Thursday, May 23, 2013

30 Days of Night (2007)

30 Days of Night (2007)
Rated R
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston, Ben Foster, Mark Boone Junior
Directed by: David Slade
Tagline: They’re coming!
Running time: 113 Minutes
Blu-ray

Quick summary (from IMDB): After an Alaskan town is plunged into darkness for a month, it is attacked by a bloodthirsty gang of vampires.

We probably aren’t going to get to more than four Vampire movies for our self-declared Vampire Movie Month of May. Having only made it through three movies as of the 20th. This was actually our second attempt at 30 Days of Night, after the first disc had a crack in it and wouldn’t play and had to go back to Netflix. The other problem is that there aren’t that many vampire movies out there that my wife and I both genuinely want to see. She won’t be down with the Blade movies, or Dracula: Dead and Loving it, and neither of us are particularly excited to see the final Twilight movie, we’re only watching it at this point for closure/to see how bad it can get. Of the Vampire movies I put in the queue for us, 30 Days of Night was, by far, the most intriguing, as it didn’t deal with your traditional, suave and sexy vampires, these were more like monsters, and a little scarier than Dracula and the like.

I really like the idea behind this movie, and the comic book it was based upon, but the movie itself wasn’t all that great. Taking vampires, who traditionally have a fixed daily schedule of being out of the way before sun up and giving them free reign for 30 straight days sounds terrifying and promising, but something was lost along the way. The vampires weren’t that scary, looking more like inbred monsters than anything else. They could move really fast and jump high, but mostly they just walked around, waiting for people to panic. They spoke a weird, primitive language and screeched a lot. I never felt scared or terrified by anything that the vampires were doing.

The most terrifying or creepy part of the entire movie was anytime that Ben Foster was on screen, and anytime he opened his mouth. The voice he used, coupled with the things he was saying and his general insane creepiness made him the most effective and intriguing character in the entire movie. He was mysterious and weird, and I wanted more of him and less of Josh Hartnett and his wife. He was by far the most interesting character in the movie, more so than any of the vampires.

Even though it was a somewhat refreshing take on the vampire genre, it was still a pretty predictable movie. You see a couple of cool looking machines early on, and you just know they’re going to come in handy for killing vampires later on (first on that tractor-saw hybrid and then the trash compactor in the utilodor or whatever it was). And they do away with some of the other vampire lore, like garlic and mirrors and some steaks through the heart, and there are really only two surefire ways to get rid of them, beheading and the sun. And the sun is not very reliable north of the Arctic Circle.

Of the three vampire movies we’ve watched this month, 30 Days of Night is the only one I would categorize as horror, though it wasn’t all that horrifying. I liked it a little bit more than I did Interview with the Vampire, if only because it was less boring and less whiny. And I found the concept interesting, but just wish they hadn’t made the vampires so boring or focused on the sheriff-wife relationship as much. It’s a vampire movie, just focus on the gory stuff.

2 out of 5 stars

Trailer: 


Monday, May 20, 2013

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
Rated R
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Directed by: John Moore
Tagline: Yippee Ki-Yay Mother Russia
Running time: 98 Minutes

Quick summary (from IMDB): John McClane travels to Russia to help out his seemingly wayward son, Jack, only to discover that Jack is a CIA operative working to prevent a nuclear-weapons heist, causing the father and son to team up against underworld forces.

When I first heard that they were making a fifth Die Hard movie, at first I was excited because, well, Die Hard. The first Die Hard movie is probably my favorite action movie (and my favorite Christmas time movie) of all time. The second Die Hard movie is still pretty good, but I haven’t seen it nearly as many times as the first one. And Die Hard With A Vengeance is pretty amazing. The only time I’ve ever been to New York City, we spent an entire day trying to find the fountain from the movie in Central Park and asking people the riddle that Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson had to solve. It’s one of my favorite memories. It’s awesome. But then came Live Free or Die Hard. And while it added some people I love (namely Timothy Olyphant, Kevin Smith and to a lesser extent, Justin Long) to the cast, it was also a watered down PG-13 version of John McClane, and not a very good movie. I was maybe 3 minutes into Die Hard 5 (I can’t bring myself to use the full title, it’s just not very good) before I remembered Die Hard 4.

My main problem with Die Hard 5 is that it didn’t feel like a Die Hard movie. Bruce Willis was there being tough and badass and quippy, and he uttered (a pretty lackluster version of) his most famous line, but it didn’t have that Die Hard feel to it. In fact, it felt like a completely different movie that someone decided to shoe horn into a Die Hard movie. I probably would have been okay with it if it were just a run of the mill, mediocre action thriller, I wouldn’t have had as much invested in the character, and my expectations would have been much lower. As it stands, Die Hard 5 is clearly the worst of the series, but is being the worst Die Hard movie better than just being a mediocre action movie?

The other Die Hard movies had much better casts (and villains) than this one. Outside of Willis, the only people I recognized were Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Amaury Nolasco, and neither was in a very big role. And outside of Willis and Winstead and Yippee Ki-Yay, there was nothing to tie this movie into the others. There were no references or cameos or anything. I know for a fact that Reginald VelJohnson isn’t doing anything important these days, and that cameo would have made this movie amazing.

What made the original Die Hard (and to a lesser extent, 2 and 3) work is the scale. In the original, it was one man in an office tower against a team of bad guys. In Die Hard 2, they swapped the office tower for an Airport. In Die Hard With a Vengeance, it was all of NYC, which upped the scale, but it was McClane’s stomping grounds: he was an NYC cop. Die Hard 4 upped the scale even more, and in Die Hard 5, he’s in Russia. Russia is a log bigger than New York City. And the bad guys are after nukes, and they end up in Chernobyl. That’s just insane. I can’t get behind that.

I sincerely wish for them to stop making Die Hard movies. They probably should have stopped before Die Hard 4. What they should have done was turn Taken (and Taken 2) into a Die Hard movie, replacing Liam Neeson’s character with Bruce Willis’ John McClane. That would have been an even better movie than Taken was.

2 out of 5 stars

Trailer: