Dissecting Die Hard by Dio Rochino

      As Ben Stiller once said in a Die Hard parody featured on his 90’s sketch comedy show, “How can the same thing happen to the same guy so many times?”.  If he only knew then how true those words would be.  It’s been 25 years since the debut of John McClane with his anti-terrorism ass kicking skills and as the fifth film debuts on Valentine’s Day, the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time has to either be destined to do this or is just pretty damn unlucky.  Either way, what culminated is two and a half decades of awesome action that continues to entertain greatly.  Yes, I’m even counting the fourth one.  If this continues, I’m sure that Die Hard 12:  Die Hungry will surely be an inevitability but until that time, here is a personal ranking of the movies from worst to best.

Live Free or Die Hard

      Easily not the best in the series but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t entertaining.  It was the first Die Hard to try to reach a new audience by cutting out the profanity, making the kills cleaner and trimming down the rating to PG-13.  Also, they got fresh Hollywood talent to give the movie an edge to younger audiences by casting Justin Long and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the supporting roles.  

      The film takes place on 4th of July as a former Department of Defense worker, along with his associates attempt to break into the main defense grid of the United States taking the country hostage.  They do this for financial gain as well as to prove a point that the U.S. has a virtual Death Star like imperfection that leaves it open for attack.  It’s up to McClane and his hacker sidekick to stop them.  But things get personal when the villain kidnaps his daughter.

      The fourth installment seems like the makers never seen the previous Die Hard films.  Still worthwhile, but it falls short for two reasons.  The first is it’s lack of a sure fire villain.  Timothy Olyphant in an underwhelming performance shows a certain control when things are going his way, but immediately goes into these subtle temper tantrums as his plans slowly get derailed.  Former villains in the series have kept their cool and counteracted.  Therefore, McClane gets involved in a personal battle of wits as they both try to outplay each other.  But it never felt that way in Live Free or Die Hard since it always seemed like McClane was in control of the situation the whole time.  Which leads to the next problem.  Before this, the films have been about an ordinary guy trying to survive in extraordinary circumstances and never knowing how to deal with them directly, he improvises.  He questions himself before taking action.  In this installment, McClane has a new swagger of confidence as he handles every threat with expertise.  Never showing doubt, he knows what he has to do.  This new found assurance can be attributed to the fact that McClane has been in these type of positions too many times so he’s gotten skillful in dealing with them.  But in my opinion, this takes away from the very point of seeing a Die Hard movie.  To see McClane handle these events by the seat of his pants.  Also in the first two Die Hard films, there’s a certain aspect of realism with the action which lends to believability that McClane is human.  This made you root for him because you know that something bad might happen.  Here, you get to see him do a lot of questionable stuff which even though it looked spectacular, made me scratch my head a bit.  Among those include hopping out of a taxi that’s going fast enough to jump a ramp with enough leverage to hit a hovering chopper and vaulting off an exploding jet only to survive unscathed by hitting the highway pavement underneath with a tuck and roll.

Die Hard 2:  Die Harder

      There was a time when Renny Harlin was the go to guy for action films.  When hits like Cliffhanger and A Long Kiss Goodnight paved the way for a prominent career before Cutthroat Island.  Die Harder was definitely one of his better pictures.

      Knowing this was going to be more grandiose because they added an -er to the title, this movie definitely steps it up a notch.  It has more gunfights, explosions and one liners.  However, the plot was basically a direct copy of the original.  McClane is thrown unexpectedly into another occurrence when he arrives at Dulles International Airport.  This time, former Army Special Forces Colonel Stuart along with other defecting soldiers, take the place hostage by hijacking their flight controls.  With every plane in the surrounding airspace at the whim of a madman, he maintains that if his requests aren’t met he will begin crashing planes.  Which happens to be access to a runway and a getaway plane to safely ferry a notorious cocaine smuggling General out of the country.  But things get personal because one of the passengers circling overhead is McClane’s wife.

