tennis courts, there are events that will make you laugh more than fear for the lives of the characters going through these events. If nothing else these moments do at least provide a modicum of entertainment, but overall it’s a confused and less than impressive mess.

Score: 1.5/5

Stranded (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-03-14

Twitter Plot Summary: After a meteor storm damages Moon Base Ark, an alien creature finds its way aboard and starts being a little bit menacing.

Five Point Summary:

1. Meteor attack – everybody duck!
2. Alien pregnancy! Whoop!
3. I’m using exclamation marks to make it seem like something interesting is happening!
4. Now there was no need to do that to himself.
5. Airlock!

It is some point in the near/distant future (depending on when you read this) and humanity has managed to establish a base on the Moon. Sadly for the four crew stationed there, a freak meteor storm causes untold damage to the station and brings with it an alien parasite that infects the crew. Christian Slater is the mission leader trying (and failing) to control the situation, and before you know it the sole female member of the crew is pregnant and an alien spawn shortly follows. The thing is, everything could easily just be the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of the impact, but the end of the film almost proves point-blank that it’s actually an alien. Unless it’s all in Christian Slater’s poisoned mind – that would make for a far better film, thinking about it.

There’s an obvious question here: if all of the crew were male, would we have a movie? Would the alien have impregnated one of the men or would it have realised it was too much effort and continued on its way? Perhaps I’m overthinking this a little too much, but there was a lot of promise in the opening moments that soon give way to repetitive shouting and looping arguments – we get it, it’s a low budget sci-fi film, seeing the four person crew bickering constantly gets tiresome very quickly, like watching your family argue whilst trapped together on a holiday.

"Even if it's a killer alien spawn, you'll help me raise it won't you?" — “Even if it’s a killer alien spawn, you’ll help me raise it won’t you?”

Whilst the production values are relatively good, Stranded still has a very low budget air to it, using an isolated location and restricting the special effects budget to the point of almost being worthless. The pacing too is all over the place, efforts to instil dramatic moments with some kinetic camerawork are wasted. You’d think with an alien on the loose there’d be a little more urgency to their movements, but nope, they keep going back to the carbon monoxide idea. At least entertain the notion, guys! Nor does the strange, rapid alien pregnancy really cause much concern – except for the woman of course, I’m sure she wasn’t too happy about that turn of events. By that point I’d have been making a beeline for the escape pods, something was clearly up given that she wasn’t pregnant five minutes ago. And therein lies the problem with Stranded – it’s a muddled mess, not sure what it wants to be – there was potential for it to become a low budget Event Horizon, but it falls short. Way short.

The characters, too, are cardboard cutouts, their dialogue trite and mostly dull, interspersed with bouts of angry acting. It’s another of those stories where the characters are defined by their jobs and/or genders – the captain, the doctor, the engineer, the woman. A little work here in defining them would have made all the difference. As it happens, characters get bumped off (not a spoiler – watch the trailer) and you don’t actually care. This is one of those rare occasions I was raring for the alien clone thing over the humans – unlike them he had a bit of personality.

Score: 2/5

It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)

Simon Prior

2014-03-13

His fisherman's tale got more elaborate each time he told it. — His fisherman’s tale got more elaborate each time he told it.

Twitter Plot Summary: A man who just wants to get out of town finds himself trapped by circumstance.

1. Talking stars? Say what?
2. George Bailey. Never gonna get out, is he?
3. Ahh, Clarence.
4. How things change without George Bailey around.
5. So much money and good will!

I often think of myself as an unemotional type, rarely emoting and even more rarely allowing external factors to influence my emotional state. Then shortly before Christmas I went to a special screening of It’s A Wonderful Life (yes, it’s taken me a while to write this review) for my first viewing of the film at the excellent Electric Cinema in Birmingham. Suffice to say, as the final credits rolled I was on the verge of welling up. Curse you, Franz Kapka.

George Bailey has always been a man wanting to explore the world and escape from the small town of Bedford Falls that has fallen under the auspices of nasty bank manager Mr Potter. Unfortunately for George, despite his intentions to get out of the town once and for all he finds himself there for years – marrying his sweetheart, raising a family, and running the family loan business following the death of his father. Ultimately he finds himself atop a bridge, ready to throw himself into the freezing water below, when he is stopped by Clarence, his guardian angel, and shown exactly what life in Bedford Falls would be like if he’d never been there.

I enjoyed the film for its simple portrayal of how the smallest of decisions can have the largest of consequences for the better. By scrolling back through George’s life and highlighting important decisions he made and highlighting exactly where the town would be if he’d never existed, it’s a great piece of feel-good storytelling. You may feel as though you haven’t achieved anything, yet everything you do ultimately leads somewhere. I’m even okay with the guardian angel angle despite my atheistic nature. Amazingly, I don’t have an overwhelming desire to criticise religious angles in films, especially when they’re presented in as joyous a manner as this. Clarence is loveable and his quest to get his wings is surprisingly touching. I also defy anybody to not have a lump in their throat by the final scene – even thinking about it now some 3 months after watching it is getting me all emotional. Call yourself a man. Pah.

"Kids? You're all adopted." — “Kids? You’re all adopted.”

Performances are typical for the era – slightly staid and overtly dramatic, larger than life as if projecting to the back of a theatre rather than making any attempt at realistic delivery – to complain about this however would be unduly harsh as that was just how the system was set up at that time. Despite this it still works for a modern audience, the small town existence given a touch of the unreal, a touch of the fantastic if you will. It says a lot when the town of Bedford Falls features prominently in the first Red Dwarf novel, a simulacrum in that instance for Dave Lister in the game Better Than Life. It’s idealistic, always snowing, and full of genuinely friendly people – I’d genuinely like to see that out in the real world.

Suffice to say, It’s A Wonderful Life is a life-affirming, bonafide classic. Yes, it’s saccharine and is hardly an accurate representation of real life, but to complain about that would be missing the point entirely. If you ever need your spirits lifting, or you need affirmation about the purpose of existence, or you just want to see an excellent Christmas movie, then this is the film for you.

Score: 5/5

Force 10 From Navarone (1978)

Simon Prior

2014-03-12

Apollo Creed VS Han Solo? In some parallel reality, maybe.

Twitter Plot Summary: A commando team return to Navarone, this time with the intention to blow up a dam.

Five Point Summary:

1. Apollo Creed joins the crew.
2. Captured!
3. Escape!
4. A traitor in their midst.
5. Knife fight!

A common thread throughout movie history is the existence of much delayed sequels, in this case there is a gap of 17 years between The Guns Of Navarone and Force 10. It goes without saying that the odds of the original cast returning to pick up moments after the end of the first film were slim at best – more so because some of them were dead or getting on a bit by 1978. In my experience this mostly relates to war films – The Dirty Dozen in particular being subject to a number of sequels made many years after the 1967 original.

The credits read like a veritable who’s who of big names from the era, but I’ll get onto that momentarily. The key problem is the recasting of Mallory and Miller – Mallory was clearly American in the original film whereas now he’s played by the very English Robert Shaw. I know that there’s a gap of 17 years between the two movies, but even taking this into account a little more care in terms of continuity wouldn’t have gone amiss. On the other hand, Robert Shaw and Edward Fox are never boring so at least you get your money’s worth from their buddy pairing.

It doesn’t matter so much that the plot is basically the same as the original, it remains gripping albeit to a slightly lesser extent. Furthermore there’s the array of now famous faces to keep your attention. The likes of Apollo Creed himself, Carl Weathers, shows up to do his thing, whilst Harrison Ford does his grumpy face and Richard Kiel shows up for a bit to prove that he’s done just a little bit more than a couple of James Bond movies. In fact this is almost a James Bond cast reunion of sorts as other than Kiel we also have the aforementioned Robert Shaw (From Russia With Love) and Mrs Ringo Starr herself, Barbara Bach (The Spy Who Loved Me). She’s the one piece of the puzzle that doesn’t quite fit, a waif of a figure yet powerful. That’s not a slight on womenfolk, by the way, and you can’t say her performance doesn’t lack power despite her diminutive disposition.

The Klan found themselves in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Then there’s Franco Nero, the original Django and who is showing up with some frequency in my film viewings of late. Suffice to say, if you don’t realise he’s the traitor from the start then you need to go and read the typecasting manual. That might be considered a spoiler, but come on – it’s Franco freakin’ Nero! He’s actually outed as the villain quite early in the day, so you can’t bemoan me for that one.

There’s very little that’s original about Force 10, let’s be honest, but if you enjoy ticking off big name actors making surprise appearances, a by the numbers action romp across a Greek island with a couple of twists and turns for good measure, and marvelling at Franco Nero’s moustache, then you will at least get something out of this.

Score: 3/5

The Guns of Navarone (1961)

Simon Prior

2014-03-11

The Dirty... erm... Eight? That doesn't work, does it? — The Dirty… erm… Eight? That doesn’t work, does it?

Twitter Plot Summary: A team of commandos go to the island of Navarone to destroy some massive German guns. I mean, REALLY massive.

Five Point Summary:

1. Blood, bloody, bloody.
2. Climbing a mountain face.
3. A traitor!
4. Ooh, the tension mounts…
5. A job well done chaps.

The Guns Of Navarone is another of those typical WW2 action thrillers where the Allies have a job to do and there’s a perilous trek across German-held territory to complete beforehand. What often follows is a plot with a number of twists and turns, uncertainty as to whether or not they will ultimately achieve their goal (note: somehow they always do), and more often than not a spy is thrown into the mix just to complicate matters further. That’s precisely the plot we face in …Navarone, although that should come as no surprise to anybody who has read the novels of Alistair MacLean – every one feels like the same concept moved to different theatres of war – Where Eagles Dare essentially has the same plot but is set in the snowy mountains rather than the atolls of Greece. Yet despite this niggling piece of background information, the films remain perfectly entertaining and able to sustain your interest without worrying too much about the standard plot that we’re subject to.

In this instance a small team of commandos have to get onto the island of Navarone and take out the big German guns that threaten Allied ships in the Aegean Sea. It’s an epic task that seems almost doomed to fail from the offset, yet with typical resolve the team moves in to get the job done regardless. What does keep you on the edge of your seat is not knowing how they will achieve their aim, who will make it to the end of the film, and who the traitor actually is. This is all handled masterfully by J Lee Thompson’s direction, although by modern standards it’s positively static.

The queue for the toilets in the Nazi camp was ridiculous.

The big name cast do well to add gravitas to proceedings, in particular the central pairing of Gregory Peck and David Niven as the group commander and the demolitions expert respectively. There’s a certain level of camaraderie to the pair that builds as the story progresses. Which is perhaps a good thing, because this is a really long film. It’s not quite in Lord of the Rings territory, but at nearly 2 hours 40 minutes it gives The Hobbit films a run for their money. Luckily for us, the story remains engaging throughout and very rarely feels like it’s lagging. There’s a certain element of anti-war sentiment to the script too, most notably in David Niven’s character Miller, although that’s mostly lost in amongst the whole “small team against the entire might of the German Army” concept. At times it threatens to become a parody of itself, the performances so earnest that Airplane stole the concept a couple of decades later.

This period of WW2-related films are particularly special for the fact that a vast number of actors appearing in them also had service during the real war, which allows a certain element of believability to creep into the performances. They of course saw much of what is portrayed on screen first hand. Throw all of these elements together and you’re onto a winner.

Score: 4/5

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

Simon Prior

2014-03-10

Sir Christopher Lee had had a particularly heavy night of drinking.

Twitter Plot Summary: In a flashback, Dr Frankenstein recounts the creation of his Monster.

Five Point Summary:

1. Lovely little prison cell.
2. It’s alive!
3. Random violence and bullying.
4. Bullet in the eye!
5. Does anybody believe him? Does it matter?

Hammer’s own take on the Frankenstein story does a similar job to their own reimagining of Dracula, keeping some elements of the original tale but using them as a stepping stone to branch off in their own direction. It has the advantage of allowing them to tell their own story, break away from the text and leave the audience unsure as to how it will ultimately end. Strict adherence to the text is one thing, but on occasion it’s worth simply being inspired by it and do something moderately original. The Curse of Frankenstein achieves this goal.

We begin with the esteemed Baron Frankenstein (Cushing) locked up in a prison cell. There he is visited by a priest to whom he recounts his life story. It’s a slightly clumsy framing device, but in this case it works because it’s not dwelt upon. After a whistle stop tour of the young baron’s life, we move forward far enough to see his experiments with reanimating dead flesh alongside his former mentor and latterly scientific partner, Krempe (Urquehart). Soon the pair are beset by jealousy and a struggle over the morality of reanimating dead flesh as they are joined by Frankenstein’s cousin Elizabeth (Hazel Court in the obligatory “female” role – seriously, there’s nothing else I can say to define her character). Her safety is at the forefront of Krempe’s mind so, without spoilers, you know precisely what’s going to happen. And funnily enough, it does.

The creature is nothing at all as you would expect – Universal’s interpretation was iconic even by the time Hammer’s version came along, and more importantly was subject to the bane of creative existence – the laws of copyright. It’s a testament to the Hammer studio’s makeup department that the creature is distinct from its breathing brethren, what with him being an amalgamation of body parts from various cadavers, and also for the fact he looks and generally acts nothing like Boris Karloff’s almost definitive performance. This is helped in no small measure by Christopher Lee’s performance as the creature, portraying menace yet always carrying an air of pity with him. I’m going to have to say it, but there’s an incredible amount of pathos in his every appearance, amazing work from Christopher Lee given that he has no dialogue.

