Alternative Lens

Starring: Bruce Willis (Looper) and Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher)

Director: John Moore (Max Payne)

Writer: Skip Woods (X-Men Origins: Wolverine)

Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes

Release Date: 14 February (US, UK)

What can I say about Die Hard that hasn’t been said? It’s the pinnacle of action movies, a game-changing motion picture that influenced the action landscape forever and made Bruce Willis an icon. The following sequels, though never living up to the original, were also entertaining diversions. I even like the fourth one, ridiculousness and all. But is the fifth outing one worth gearing up for, or has John McClane finally run out of luck?

The plot of Die Hard 5 (I refuse to call it by that ridiculous title) is so bland, so banal, so utterly generic, that I’m struggling to remember key plot details just mere hours after watching it. After an incredibly slow start, the film finally kicks into gear but doesn’t keep up the pace. When there is action, it’s pretty run of the mill. When there isn’t, it is downright torturous. The film attempts to bring in a father-son dynamic between Willis and Courtney, but in the most half-assed overdone way. The constant bickering, the refusal to call McClane “Dad”, McClane always saving his son’s ass and not thanking him for it. It all just feels ripped from other movies; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade this ain’t. At least the movie is short.

If you know what to expect from Bruce Willis these days, you’ll get exactly that. His portrayal of his iconic role feels half-baked, as if Willis doesn’t know what’s going on or doesn’t care. His one-liners are pretty weak 85% of the time; some of them don’t even make sense (“I’m not smart. I’m just on vacation” WTF?). He doesn’t even feel like John McClane; it’s just Willis being Willis for the umpteenth-bazzilionth time. Jai Courtney attempts to pick up the slack, but the character of McClane Jr is given so little personality that he has nothing to work with. The two’s chemistry is passable at best, never getting close to the kind of relationship Willis had with Samuel L. Jackson or even Justin Long. But the villain is good, right? The Die Hard franchise is known for its memorable cast of villains, from Alan Rickman to Timothy Olyphant (OK, maybe not Olyphant). And the villains here are…Russians. Nothing that special or memorable about them. They’re just Russians. The film tries really hard to make these guys seem evil and just fail. They even try to tread out a real-life tragedy in attempt to make them seem more villainous; that’s just lazy and disrespectful.

But what about the action? That’s what we come to see these movies for. Every Die Hard movie has it’s memorable action scenes, from as simple as jumping off a building to as ridiculous as crashing a car into a helicopter. Many took issue with Die Hard 4.0 for taking the action to ridiculous levels, and those people are probably going to be even more pissed with this one. The action here is preposterous and not in a good way. Once in a blue moon does the film do something interesting, but nothing that memorable. The John McClane of the original Die Hard would never have survived some of the s*** he pulls off here. Remember how much glass hurt him in the first movie? F*** that, he’s constantly crashing through the stuff here with barely a scratch! Combine the unimaginative action with constant shaky-cam and sloppy editing, and you’ve got yourself a bland action movie that hardly feels like a Die Hard movie at any point. All in a day’s work for hackmaster John Moore. Even the biggest hater of Die Hard 4.0 would be begging for Len Wiseman to come back after seeing this atrocity.

Die Hard 5 is a spit in the face of the franchise, an embarrassment that should be quickly forgotten about and never spoken of again. The film barely resembles its roots and just goes for generic thrills straight out of the Michael Bay School of Schlock Filmmaking. Willis has already said he’s up for at least one more. It can’t get any worse than this, right? Right?!

FINAL VERDICT: 3/10

Starring: Nicholas Hoult (X-Men: First Class), Teresa Palmer (I Am Number Four), Rob Corddry (Hot Tub Time Machine), John Malkovich (Con Air)

Writer/Director: Jonathan Levine (50/50)

Runtime: 1 hour 38 minutes

Release Date: 1 February (US), 8 February (UK)

Many are quick to dismiss Warm Bodies as yet another lame attempt to cash in on the Twilight craze. Does this film suffer from the same problems as those abysmal films, or does this zom-rom-com have more on the inside?

The plot of Warm Bodies is a very loose adaptation of Romeo & Juliet, but about as loose as you get. The film follows the romantic comedy structure to a T, but with its setting and characters it remains fresh. The film keeps up a good pace throughout, scattering just enough humour as it goes, before entering an entertaining but extremely brief climax. The writing here is consistently witty, with enough jabs taken at both the zombie and rom com genres to entertain fans of both genres.

The little kid from About a Boy has come a long way, hasn’t he? In what is his first leading role in a major film, Hoult excels. He plays undead well, letting his face do a lot of the talking to convey his emotions when his ever-constant monologue decides not to chime in. Palmer is decent as well, though her character isn’t as developed or interesting as Hoult. Rob Corddry provides a lot of good humour, whilst the enigmatic John Malkovich is barely used in a stereotypical role that could have been played by anyone.

Possibly the most unfortunate thing about Warm Bodies is the lack of gore. I know they’re trying to appeal to the teen market, but even for a 12 rated film the violence on display here is pretty tame. Sure, we get to see headshots and even some brain devouring, but it all feels held back. They could have gone a little messier and still gotten away with the rating. The movie also has a very indie soundtrack, often segwaying into montages that seem out of place at times.

Warm Bodies is the first genuinely good movie of the year, and does enough new things to make it stand out. Whilst not a classic, it is entertaining and has plenty of laughs to be worth a watch.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: John C. Reilly (Boogie Nights), Sarah Silverman (School of Rock), Jack McBrayer (30 Rock), Jane Lynch (Role Models)

Director: Rich Moore (Futurama)

Writers: Phil Johnston (Cedar Rapids) & Jennifer Lee

Runtime: 1 hour 48 minutes

Release Date: 2 November (US), 8 February (UK)

Disney’s new film set in the land of video games has finally arrived on British shores (seriously, what is with Disney and their stupidly staggered release dates?). Is it worth dunking your quarters in, or should you just call it game over?

Whilst Wreck-It Ralph does take place in a unique and interesting world, the story here is pretty standard fare. It’s still consistently entertaining and never boring, but anyone with a basic knowledge of story structure and clichés can probably see several plot points from miles away, which really put a damper in a movie that is otherwise very imaginative and fun. The writers have clearly done their homework, filling the film with many creative in-jokes that only the nerdiest of gamers will get (which includes yours truly!). References to everything from Street Fighter to Metal Gear Solid are scattered around, which add a real authenticity to the film as well as adding some neat gags. Still, the film could have done with even more, especially in regard to the worlds we see. The film has so much promise with all these different games we could be hopping between, but we spend most of the film stuck in one environment. If and when they make a sequel, more gaming jumping is immediately required.

Wreck-It Ralph’s cast seems perfectly tailored to their roles. Reilly plays the titular character well, providing the sympathy required for such a character. Silverman, whilst occasionally grading, provides an equal quality as Vanellope. McBrayer and Lynch are fantastic in their roles and I wish we could have gotten more of them. Alan Tudyk also shines in his role as King Candy, perfectly mimicking the Mad Hatter voice in a way that feels appropriate.

The animation on display here is phenomenal. The way they’ve designed and animated these character to be like actual video games characters is astonishing and again adds to the authenticity of the proceedings. The film is constantly visually interesting, and the music is also great at mimicking that video game feel.

Wreck-It Ralph is the best animated film I’ve seen in a few years and one I’m keen to revisit soon. The film is begging for a sequel, and I will be first in line if it does indeed get made.

FINAL VERDICT: 8.5/10

Starring: Denzel Washington (Training Day), Kelly Riley (Sherlock Holmes), Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2), John Goodman (The Big Lebowski)

Director: Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump)

Writer: John Gatins (Real Steel)

Runtime: 2 hours 18 minutes

Release Date: 2 November (US), 1 February (UK)

Denzel Washington stars as a pilot with a serious drinking problem in Flight. Does this film take off in style, or does it crash and burn?

The opening scenes of Flight are some of the most expertly crafted and intensely thrilling scenes I have seen in a long time. The plane crash centrepiece feels authentic and really puts you into the moment, and the way the film quickly sets up the character of Whip shows great character work and performance. Once that plane crashes, however, the film takes a slight dive in quality. The film goes around in circles for a little while trying to emphasize Whip’s tragic flaw, but his problem is pretty clear within the first scene; we don’t need to be constantly reminded. A scene or two could have been cut here and had no impact on the emotional climax of the film, which truly forgoes usual movie logic and seriously grounds the movie in reality. By no means is the rest of the movie bad, it just fails to match the stupendous quality of those first fifteen minutes.

Denzel is probably one of the best actors working today, and he delivers another marvellous performance here. His portrayal of an alcoholic feels much more genuine and believable than most film drunks. While his character could easily come off as a self-destructive asshole, Denzel manages to keep enough of his natural charm to make sure the audience is balanced towards his side. The rest of the cast does a great job as well. Kelly Riley truly gets to show off her talent here playing a recovering heroin addict, but her character gets faded out of the movie with little impact and her story never feels properly concluded. Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood also provide good support as Whip’s defense. John Goodman is also here playing comic relief that too often feels out of touch with the rest of the movie, almost as if he walked right off the set of The Big Lebowski. He’s good with what he’s given, but he just seems a little OTT for such an emotionally dark film.

It’s great to see Zemeckis working in the land of the living again instead of with soulless mo-cap, and he’s still got it. Zemeckis directs the film effectively, but never lets his style get in the way of the drama. Apart from the plane crash, this is pretty much a straight drama, and the film never tries to hide this with fancy cinematography or bombastic music. The film features heavy use of Rolling Stones music, which eventually gets overbearing. I love the Stones as much as the next guy, but this just gets bloody ridiculous.

In the end, Flight is an engaging film with an opening that is worth the price of admission on its own. Zemeckis has returned to live action in style and, while its unlikely Denzel will walk away on Oscar night with a statue in his hand, he gives a wonderful performance worthy of praise regardless.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood), Sally Field (Forrest Gump), Tommy Lee Jones (Men in Black)

Director: Steven Spielberg (War Horse)

Writer: Tony Kushner (Munich)

Release Date: 9 November (US), 25 January (UK)

Spielberg’s long gestating biopic about the freer of the slaves has finally reaches British shores. Is it made of pure Oscar gold, or is it just bait?

Being a British person, I don’t have an encyclopaedic history of the life and works of Abraham Lincoln but I know the basics. Luckily, the film covers just about enough of it that it is understandable to an uninformed audience. However, that doesn’t stop the movie from being sluggish. This film is far too long by a good half hour and could have been easily cut down without missing too much. That’s not to say that the movie is bad; in fact, when it’s good it’s amazing. But there were far too many moments where I started to get restless and wanted things to move on. To worsen these matters, the film has a great ending point but then prattles on pointlessly for another 15 minutes just so we can see Lincoln’s death (c’mon, that’s not a spoiler!). We didn’t need to see that; the movie had accomplished its goal by that point.

Spielberg has assembled a massive cast for this film, so much so that great respected actors get relegated to measly roles in some cases. Regardless, everyone is really good. Praising a Day-Lewis performance is as expected as the sun setting, but it is really good anyway. He commands every scene he’s in and truly inhabits this character more than anyone who has ever played the role. Sally Field is also great as his wife, whilst Tommy Lee Jones shines in his supporting role that provides some great drama and even a little comedy.

You generally know going into a Spielberg movie how it’s going to feel, but that never stops it from being beautiful. They’ve really managed to capture the feel of the period, from the costumes to the sets. The cinematography here is really good and keeps the film flowing even during its slow moments, whilst John Williams supplies a familiar but still fitting and grandiose score.

Overall, Lincoln is exactly the kind of movie that appeals to the Academy, but not so much for me. Maybe it’s because I’m not American, maybe it’s because I’m too young, but it didn’t appeal to me so much. It is worth seeing and does deserve some awards come Oscar night, but I have no really want to ever watch it again.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Jessica Chastain (The Help), Jason Clarke (Lawless), Joel Edgerton (Warrior), Mark Strong (Kick-Ass)

Director: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

Writer: Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker)

Runtime: 2 hours 37 minutes

Release Date: December 19 (US), January 25 (UK)

The director of the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker returns to the warzone to tackle the tale of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Is this a successful search, or is this case full of false leads?

Let it be clear: this isn’t a gun-ho action movie. This is a military thriller, made up mostly of people talking about things in offices. But by no means is this movie boring; quite the opposite in fact. Yes, the film can drag and could have lost a good 15-20 minutes in the editing room, but the film always remains tense and captivating at all the right moments. This movie is all about building the tension so when the s*** goes down, it feels weighty and important. When the action hits, the film never feels Hollywoodised. This is as close to being there as 99.9% percent of the world will get to being in this situation, and it is an experience worth taking.

A film that relies on words rather than explosions needs good performances and, while none of these characters have much depth or back-story to them, these actors play it to their limits. Chastain again proves she’s one of the best new actresses working today, giving a performance that further emphasises Maya’s obsession with catching Bin Laden. None of the other actors are given much screen time, but all perform well when they’re there. Bit parts are played by major stars like James Gandolfini and Mark Duplass, but their presence never takes you out of the movie.

If there’s one thing Bigelow knows, it’s intense realism. This is something Zero Dark Thirty delivers constantly. On the rare occasion action breaks out, it always feels raw and genuinely shocking. The film has an almost documentary feel to it, shown by the heavy use of handheld camera. The editing on display here is also near flawless, and the music is subdued and always arrives at the right moments.

Zero Dark Thirty is an emotional thrill ride; a film that shows you what it wants you to see and lets you decide your moral stance. This is neither pro nor anti military, this is neutral observance. Bigelow has further honed her phenomenal skills as a filmmaker to create one of the best thrillers in recent memory, and I can’t wait to see what she does next.

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10

Starring: Jamie Foxx (Ray), Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds), Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception), Kerry Washington (The Last King of Scotland), Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers)

Writer/Director: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction)

Runtime: 2 hours 45 minutes

Release Date: 25 December (US), 18 January (UK)

Tarantino has once again returned to the silver screen with another genre to rejig to his stylings; in this case, the western. Does he have another classic on his hands, or is time for the master to hang up his hat?

From the first few seconds, you can tell this is a work of Mr. Tarantino. His style is instantly recognizable and yet it never gets old. His penchant for witty dialogue is shown off here to full effect, and he again creates some of the most memorable characters in recent memory. The story of Django takes many turns, some of which I’m not so fond of. The film occasionally has iffy pacing, slowing down for too long. But he always manages to pull you back in and then the pace picks up again. Despite this, the film never feels as long as it is, and that’s never a bad thing. Another thing (and I don’t want to get all Spike Lee here, but I gotta say it) is that they do use the n-word a bit too much. I’m fine with them saying it, I’m not that shrill, but they could have changed some of them just for varieties sake. The word kind of looses impact when it’s said every other sentence.

Django Unchained has some very impressive performances from a wide variety of fine actors. Foxx himself does well in the role of Django, but he never really captures it as well as anyone else. He’s by no means bad, but there is probably an actor out there much more suited to this role. Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson all deliver some of their best work in years and all are awards worthy (though only Waltz has seemed to have gotten the nod). The rest of the cast is filled out well with some good cameos, most notably Jonah Hill and Franco Nero (the original Django).

When you think of Tarantino, you think of two things: dialogue and violence. And boy does Django Unchained do that second one. The bloodletting on display here is bombastic and ludicrous in all the right ways. The film is shot beautifully, showing off everything to great effect. Tarantino always has a knack for nailing those genre conventions, and he does it again here. From those fast zooms, to vast landscapes, and even some obvious day-for-night at one point. All of it shows that Tarantino knows his s***. The soundtrack is incredibly anachronistic as usual, but it almost always fits.

Django Unchained is probably Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction. It never quite matches up to that masterpiece, but it comes damn close. It’s also probably his most accessible film and easily his most fun. Check it out while you can on the big screen. It ain’t perfect, but hardly anything is.

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10

Starring: Hugh Jackman (X-Men), Russell Crowe (Gladiator), Anne Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises), Amanda Seyfried (In Time), Eddie Redmayne (My Week with Marilyn)

Director: Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech)

Runtime: 2 hours 38 minutes

Release Date: 25 December (US), 11 January (UK)

Les Miserables is part of an endangered species: the musical. A genre still prosperous on stage, but not so much on screen. With a talented team behind it, does this film prove that musicals are still relevant, or does it support the extinction argument?

As with the stage original, this is a very truncated version of Victor Hugo’s classic tale; almost like cliffnotes set to music. The story is both incredibly simple and needlessly complicated, making it easy to catch the broad strokes but still leave you confused. As an adaption of the stage version, it’s pretty accurate but of course certain things change. Certain songs have been cut, but some new ones have been put in, and those songs are pretty pointless. The film is incredibly long and dragged out enough as it is; we didn’t really need any new material.

This is much more of an actor’s film than any previous musical, and here plenty of actors get their time to shine. Jackman is great as Valjean, portraying the conflict constantly running through this man incredibly well. Crowe has gotten a lot of flack from some people, but I thought he was fine. He can’t really stand up to anyone else musically, but on an acting level he nails it. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter provide some great comic relief, even if they are again playing the sort of roles they always play. Redmayne and Seyfried are serviceable and never really stand out, but don’t ruin the proceedings. But the standout is Hathaway, giving what could be her career-defining performance. A win at the Oscars is almost guaranteed, and rightly so.

Where Les Miserables really falters is in its aesthetic choices. Tom Hooper is a good director, but his style doesn’t always gel with the musical genre. His tendency to frame his shots with the actors in the corner gets annoying after he does it for the twenty-seventh time, and he keeps things in such shallow focus that you can’t always appreciate the artistry in the sets and costumes. The editing is also incredibly choppy, especially during any scenes involving action. It’s not quite Greengrass or Bay bad, but it’s still annoying. The music, as you’d expect, is great but it’s not done in the traditional manner; the film really emphasises the grim nature of the story and strays away from the traditional jolly tone of other musicals.

Les Miserables is a good movie. Is it Best Picture worthy? Hell no. But it’s still worth your time purely based on Hathaway’s performance. There are dozens of directors who probably would have been a better choice to direct this than Hooper, but it doesn’t damage the movie too much.

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10