A Good Day to Die Hard (Die Hard 5) (2013)

When I saw that very first Die Hard film, I never would have guessed that they would still be making them 25 years later. Back then, sequels were the exception in action films, not the rule. But a lot of films from that era spawned series - Die Hard of course, Rambo, Terminator, Predator, Highlander and probably a bunch more that I just can't quite think of at the moment. Most of these series got worse, or were so bad to start off with that you couldn't really tell if the sequel was worse or not. But, I think the Die Hard franchise has gotten better, well after it got worse.
Last time out, the film was all about reconnecting with the daughter, this time around it was about connecting with the son. Next time? I think  we either see him saving his grandkids or reconnecting with the ex-wife. Either one seems to offer ample opportunity for that unique brand of Die Hard humor.
This film is non-stop action. All of the male bonding that takes place, happens during quieter moments in an action scene. I've got to say this formula works better for them than that used in the first two films where there are lots of throw away scenes with minor characters that establish just how mundane and ordinary they are while also serving to break up the longer action scene. I think this probably holds true for most blockbuster-style action flicks then and now, respectively. Still, it's nice to see that they're perfecting the genre.
Interestingly enough, this is the first 2013 film I've seen. Half-way through June, I thought I would have seen a couple by now, since most turn around times are about three to four months for the film to hit DVD. I guess this isn't too far off since it was released in theatres over Valentine's Day. I can't help but wonder who took their date to see this film. On the other hand, the biggest Die Hard fans I know are women who for some reason just love this series. Or maybe it's just John McClane aka Bruce Willis. It's hard to tell where the character ends and the actor begins, though presumably Mr. Willis kills a few less people in real life than he does in the movies under the guise of McClane. I guess that bad-ass, no tim for sentiment because I'm too busy protecting my family and the free world has it's appeal.
I think they've got maybe another two Die Hard films left unless they pass off teh main role to McClane Junior. Willis is starting to get up thee in years, and while he's probably got another 20 years of film left in him, I don't think he has even that much of this kind of ultra-physical action film left. Though, I'm hearing that 30 is the new 20 and 60 is the new 40, and seeing that both Schwarzenegger and Stallone have new ultra-physical action films coming out this year, maybe we can expect to see a bunch of muscle bound spetagenarians running around killing anything they can point their gun at.

A Good Day to Die Hard on IMDb

Dredd (2012)

This is not your parent's Judge Dredd brought large as a reboot. There is no crazy-ass plots about a Judge, well in many ways, the Judge deciding that the system is corrupt and that he is going to bring it down. This is not a Stallone movie about a future police state. This movie is about a future police state, period. None of that showing lots of Stallone because he's famous. In this telling of the tale, Dredd never takes his helmet off. It's not about the actor at all. Dredd is the Law. He doesn't have any aspirations above or beyond that. For him, there is no above or beyond that. But, he is not completely closed minded. He takes a rookie on her assessment, and not just any rookie, one who has technically failed the exams but who is a very powerful psychic. He watches and assesses her and sees an alternative but equally as effective way of achieving justice. Dredd only acts out of character once and that is in dealing with the main baddie.
This movie is extremely and graphically violent. The first time someones head is exploded, you're like, "did they just do that?" But by like the thirtieth you're all like, "ok, I get it. he always goes for the kill shot through the head." (And yes, I always speak in lower case.) I would try and explain the plot to you, but I already did that above. Very simple movie.
The violence wasn't as big of an issue for me as it might have been, since I knew going in that there was going to be a high body count. If you're making a simple shoot-em up, The only way it make yourself stand out is by 1) awesome or unique story, 2) amazing special F/X, and/or 3) more explicit gore. They must have forgotten about 1, but were all over 3 and doing what they could to make 2 work as well. The only thing that really bothered me about this movie, was that I felt lat man points that I was watching a walk-through or play-through of the Dredd video game.