It's a Hammer film - excessive facial hair is expected. — It’s a Hammer film – excessive facial hair is expected.

It’s an about-face from our usual expectations, again established in Hammer’s Dracula films – it’s almost impossible to feel sympathy for Cushing’s Frankenstein, whereas Lee brings pathos to his role as the brain damaged beast. There’s little gore and, one notable instance with a pistol aside, the majority of the horror is left to our imaginations rather than being displayed in full detail. Bearing in mind the Baron is locked away in a cell at the very beginning of the story, you know that it’s not going to have a positive outcome.

It lacks the power and pace of the first Hammer Dracula, but this version of the Frankenstein fable has a power and grace of its own despite occasionally lacking the sense of urgency that may have been necessary to pull it out of Boris Karloff’s not inconsiderable shadow. It’s also another cast iron example of how Hammer were able to successfully adapt the original source material and make something completely different and unique compared against Universal’s earlier output. It might not be the best horror film you’ll ever see, but it plays to its strengths and is a winner as a result.

Score: 3.5/5

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Simon Prior

2014-03-09

Twitter Plot Summary: The same stuff happens again to John McClane, but this time it happens at an airport. How very convenient.

Five Point Summary:

1. William Sadler in the buff. Well, somebody out there will appreciate that.
2. Al! He shot a kid, you know.
3. The very British plane goes down in flames.
4. How long is the fuse on those grenades…?
5. It’s enough to put you off flying for life.

The same shiz happens to the same guy twice in what is essentially a repeat of the first film, albeit Nakatomi Plaza is replaced by an airport. The story beats are near identical, but seeing as the first movie was so good, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

It’s a year after the events at Nakatomi Plaza. John McClane and wife Holly are together again and we join McClane as he arrives to pick her up from the airport. Unfortunately her plane is delayed giving McClane enough time to spot some shady goings-on involving William Sadler and his band of goons. A recently deposed general from Val Verde (a hotbed of political instability given that General Arius was trying to reclaim power in that country back in Commando) is due to be transported to the US and Sadler’s job is ensure he escapes custody. McClane does what he does best and becomes the proverbial fly in the ointment.

Whilst the story is much the same as before, the action is sufficiently spectacular and despite being released in 1990 it has the remnants of the 80s action movie style – the air is thick with a haze of cigarette smoke everywhere you go – even on the planes circling the airport. The action doesn’t let up, there are twists aplenty and thankfully at no time do you think that McClane is punching above his weight by getting involved. He’s also restored his relationship with Holly, who spends most of her time trapped on a plane circling the airport. In a call back to the first movie she’s also in the company of reporter Richard Thornburg, just to give her “in flight” segments some purpose other than “she might die in a crash!”

It was 1990, all bad guys looked like this.

It’s also indicative of the last excesses of those 80s action flicks, moving into the 90s the genre wouldn’t be quite the same again, on the big screen at least, until perhaps the arrival of Stallone’s fourth Rambo or the recent spate of geri-action titles. Excessive blood splatter and violence dominates proceedings, but is cleverly structured to at least service the story. Harlin in my opinion has never been particularly successful with telling a story – just take a look at Deep Blue Sea, and he frequently gets lost Michael Bay style in the many explosions and bits that go boom, but in this instance it’s clear and the narrative, such as it is, never gets lost amongst all the carnage. By comparison to the original film Die Harder, as it is also known, lives up to that tagline by ramping up the action stakes almost to the point of unbelievability, but just about reigning itself in before jumping headfirst into parody territory.

The one thing that Die Hard 2 does not have is an Alan Rickman-sized villain for McClane to face off against. Sure, William Sadler and Franco Nero are both impressive actors, but they’re nowhere near reaching the same level of charisma and evil genius as Hans Gruber. Other than it essentially being another interpretation of the first film, this is the only other issue I hold against it.

Restricting the action to one location, much like the original film, helps draw focus to the situation, the characters, and the likely outcomes. There’s also something inherently unpleasant about a terrorist group taking control of an airport, more so now in this post-9/11 world we find ourselves in. With this in mind though, it wouldn’t be much of an action film if it was set at the Bingo Hall, would it? Then again, given the current state of the Die Hard franchise, they can’t be too far off from attempting that one.

Score: 4/5

1...596061...90 Page 60 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM