Die Hard 4.0 Thoughts

January 19th, 2010

live-free-or-die-hard

On name alone, ‘Live Free or Die Hard‘ had me excited for another Die Hard sequel, in fact I’d probably have bought into Die Hard 4.0 a little more if they’d stuck with the coolness of the original name. However, they did not (outside of America) and in turn I didn’t really enjoy Die Hard 4.0 either. I guess, I didn’t enjoy Die Hard 4.0 for the simple reason that it was only a “great” movie and not an astoundingly brilliant one. So colour the following criticism as rather harsh then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EUJYh32KVw

Die Hard kinda switched off my radar after a friend explained that the, at time, new movie was a soft-cock iteration of the John McLane legacy. Looking at the American ratings system though, I’m a little confused by all the drama. According to my imported copy of The Ultimate Matrix Collection, all three movies were given an ‘R’ classification rating and yet the equally violent Die Hard 4.0 was given a PG-13 rating in the states. How this makes sense, I do not know.

The problem with John McLane’s resurrection has less to do with a lack of yippee ki-ays and soft-cock action and more to do with lame special effects and an under-realised narrative. The former we can get out the way fairly quickly: McLance, handling a semitrailer, takes on a jet firing missiles under a series of computer-generated concrete highways and manages to end up the victor. The entire scene is as ridiculous as it is fake and unengaging. This coming from a crew which is proud of the realism of their action sequences. Without exaggeration, the scene was disingenuousness and made me feel sleepy.

The majority of the action sequences are actually quite good, most notably when a car is launched into a helicopter (McLane “was out of bullets”). The premise to this sequence masterfully makes use of the technology-savvy villains who redirect traffic into both sides of a tunnel, wait for McLane to reverse (attempting to trap him with a luring chopper waiting for him on the other side) and then proceed to switch off the tunnel’s lights for ensuing mayhem. Such cleverness rekindles the shock of the “I hate niggers” sequence from Die Hard: With a Vengeance.

The narrative is ultimately what soured me over on what is an admittedly good Die Hard flick. The premise is that a group of youngish cyber hackers have taken over Washington, D.C. , starting a firesale: a three step process of disarming control of a country. The group first begin by closing down the transportation system, then they destroy communications and lastly they shut off utilities. This concept sets up two interesting dynamics for the narrative. Firstly it allows for some clever confrontations as McLane works on the ground and the cyber criminals attempt to stop him through indirect measures. Unfortunately, unlike Die Hard: With a Vengeance which mostly delivered on its core premise, Die Hard 4.0 concocts very few battles which utilise the villain’s unique form of control. As such, the primary action sequences wouldn’t be out of place in a lesser action movie, there’s no defining ingenuity to raise Die Hard 4.0 above convention.mclane-die-hard-4

Besides the car-chopper and semi-trailer-army-jet scenes, the other two action sequences which constitute Die Hard 4.0 feel very familiar. The first bit of action in the movie, an escape from I’m-like-a-son-to-you-Mc-Lane Matt Farrell’s apartment, is typically Seagal, particularly shooting a fire extinguisher. McLane later faces off against Mai, an archetypal ninja women—represented by the Asian-ness of Maggie Q as Mai, in an industrial setting. Mai’s unwillingness to die (Mai is roughed around, hit with a car and falls down an elevator shaft, yet continues to get back up) and the insane lengths that McLane goes to kill her is reminiscent of Terminator 3. One character plays the action movie trope, the other, a slender, unstoppable force. The blue hue of the set and overall industrial aesthetic further adds to the likeness to T3.