      The same premise but in a different location, McClane, once again fights terrorists while local law enforcement gives him grief for not being in his jurisdiction.  It also brings back some major characters from the previous film including his wife, the dick reporter who screws anyone over to get a story and a cameo of Sgt. Powell with his twinkies.  The people that didn’t return are replaced by similar characters including another egotistical, know it all cop that gets in the way of McClane’s progress.  Also the villain, played this time by William Sadler, is just as ruthless even though he lacks the humor of Alan Rickman.  However, it was pretty hilarious when they introduce his machismo persona by having him perform martial arts forms nude inside a hotel room.  

      Despite the fact that this sequel is redoing a tried and true formula with predictable twists, the director does a great job of still making it look believable by having McClane take a beating and his injuries slowing him down.  It shows to a degree that in this installment, he is still human. Even when the action pieces are insanely over the top which have become a staple for Renny Harlin films.  Among those sequences include McClane ejecting out of an exploding aircraft parachuting safely to the ground and a great chase scene on snowmobiles.  At least the director didn’t have someone inexplicably eaten by a genetically enhanced super shark.  He saved that gem for a later movie.

Die Hard with a Vengeance

      How do you revive a franchise whose formula has been so overused that it’s become a parody within itself?  By taking another known method and incorporating it into your own.  At this point in time there have been countless Die Hard knock offs.  Under Siege and Sudden Death come to mind, which is why original director John McTiernan jumps on board again to bring some much needed vitality to the franchise.  Disregarding the formula set up by the last two films, the director decided to make this episode a dysfunctional buddy film by casting Samuel L. Jackson as the other lead.  This was a great idea that granted the picture with hilarious comic relief and allowed the main stars to take comedic pot shots at each other.

      In the third installment, McClane is up to his old antics again but this time he has a hangover.  On the brink of a downward spiral, his opening scene begins as the police is trying to wake him up from a drunken stupor.  Dealing with a separation from his wife and a fresh suspension from the NYPD, McClane has decided to cling to the bottle.  But when a German terrorist named Simon plants bombs across New York, he threatens to detonate them unless McClane plays a game of riddles.  With every correct answer, Simon gives one of the locations of the explosives and a chance to disarm them.  It then becomes a race against time as McClane teams up with Zeus, a bystander who unexpectedly gets caught in the game.

      There’s nothing original about Die Hard with a Vengeance as Hollywood has made countless buddy action films.  But it felt right because the series needed to head off in another direction.  Despite these changes, McClane’s character is still true to the original as he does what he does best which is improvising.  Also, he still plays a mental game of wits with the villian who is just as diabolical as ever.  Jeremy Irons does a great job as Simon.  More devious with the way he messes with McClane’s head, he’s the complete opposite from the all work no play Colonel Stuart from the last film.

      The primary Die Hard not to focus on one location, this movie definitely introduced a bunch of firsts for the series.  It was the first one to show McClane actually working in his own city and the first not to have a family member in distress.  Therefore, McClane concentrates solely on getting the bad guys with the police actually supporting him.  Unfortunately, it’s also the first Die Hard where the situations become questionable as we see McClane surfing on top of a big rig in a tunnel overflowing with water.  But the twists keep it interesting as the true identity of the villain and his intentions are closely guarded until the later parts of the film.

Die Hard

      There’s a great scene in this film where McClane drags his body into a bathroom.  Bleeding profusely, he had to dodge gunfire by sprinting across a room full of broken glass in his bare feet.  Talking on a police scanner with Sgt. Powell, an officer he never met in person, he tells him to deliver a heartfelt message to his wife as he’s pulling out shards of glass from the bottom of his soles.

      Die Hard is one of those rare gems that’s often mimicked but never duplicated.  An intellectual and thoughtful action movie starring that guy from Moonlighting, it was well paced, well scripted and incredibly well acted.

      It’s plot centers around New York cop John McClane traveling to his wife’s corporate Christmas party in Los Angeles at a luxury office tower called Nakatomi Plaza.  While freshening up in one of the suites, he hears gunfire as terrorists seize control of the building.  The leader Hans Gruber, meticulously played by Alan Rickman, has started an intricate plan to retrieve millions of dollars in bearer bonds from the company’s vault.  With the hostages in the building including his wife cut off from any outside help, McClane takes matters into his own hands and attempts to take down the terrorists.

      In a time where most action movies featured a muscle bound super warrior that takes down bad guys with impunity, Die Hard was a great distraction from the norm.  Here the protagonist is featured as an everyday man with spousal issues attempting to keep his family together.  He just happened to be thrown into chaotic circumstances.  A contradiction to the action heroes that dominated cinema at that time.  McClane gets scared, frustrated and desperate when trying to survive each situation.  He feels every injury received as he goes through the movie being battered and broken. This adds an interesting feeling of suspense for the audience since we never quite know if he’s going to make it.  It was an unexpected and welcome change to the genre at the time and it became the formula that all action films have tried to duplicate since.

      With 25 years of kicking ass, McClane is surprisingly spry for his age and as A Good Day to Die Hard nears it’s release, it’s been a lot of fun taking a look at the films that preceded it. Next, well get to see him take out terrorists with his son Jack.  As this will be the first Die Hard to be shot in a different country, it will give them a chance to introduce Russia to their unique barrage of one liners and over the top stunts.  Also, the latest installment brings back the R rating hopefully allowing McClane to finish his “Yippie Ki Yay” line before the final bullet is shot.

Mama Review by Dio Rochino

      There’s a series of children’s horror books I read religiously when I was a kid called Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.  It featured narratives that were taken from folklore and simplified for younger readers.  These tales, coupled with disturbing illustrations by Stephen Gammell gave me nightmares for months and had me peeking over my bed covers at my closet hoping nothing would come out.  If you’re wondering what this has to do with Mama, it’s because this film felt like the essence of these books came alive.  I don’t know for sure what inspirations were called upon, but it appears the concept of Mama incorporated similes of two of the best known folkloric tales in the world.  La Llorona, the crying spirit who wanders looking for her missing children and The Wolf Girl, a tale about a young orphan raised in the wild. Even the production design looked like it came straight from Gammell’s drawings.  

      The film did a great job setting up the story of two children abandoned in a cabin in the woods.  After a frantic five year search attempt, they’re found.  Their discovery was shocking as the children were walking on all fours and growling defensively.  They are then treated psychiatrically and released into the care of their uncle Lucas and his girlfriend Annabel who dedicate themselves to rehabilitating them back to civilization.  But something seems wrong as they slowly learn that the children weren’t alone in that cabin.  They were being raised by a supernatural entity they refer to as Mama. 

      As a person who loves horror movies, I can honestly tell you that I don’t scare easily.  Which is why I was thrilled to discover that the imagery in the film made me jump out of my seat more than a few times.  The script keeps pace as each meticulous detail about the kids and the entity are unravelled.   From the discovery of the children and their malicious wolf like movements to the creepy scene where they introduce Mama, this looked like it was destined to be one of the coolest supernatural movies ever created.  That’s why it was damn disappointing to see everything fall apart so drastically in the last twenty minutes of the film.

      The last act seemed like a director’s worst nightmare.  Complete with laughably bad continuity errors, it’s as if the writers forgot to create a conclusion so they hurriedly pulled one out of thin air.  Even the score changes into something out of a Tim Burton film and the computer imagery which worked earlier when Mama’s only slightly seen in shadow, falls apart as her full form is revealed. Now arguments can be made that the audience might be reading too much into the ending and by all means, if it makes the movie more enjoyable, people can disregard the mistakes.  But when the film sets up all these minute details that urge the viewers to piece together this engaging supernatural mystery, it’s incredibly frustrating when all of it doesn’t add up.  Instead, were treated to something that’s crudely whipped together which makes it a point not to use any of the plot that was set up throughout the film. This leaves the final portion segregated from the rest of the movie with an arrangement of non connective moments tied together with gaping plot holes and as the consequences of these events never get dealt with when the credits roll, I’m left with a confused look on my face muttering WTF!!!

Flight Review by Dio Rochino

      As much as we love the Back to the Future movies, it wasn’t until later in Robert Zemeckis’s career that he started defining his style.  It’s a personal opinion of mine that he creates stories that seem to simplify chaos.  One example is his award winning Forest Gump, where personal and global events encompassing four decades of history is neatly defined in the experiences of it’s main protagonist and his simple philosophy that, “Life is like a box of chocolates”.  Flight just happens to step it up a notch by reversing the formula. Taking one specific event and showing how it affects a person so complicated that only a great actor like Denzel Washington can pull it off.  Here, he brings many layers to the character of Captain Whitaker.  A pilot with a substance abuse problem who pulls off a miraculous airline landing when it starts to nose dive after it begins to fall apart in the air.  His skillful approach allowed a majority of the passengers to survive with only six fatalities.  Experts and the media maintain that he’s a hero because his quick thinking saved a lot of lives from a situation they said was hopelessly doomed.  But a criminal investigation begins to take place when evidence is presented suggesting he was intoxicated when flying the plane.

      Washington definitely gives one of the best performances of his career by showcasing someone whose excessive use of drugs and alcohol, propagated many long time mistakes that drag on his soul.  His turmoil is brilliantly depicted when his life gets see-sawed by this catastrophic event as he deals with the consequences of being  labeled a hero, his remorse over the ones who died and his guilt over the possibility that his weakness may be to blame for their deaths.  The results of which causes Whitaker to be thrown into a moral dilemma.

      There are definitely many ways to describe this film.  It can be construed simply as a morality tale or as an assessment on how popular opinion can create the notion of heroism.  It can also be viewed as a character study on the perplexities of the human condition after dealing with the responsibility of a catastrophic event.  However, while the notions behind the picture itself are gracefully chaotic, it ultimately culminates into one unexpected point and watching everything unfold is cleverly entertaining all the way to the end when the final words of the movie are spoken.

Gangster Squad Review by Dio Rochino

WTF!!!  I understand just by watching the flick that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, but did it have to copy every detective movie cliche on earth?  I guess imitation is the best form of flattery and this film has it spewed all over the place.  From the voice over narration explaining about the sacrifices of being a detective to the actual squad itself formed by token stereotypes.  Then there’s Sean Penn doing his best de Niro impersonation from The Untouchables.  He even has the same “I want his family dead.” monologue delivered with similar intensity.  It looks like he had a lot of fun in the role of Mickey Cohen, who’s character had an interesting gimmick in the film.  When any of his lackeys screw up, he sympathizes with them.  Lets them know that everything is alright allowing them to breathe a sigh of relief.  Then he gives the order to execute them.  It worked the first time with comedic results, but he continues to do it multiple times throughout the movie.  What amuses me is that his men seem genuinely surprised every time he does this.  You’d think after the fourth time, they would expect he’s full of crap and know that he’s going to kill them anyway.  Cohen does all this with a bad ass persona permanently sealed in his expression.  Mainly because he can’t move his face.  The prosthetics that Sean Penn wears make him a walking wax figure because his facial muscles can’t work congruently with his mouth movements.  This may be important considering the script gives him more one liners than a procedural cop show.

Now, there are aspects to like about this film.  There’s action, but more importantly there’s action, action and more action.  In fact, it’s the only thing that drives the film because if you were to strip this away, the plot of the movie can be summarized in 10 minutes of dialogue.  Mickey Cohen is a bad man who’s turning Los Angeles into a corrupt town.  Therefore, the LAPD forms a secret squad to work outside the confines of the law to catch him.  Sound familiar?  Because it was all said in the trailer.  The film doesn’t go any deeper than that.  Don’t get me wrong.  The action is quite good.  All the way to the last battle sequence which culminates in an all out gun battle between the Gangster Squad and Mickey Cohen with his henchmen.

***Spoiler Alert!***

Everyone gets a Tommy Gun in the final act.  Cohen and his men have Tommy Guns and the Gangster Squad show up...with Tommy Guns.  Where the hell did they come from?  I don’t know because it’s not like they used them anywhere else in the movie.  It’s as if Oprah showed up on set and screamed, “WHO WANTS TO HAVE A TOMMY GUN?”, then starts throwing them out to all the cast members crying out, “YOU GET A TOMMY GUN!” to each one.  It’s only Robert Patrick’s cowboy character who silently refuses and sticks to his pistol because he’s too cool for that.  

Gangster Squad is a far cry from the type of movie expected from two Oscar worthy lead actors in the starring roles and quite honestly there are better films out there that dealt with this time period.  If you want a serious take, L.A. Confidential is recommended.  If you want an over the top interpretation, view The Untouchables.  Only watch this movie if you want something awkwardly in between because while it’s not entirely unwatchable, it’s was entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

The Impossible Review by Dio Rochino

In a movie market that is saturated with convoluted story ideas. it’s great to see a film that is beautiful, simple and poignant.  Based on a family’s first hand account of their experiences with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the movie begins a couple of days before the disaster as they travel to a Thailand resort for Christmas.  They worry about things that families are usually troubled about.  Finances, stability and work, until the tsunami hits while they’re playing at the resort’s pool.  What happens next is a battle of survival and desperation as the story focuses on two occurrences.  The mother with the oldest son attempting to survive the rampaging waves of rushing water and debris while trying to navigate safely away from harm to find medical attention and the father, along with the two younger children searching frantically to find them.  

  But the story conveyed is much more than just a tale of their disastrous ordeal. It’s very structure seems to serve the singular purpose of having the viewers resonate with the family’s emotional turmoil.  The agony of the father’s shaking voice is heartfelt when he’s talking on the phone, trying to find out if a relative heard from his wife and son.  Also, soft thumps and muffled sounds emit feelings of helplessness and claustrophobia when the mother is rapidly pushed through the submerged, water filled interiors of the resort by swift currents.  These are but a few of the many instances in the movie that imposes empathy upon the audience.  It’s a rare piece of work where nothing felt drawn out or misplaced. The imagery, which begins looking colorful and painterly quickly turns gritty and washed out after the catastrophe, driving the indication that this once scenic paradise has been demolished into something horrible.  Even the score itself resembled a less is more approach as the music doesn’t overpower by playing only during a few key scenes.

  It’s as if the collective senses of the film’s composition come together to transcend it’s graphic artistry. Where the audio and visuals work collectively to provide the viewer with a compassionate experience.  It’s a sight for sore eyes in the most respectable sense and the message it shares is delightfully delivered with the utmost sincerity.  The Impossible, simply put is aptly named because it happens to do exactly that by capturing gut wrenching emotion and containing it in motion picture poetry.

Zero Dark Thirty Review by Dio Rochino

        The thing about films based on real events is that the content is only as good as the evidence that is presented with it.  When enough time has passed, sufficient knowledge is available from various parties to convincingly make the film as true to the facts as possible.  That is why movies based on historical accounts can feel authentic because a lot of the facts have become public knowledge.  This is not the case with Zero Dark Thirty.  Even though the film opens with a disclaimer stating that the events depicted are based on actual testimony from the people who experienced them, knowledge of these events are very classified because they still hold political sway.

Anyone who has been following the news regularly since 9/11 definitely know certain parts of the story.  The first few minutes of the film opens with audio clips of the emergency calls made during the attacks then continues to recall the happenings that occurred subsequent to 9/11. From the terrorist bombings of a London bus in 2005 and the explosion of the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, ultimately leading up to the raid on Bin Laden’s compound by Seal Team Six.  What the film concentrates on is the moments in between.  The interweaving narratives of the people involved.  Especially that of the CIA agent responsible for locating Bin Laden played remarkably by Jessica Chastain.  Unflinching in it’s depiction, the grisly details are shown, including the advanced interrogation techniques used on detainees in order to find the whereabouts of those involved in planning the attacks.

There are a lot of personal feelings that are attached to these events and the film invokes many of them.  This was definitely prevalent when I glanced at the audience’s reaction during certain scenes.  Some sympathized, several cringed, others looked in disbelief while a few cheered silently among themselves in retribution.  But because the particulars of these events are not open to the public it is hard to ascertain which events in the film are based on truth and which are taken from artistic license.  I’m sure that the powers that be don’t want to divulge too much information since they may want to keep politically sensitive material secretive.  However, the film makers claim they were granted access to this information.  But no matter how people felt about the film afterwards, it definitely opened a flood gate of discussion.  Upon leaving the theater, Some people got as far as three steps out of the exit before making comments, and small masses huddled in groups in the parking lot to have discussions and arguments regarding the film.  This is where I felt the true ambition of the picture is revealed.  What Kathyrn Bigelow and her crew did was make a movie who’s confidential content coupled with the provocation of people’s personal feelings, allows it to be dissected on many levels. No matter how many points of view this film may bring out, one thing is certain.  It is undoubtedly the most important story of our time and the way it was presented is damn convincing.

Lincoln Review by Darth Raptor

       Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, WTF?  I say YES, but be prepare for 150 mins of good old fashion politics where you already know the outcome.  The film Lincoln chronicles the last few months of the 16th President of the United States' life just before his assassination.  Daniel Day-Lewis and the rest of the cast put on their Oscar worthy performances to the test.  Day-Lewis completely melts into his role as Lincoln, however most notable, in my opinion, was James Spader's performance as W.N. Bilbo.  I've only seen Spader in the 1987 Romance Comedy "Mannequin" with Andrew McCarthy and Kim Cattrall.  Spader's Bilbo was an astronomical leap in my opinion.  But Daniel Day-Lewis still manages to steal the show, as he should.

       Although there's been Oscar buzz for this film, I would not say this is Spielberg's best. The film accurately, and realistically captured the era and Lincoln's cabinet in their fight to emancipate the slaves. However, the film did very little for me in capturing the tragic figure I grew up with.  I know Spielberg wanted to portray Lincoln as the man rather than the myth and I respect that.  However, whenever I think of Abraham Lincoln, I think of a great being shrouded in the company of death.  A hero who lost his mother at the age of 9, and his first love to typhoid fever.  A father who endured the personal lost of his 2 young boys.  A beautiful mind who suffered from "melancholy," better known as clinical depression throughout his life.  Also, the film would've drawn me in more had it started with both the Civil War battles, mixed with the death of his favorite son "Willie" while in the White House.  Depressing?  Yes! But that would totally show how the rest of the country was losing their sons to war. I think more artistic licenses should've been taken here.

*** SPOILER ALERT! ***

       Lincoln dies at the end!  And honestly, I was aching for a Braveheart-like ending.  I'm not saying, he should've screamed out "FREEDOM" as his last word.  Nor am I saying we should see the ghost of his 2 dead sons at the foot of his bed just before he dies.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm just saying it would've been a nice touch.  Maybe not a direct rip of Mel Gibson's highlander tale, but something similar sprinkled with John William's magic would've been nice.  True it would've been out of place with the whole tone of the film, but DAMMIT that's what I want!  And because they didn't play up this moment, why even have a death scene at all?  The movie would've been better had it ended where we see Lincoln's black servant smile as he watches the President steadily walk down the hallway on his way to the theater.  I think that was poignant in its own right.