Dredd on IMDb

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

This film has a great cast - Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson - just to name the most famous. You would expect that anything these folks acted in would be great. And if you expected that for this film, you would not be disappointed.
Most of the film takes place in India. Wow. It's so beautiful and terrifying at the same time. There are so many people, all the time. But the people are  a beautiful people.
I wish I had something profound to say about this movie. I don't. And the movie doesn't have anything profound to say either. It has a simple message and shows both examples of how it works and how it doesn't work. And that is why it works. This is a very well done simple movie that depends on great acting from great actors.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel at IMDb

Silver Lining's Playbook (2012)

I had seen a trailer or two for this film, but didn't think much of it other than Robert DeNiro is now doing rom-coms. And that's not a bad thing, just something I thought. When it came into the library, I thought I would view it, but already had a bunch of stuff to watch checked out, so let it go out into circulation. And then I was told by several different people that it dealt with mental illness and wasn't your typical rom-com. Then, I put it on hold.
I really enjoyed this film. I have yet to see something starring Ms. Lawrence that I haven't enjoyed, so no surprise. I have also seen very few films starring Mr. DeNiro that I have not enjoyed, so again, no surprise. They were both delightful, and everyone else played up to their level. Bradley Cooper did a great job and really carried the weight of the movie for a good portion of it, as his character of Pat is the primary focus. I also liked Chris Tucker as Pat's friend Danny. None of their performances seemed forced which considering the nature of their characters is really a testament to their abilities.
In many ways, this is a typical rom-com, and as such is predictable in the same way that these style of movies are. But, you know what? (Okay stop reading if you don't want the ending ruined...) If Pat hadn't gone after Tiffany at the end given her that letter it would have just ripped my heart out. As it was, I had apparently totally bought in to the premise and was anxious enough and talking to the screen, shall we say 'encouraging' Pat to stop what he was doing and go after her.
One of the things you notice about the film, is that it doesn't treat the three characters with mental illnesses with kid gloves, but it's also not incredibly harsh to them. It very clearly shows how each and every other character in the film, the supposed "normal" people are less disruptive perhaps, but at least as fucked up, to use their terminology (and my own).

Silver Lining's Playbook on IMDb

Compliance (2012)

This movie is very slow moving and much of it is taking place in real time. It seems so banal, the little conversations at the start as the workers come on shift getting ready for a big night and recovering from a snafu the night before. You get lulled into a sense of boring normalcy. And then the police call. I started being skeptical immediately. Sandra, the manager handles it poorly from the start, but also unfortunately believably. Ignoring that at the start of the conversation the supposed police officer is obviously fishing for information, because well, it is stressful when someone claiming to be the police call and say that something illegal is going on. But, when Sandra starts doing what he asks, even the first bit of checking her pockets, why the fuck didn't she think something was wrong? Granted that most people only have dealings with police officers as traffic stops, or more likely on television via the nightly news, how many times have we ever seen or even heard about a police officer asking a citizen to search another? Sure, asking some questions over the phone might be feasible, if they're the kinds of things you would tell anyone, or if verifying (depending on what you are verifying), but anything more would be improper. Why do you think police come to your establishment or ask you to come to the police station? So that we won't have bastards masquerading as police officers doing horrible things. I really can't excuse Sandra one little bit. She seemed like a responsible enough gal who had probably been managing the restaurant for a while, and therefore was more than familiar with the Human Resources guide. There is not an HR ruleset anywhere that will allow you to give out someones shift info to an unknown caller. I worked at a small restaurant, and we did have an employee who was stealing things (from us more than customers) and a year or two later another employee who was in trouble for possession of a controlled substance. Both times, all I did with the police over the phone was confirm that I would be at the restaurant and the other manager and I would have the information they asked for when they arrived. Of course, these were real police officers doing their jobs so there was nothing hinky going on. But, after that first girl and the phone call, one of the other managers grilled us about what we said over the phone, pointing out to us that regardless who someone says they are, we can't give out any information.
Now, I don't know when this movie was supposed to take place. It could have been any time the late 90s on to today, but that was the time I was working in the restaurant. I'm pretty sure that had I been the manager in question, I would have hung up the moment they told me to separate an employee from the other employees. If they are dangerous or a flight risk, how could I possibly know how to deal with them? And if they're not dangerous or a flight risk, why would I need to separate them from everyone else? Now, it goes without saying that I am not Sandra, nor was I the type of person who as a manager even remotely resembled her. Do I know people who would have complied with this type of thing? Maybe. I don't think any of the people in authority at the restaurant would have, and in fact several of us would have hung up immediately, told the employee about it and if she wanted to cut out early to take care of business, we would have let her. Why? Because I worked with my friends, that is to say that everyone I worked with became a friend and when the one girl who actually was stealing from us got caught, we had already told the owners all about it, and tried to get her to check herself into rehab. When I worked construction jobs, the foreman would have hung up on them, told us all that the shift was cancelled and he would call us tomorrow with details. I'm pretty sure that petty thievery was a much smaller crime than paying employees under the table. When I worked for the bank, nothing would have happened because everyone from team lead on up would have done what we were supposed to do and contacted our immediate supervisor/manager and called HR. I've worked in an outgoing call center where there were no women, so this type of crime wouldn't have happened (since the perp was picking attractive young women). But, all of the market research jobs I've had would have been the likely places where this occurred. The job in Minneapolis? No offense to the gals I worked with, but the only attractive woman in the office, either shift was the manager. The owners never showed their faces in the office, so that wouldn't have happened. Now, the job in Portland had lots of managers that were young and gullible and attractive, as well as lots of equally young and equally gullible and equally attractive employees. My boss was a real piece of work, and honest-to-dog, I wouldn't put it past him to pull some shit like this himself. But all of use guys? Of the five male managers that I worked with over the two years, I was the only one that was not a drug user. Most of the guys were moving small to medium sized amounts of pot on a regular basis. Is someone claiming to be a cop called up and asked them to do anything with an employee, three of them would have flipped out, hung up, grabbed their gear and bolted yelling behind them as they ran down the hall "It's a raid!" The other two would have given the caller a big fuck you and started in on spiels about big brother. And I would have calmly asked them to arrange with mall security a meeting with me and my boss.
So, aside from Sandra, there are lots of other people that go along with the call, yet for the employees, I don't think they have the same culpability. And I've got to say that when Harold finally comes in and calls bullshit, I was ready to stand up and cheer. Get that man a milk shake on me! Why are Kevin and Marti less culpable? They were doing what their boss told them to do. A real person, standing right there in front of them. A real person who has actual authority over them in regards to their job. Did they do enough? Obviously not. Kevin at least told his boss that what they were doing wasn't right and took himself out of the equation. My first impulse is to say that he should have called the police, except that he seemed to think that he was talking to them already, just like Sandra did. He should have called someone. The conversation would have gone something like, "Are you shitting me, Kevin? That's crazy! Cops can't make you do that." And then he would have gotten inspired to do more than just opt out. Marti is more culpable than Kevin. She did question what Sandra was doing, but only once or twice and then went about her job, kind of agreeing with Sandra when talking to Sandra and kind of agreeing with Kevin when talking to Kevin. Marti is wearing the uniform of a lead employee or supervisor, so she should have been even more on top of things than Kevin. At the beginning, Sandra tells her that there should be two people with Becky for HR reasons, and after that, neither Sandra or Marti even think twice about leaving a girl that they've forced to strip naked alone in the back room with a man who has pretty much nothing to do with the restaurant and certainly nothing to do with law enforcement. I hope Marti felt really shitty about not doing anything and got fired from her job just like Sandra did, but I also understand that it's hard to go against your boss, especially in stressful situations. Still, when Sandra said that the guy on the phone wanted Becky to take her clothes off, she should have called bullshit. That's why HR wants a non-partial witness in meetings and disciplinary hearings. That clearly did not work in this situation.
Now, I haven't forgotten about Van. They didn't say in the film if he was the one charged with rape, but I assume he was and rightly so. I only even question it because I don't know if rape could be applied to the fake police officer. I just don't get that situation at all. If I showed up at my girlfriend's place of work and they were holding a naked girl in the back office, I would have flipped out on them and taken the phone and immediately asked to speak to a superior officer. And then all of the stuff that the fake cop has Van make Becky do, that is just fucked up. How could a voice on a phone, even if it was PotUS give you the right, both legally and morally to commit rape? How could anyone listen to someone telling them to do any of those things, but especially the spanking and forcing oral sex and not just be so disgusted that they would say no. I am so fucking angry at Van right now. And the 69 other confirmed cases and the asshole men who raped a girl because a voice on the phone said they could. And I don't know how many other men who were never even known about because it didn't get reported. I am just going to be angry at men in general. Our culture more than says it's okay for men to take advantage of women. Guess what dumbfucks, we are our culture. We all so fucking suck right now. And so does Sandra. That interview she gives at the end where she basically tells the reporter that none of it was her fault, that it was just some horrible prank. How could anyone sit there with a straight face and say that rape is a prank? I am so goddamned glad I did not try for that job in Ohio right now, as I'm hating on the whole state at the moment.
This movie is intense and will make you feel uncomfortable and dirty as if you are somehow complicit. That's because it's a well made film portraying a real and horrible incident.

"You're fucked without bacon, I'll tell you that"

Compliance on IMDb

Inferno

Inferno
by
Dan Brown
read by
Paul Michael

I forgot that this was coming out. I knew that Dan Brown was working on the fourth book in the adventures of Robert Langdon, but nothing specific. And then I was listening to the radio last week, I heard an interview with Dan Brwon about Inferno, and I've got to admit that I was a little bit excited. Which is kind of weird, since the last book left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Actually most of the book was pretty good, but towards the end there were a couple of monologues that really felt like Brown had stopped telling me a story to preach at me. Or maybe it was just way the reader said it. Shrug. Then, when I was helping out at the library, one of the audiobooks I processed was the very book that I am now listening to. I was very surprised to find that no one had put a hold on it.
I came to this serious during the height of praise for the DaVinci Code (the book not the movie). I read it and really liked it and then picked up the first book for a couple of bucks at a local bookstore wholesaler in Minneapolis where I was living at the time. I like Angels and Demons even better, in big part because it had taken me a while to get used to Brown's short chapters while reading the DaVinci Code so I didn't need to spend the time getting used to his style. It's kind of funny that I read them in the order that they made the movies. And just like the movies, it didn't matter which order they were read in. The Lost Symbol has a few references to the first two books, but you could get by without reading them and still understand the book.
This time out, Langdon starts off in Florence, which is his favorite European city, we are told many times, yet not once does he refer to it as Firenze which I think is odd. He's a Harvard professor who always tries to refer to things by their correct, in this book's case Italian, names, yet the city is always referred to by it's English name. But, it's all good, because while I am hardly the most traveled of people, I love that I have firsthand experience with the city and the historical sites they are romping through. I'm all like, "yes, that's right, the garden is up the hill from the palace". It's easy to feel smug and self-important when listening to an audiobook while sitting in your bedroom at night.
While the first half to sixty percent of the book is in Florence, they then move to Venice, which is the other city that I'm familiar with in Italy. The tourist in me was really unhappy with how little of the city was used, practically none of it, but the story-enthralled-listener in me knows that the use was exactly appropriate to the story.
I think this says more about me then it does about the book, but I kept waiting for it to suck. There were a couple of monologues towards the end of The Lost Symbol that really detracted from the story in my opinion. Not only did it dump Brown's view on religion onto us, but it really broke up the flow of the story. That did not happen this time out. There were no big speeches, just continued probably dialogue. Probable if you're one of the elite, super smart characters of the story, not like if you're me, but probable in the context of the tale.
I heard an interview with Dan Brown about Inferno, as I mentioned at the top, and in that he said that a reviewer had said about Inferno, "It's pretty good for a Dan Brown book." I'll take that further and remove the qualifier, it's pretty good. This book is frenetically paced as all of the Langdon books are. It's smart and poignant, and while not necessarily realistic for a Harvard art professor to do what he does, it is a fun romp.

Clerks II (2006)

This movie has been sitting around here waiting to be watched for years. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I don't know what's different about today. Maybe I just needed some mindless humor. I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith. I like his aesthetic and I think the tubby bitch is funny. I really dug Clerks and I just couldn't bring myself to watch the sequel in case it sucked. But, it didn't. Sure, since I liked every other movie of his I've seen, I don't know why this would suck. (I have not watched Jersey Girl, so maybe that one does suck, since even Smith says it does...now I totally have to find out.) Clerks captured a certain something, maybe the smart-ass side of the Slacker generation, especially those of us on the tail-end of Generation X. The movie was good in spite of itself. The odds of that happening again were pretty goddamned small. It could fail if the now famous Smith tried to recapture his indy voice, and yes I am one of those dude's that thinks an artist can totally sell-out and only make shit after he goes all corporate, but I'm also wise enough to know that not everyone does, and in fact there are some that make barely passable art as an indy artist but make great stuff playing with the big boys. Sometimes Smith tries too hard, and I love him for it, but you watch his stuff in spite of itself because you're paying your respects. I also thought that he might go all slick for a sequel, you know pull a Richard Linklater on me. Linklater is one of those folk that was better before he sold-out. I think that's the very definition of selling out - not taking money for your work, but taking money and changing your work to fit what the producers want because you like the pay check. Well, Smith kept it Smith. This was a wordy film, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
O'Halloran and Anderson traded a bit of their newness for better acting skills, which I think balanced out their performances with the first incarnation of these characters in Clerks. Mewes and Smith are Jay and Silent Bob, no more no less, and where else are you going to see Mewes in a full frontal nude shot? The two gems of this movie that really make it worth watching are Trevor Fehrman as Elias, and Rosario Dawson as Becky. Elias and Becky work with Dante and Randall at Mooby's which is a fast food joint. There are all the gross and funny bits you would expect, while Becky and Dante totally have a thing going on, even though Dante is engaged to Emma and is in fact supposed to be leaving with her to Florida the next day. Well, it's mostly Dawson with the chemistry, O'Halloran is a doofus as Dante, but that's okay because Dante is a doofus. I was just thinking last night about what Rosario Dawson has been up to lately, and then there she is. I realize that this film came out 7 years ago, but I sware that I didn't know that she was in it. To be honest, if I had, I would have tempted fate and watched it long ago. Even if this film had totally sucked donkey, which it didn't except for that one scene where the guy was supposed to be sucking off a donkey, I would have watched it to see her, that's how good I think she is. Not to mention totally hot.

Clerks II on IMDb

John Dies at the End (2012)

This is the movie I've been waiting for. And I don't just say that because I'm on the soy sauce and have literally been waiting for it. I have been waiting for a good Lovecractian movie since I first read the books and have been satiated by the Hellboy franchise and Cabin in the Woods, but they were old school, literalist tellings of the tales. There is certainly nothing wrong with that and I like those movies to pieces, but I want something that is now. Actually, Cabin in the Woods kind of goes in that direction, but it's spoofing a genre as much as anything else, so didn't quite get there. John Dies at the End does get there.
At first blush, this film has more in common with Naked Lunch, the Peter Weller movie, not the William S. Burroughs book. An excellent film, in fact I will have to see if I can get my hands on it now, but it's ultimately about getting high and what someone will put up with and do to get high. It's unfortunate that the movie is such a small part of the book, though I have no idea how the rest of the book could be portrayed in a movie. John Dies at the End, on the other hand, is about getting at the truth to save yourself and your friends and maybe even your world, however improbable it seems, and what someone will put up and what drugs they will do to get those goals accomplished.
The cast is great. Chase Williamson and Rob Mayes as John and Dave are underplayed and over-the-top often at the same time. Clancey Brown as the world renowned psychic Marconi is perfect as both a believable mentalist and as a possible shyster. Paul Giamotti and Glynn Turman as the reporter and the cop, respectively, round out the main roles and bring acting chops to their roles. Of course the real star of the film is Bark Lee. I have heard it said that you should never act with animals or small children as they will upstage you every time, and I think that Bark Lee pretty much proves that axiom. Also, Fabianne Therese as Amy is the right amount of geek and pretty to make the perfect one-handed girlfriend for Dave.
When credits role, we're shown that the adventures of Dave and John aren't over. Part of me hopes they make more movies with these characters, as long as they use the same actors. But, part of me thinks that this might have been a genie in a bottle and even with the same folks onboard they couldn't recreate it. I hope I find out one way or the other.

John DIes at the End on IMDb

Queen of the Damned (2002)

This movie makes me sad in the same way that the Crow does. A young star so full of life, and poof! They're dead. I find it a tad ironic that the last roles for Brandon Lee and Aaliyah were playing undead characters.
It's been so long since I read Anne Rice's book of the same name, that I'm not quite sure what got left out, because I think might be remembering some facts from other books. I'm pretty sire that there was more with Armond and Pandora and that the Death Valley concert was a much bigger scene. I'm surprised it wasn't more of a gore fest in this movie.
I like Anne Rice's vampires. They are powerful and romantic and tragic. I especially like that she has this very intricate system worked out and sticks to it. Her vampires are powerful but not invulnerable. That comes across in the movies, as well. I tihnk it's much easier to watch a vampire story about someone who is deeply flawed, the vampire I mean, then watching a movie about the angst-ridden glitterati who are always heroes, not anti=heroes. I also like Rice's books and the movies because they are serious and take themselves seriously, but they don't take themselves overly seriously or get all melodramatic about it.
I seem to remember more sex in the book, as opposed to none in the movie. Sure, there were some teaser scenes which quickly cut to someone, usually Lestat, regaining consciousness sometime later. That's really too bad.
I consider this film to be one of the classic vampire films and wish that they had made more of the books into movies, especially movies that didn't star Tom Cruise.

Queen of the Damned on IMDb

Argo

Argo
by
Antonio Mendez

This book, Argo, is the  basis for the Ben Affleck film of the same name. I saw the movie and really liked it, in fact I think it was one of the best films of 2012. I was a little hesitant to get into this book because I thought it would be vastly different from the movie in ways that made the movie seem to be worse. But that never happened. That's not to say that the book is not as good as the film, just different.
There are certain things that the film did which make cinematic sense, and some have said, well okay, one guy at the library, but he said it loud and often, that the film was artificial with a fake sense of urgency, but the book was even worse because there was no urgency and the Americans were never in any danger from the Iranians. Well I concede the point that the movie shortened the timeline, amalgamated the two CIA operatives into the one played by Affleck. But no sense of urgency? No threat to the Americans? My only conclusion has to be that either the guy didn't finish the book or is a complete moron. When asked by the librarian if he finished the book since it was so "bad", he said he had, which I guess answers the question I posed.
I thought there was plenty of tension as the Americans tried to get out of Tehran and on to their flight to freedom. The book used spycraft, because presumably the real life versions of the CIA operatives did too. He has to stand in a window in the airport terminal that is visible from the drop-off point outside and hold as if reading a portfolio for the fake film that they were working on. If he's not holding or not where he can be seen when they arrive, they are to abort their mission and move to a backup plan and another way out of the country. This was as every bit compelling as the movie, just operating at the pace of real life instead of the full-ahead-wrap-this-up-in-two-hours pace of the film.
My advice is that if you are really interested in what you saw in the movie, read the book. If you want to see how the CIA was operating or want ot check out the footnotes, read the book. Otherwise, watch the film.

Argo at Powells.com