The second dynamic created by the firesale concept is the underlying theme of “an analog cop in a digital world”. McLane’s an old hat, a white cop who wears his battles on his bloodied body. He continues to embody the characteristics of his 1980s/1990s persona. In many ways, McLane’s lost in this world, an outdated stereotype in a more sophisticated kind of action movie. The narrative interesting explores this side of the legacy and it actually makes John McLane the most dislikable character in the entire film. McLane comes off as arrogant, narrow-minded and uncooperative. He’s also clueless when it comes to dealing with the smarmy cyber terrorists and takes a brute force approach to taking them down. In a sense, he’s the butt of a joke which only the viewers are in on. I wouldn’t consider McLane a detriment to the movie (after all, it is his movie), because I think that his juxtaposition with the other characters says a great deal about social and cinematic changes in the over the past 20 years. Here are a handful of possible interpretations:

The villains, a bunch of computer-hacking university graduates, are lead by the nefarious Thomas Gabriel, who in his role struggles to show villainy.  Gabriel was formerly a programmer for the government who was fired from his position after finding a large security hole in the networking system and, typically for computer types, being pedantic about the issue to the point that he was sacked for his annoyance. Gabriel is therefore taking revenge the only way he knows how, by exploiting the security hole, in turn further proving his profound ability to annoy people in power. Timothy Olyphant is a little too young for his role and frankly an unappealing antagonist who seems to get angry at McLance just for anger’s sake.

Conclusion

There’s a whole bunch of essential information which the movie tries to make a point of (McLane’s wizz kid, side kick) which I haven’t mentioned because it’s obvious and laboured. Otherwise, Die Hard 4.0 is a good installment of the Die Hard series which I can’t bear to like for its failure to pull original action sequences from a premise which could offer many, McLane’s role as an awkward fit and the generous use of computer graphics in that one particular scene.

Additional Reading

The Lean, Mean, Macho Machine – Popmatters

Posted in Other Media | Comments (0)
Tags:

Casino Royale Thoughts

January 18th, 2010

casino-royale-bond

(More thoughts on non-game related subjects, I know. Basically, I’m ploughing through other media (comics, manga, anime, movies) before I head overseas again, and hey, Okami has been sucking me dry for time. Expect more of this gear for the next few days. )

Ages ago I was given Casino Royale on Blu-ray as a Birthday present to use with the PS3. Considering I’d seen the movie with friends at the cinemas I didn’t feel the need to re-watch the movie in such a hurry, but the other day I decided to give my favourite Bond film a second viewing. Here are some of my observations:

Watching Casino Royale retroactively filled in the numerous mental blanks underpinning my confused reaction to Quantum of Solace. There was a two year gap between the movies, yet their themes (the friction between the mission and the love interest: Vesper) are very tightly bound. Furthermore, Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, as in Bond literally begins from where he left off in Casino Royale, so confusion was sure to ensue. The movies are best watched in succession. With that considered, I’m not interested in watching Quantum of Solace again. You saw the movie, you know why, but fundamentally, Vesper was too smarmy and not worth watching Bond weep over.

Actually, let’s talk about Vesper. She’s both good looking AND intelligent which were points that previous Bond girls were keen to labour over in the extra features. Fair enough, when contrasted against the Bond Girls of the past, she’s peaking the recent trend into more capable female side kicks. I still didn’t like her though. Three reasons:

1) She’s indeed smart—and that’s a good thing—but the script is keen to make a point of it as though her intelligence is unusual or worthy of attention. On debut, the writers attempt to give her intellectual capital over Bond through their childish squabbling match, but it instead has the opposite effects, making the two protagonists seem like self-important aristocrats. Pricks.

2) She seems uncomfortable in her role, I don’t know if this is intentional (because she’s an accountant? Maybe) or just the actor (Eva Green) not suiting the part. Eva’s face always wears a sullen smile, as though she wants to be elsewhere, preferably not with Bond.

3) I don’t think that she suits the typical mold of a Bond girl either. It’s just her breasts and the desperate attempts the costume designers take to fit her in clothes which make them more apparent. It appears as though they’re trying to fit her into a strong female archetype (the business one) which doesn’t suit her, and therefore a sense of attractive which is incongruous with her natural look (which is supposedly French Gothic).

M, on the other hand, holds a stern presence over Bond, she is a strong female character not because she retorts Bond’s slick quips, but because she silences them. Vesper, plays Bond’s mind games because she thinks she can win, M grounds Bond in the reality where his games are nothing but trivial. Judy Dench is probably at her best in this installment, I’d wager. Overall though, I dig Solange Dimitrios, the ost, she’s so sensual and a bit of a throwback to the Roger Moore era. (I can’t justify that last point, I just have a feeling).

In general, the production is far superior to prior Bond movies. Grounding itself more firmly in reality and losing the fantastical elements which made Die Another Day so nauseating, Casino Royale has given the series a new lease on life. Shedding the shallow gender stereotypes and corny jokes also helped to make Bond more socially relevant in a more responsible world.

However, despite these comforting amenities, Casino Royale stands out for its brilliant action sequences. As an action movie buff, I evaluate set piece action sequences on two key qualities: 1) Originality 2) Realism. I chose these two points because I enjoy action sequences which mirror the themes, issues and vibe of the narrative and don’t rely on special effects. A great deal of action movies are loaded with trashy, senseless violence that contribute to the movie’s story or characterisation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPmJ73XRlUs

The parkour sequence is a great example of inspired action. Free-running is modern and very stylistic, yet it’d never been incorporated into a mainstream production before, particularly of this scale. Bond isn’t just running through streets and on roof tops though, the construction site setting further puts a twist on the already unique free running concept. The visceral, improvisation-heavy action sets a striking impression of the new James Bond.  The realism is also very much in check as everything which happens on screen was acted out. Sends chills down your spine just thinking about it, eh?

I think that summarises most of my thoughts, I’d just like to add a handful of ideas which I couldn’t fit in above:

Posted in Other Media | Comments (3)
Tags:

A Quick Dissection of Hellsing (Original Series)

January 13th, 2010

alucard-inverted

A lot of anime fans love Hellsing and at one stage so did I, then I saw past the pretension and became a hater. Don’t get me wrong, Hellsing has all the trappings to be the poster-child of stylised animated violence (no easy feat in this industry, mind you), yet it severely underperforms on execution.

From reading the manga, there’s no doubt about the gratuitousness and stylisation of the violence. The anime, in which case, simply doesn’t fully capitalise on the source material. Personally I think the problems lie in two areas: Pretension alluding to awesome gunplay and fight scenes and a major lack of animation to evidence not just the character’s colourful dialogue, but the pretension in general. Hellsing falls victim to the same characteristic flaws of Dragon Ball Z with camera panning, wind blowing and banter exchanging taking up the bulk of the action sequences.

Most of Hellsing‘s confrontations begin with a few exchanges of bombastic dialogue (diluted from the manga, but sufficient enough to be deemed offensive) interwoven among brief scenes of gunplay. The action is far too brief and usually relies on transitions of stills or other commonly used cost-cutting techniques to reduce the number of cells in the production. The handful of frames used are often copied and pasted to reverberate the action. The style is all in the right place—character design and colouring is brilliant and captures the gothic atmosphere wonderfully, however, with little animation to back it up, Hellsing is all talk and little action. No wonder the animated series has gone back to the drawing board for a second, more authentic adaption of the manga.

Complaints aside, Hellsing is only an ‘epic fail’ under the shadow of what it could’ve been. The trappings are still there though and they’re pretty tasty. The ridiculous dialogue suits the malevolent design well and the character designs are very iconic despite the frames lacking to give life to them. The villains behind the set piece confrontations of each episode are also very memorable and distinct. They all have a great deal of variety and pertain the series’ visual flair stylistically. Even if they’re spouting of moronic lines about raping pigs or wetting your pants in trepidation, they still maintain an assuring level of awesomeness that keeps with the series’ ethos. So despite the frame-lacking fight scenes there’s enough there to satisfy a purchase—if I were here to sell you a copy.

Before I conclude, I just want to mention that the follow narrative points which run alongside the action are all very interesting:

Posted in Other Media | Comments (0)
Tags:
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »