Childhood Memories of the "Die Hard" Trilogy

SPOILERS throughout for the Die Hard series, mostly the first three movies.

 

The latest Die Hard wasn’t so bad that it killed the series, but it was enough to make me revisit the first three films and truly appreciate them.  I grew up with Die Hard and I believe that the first film set the standard for what a good action movie can be.  I continued to grow up with Die Hard 2 and realized what a sequel should not be.  And I watched Die Hard: With a Vengeance and realized that a series can change…and still be good. 

 

But back to the most recent two films first.  If you want to know what I thought was wrong with A Good Day to Die Hard, just click here.  As for the fourth installment, Live Free or Die Hard, I really enjoyed that film, and still hold it in higher regard than the second film.  I’m leaving it out of this because it came out just a few years ago and I had already established my taste in movies at that point.  For the record, I acknowledge how insane that film is, and I know some of the action goes against what makes a Die Hard film, but it was fun enough to forgive the change to the series.  Now on to the real Die Hard films.

 

Die Hard

I was allowed, as a child, to watch movies like Die Hard.  The first film came out when I was four years old, so I didn’t see it in the theatre or anything, but I do remember watching it on VHS very early on.  Not to get into a whole parents/FCC thing, but violent films (within reason) were not prohibited in my home.  But if any nudity showed up, then I was made to cover my eyes lest my fragile boyish mind be warped.  I blame the Puritans…  Anyway, I was allowed to watch the movie and I loved it…and I’m not messed up, at least, not because of that film.

 

Bruce Willis made that film work.  He introduced this everyman hero that was believable even though he was engaged in ridiculous action set pieces.  I know the latest movies have turned the craziness up well past 11, but let’s face it: the original Die Hard is no documentary.  Willis personified a man out of place going through a very bad day to perfection.  To this day I can’t think of an actor who can yell angrily quite like Willis.  When he’s yelling at the cops to pay attention to him or cussing out a bad guy as he kills him, I can’t help but smile.  (Okay, maybe these movies did mess me up a little…)

 

As a child, I just liked the film for the great action, the humor, and the more original elements.  Moments like McClane pulling shards of glass out of his feet.  Or the sight of a dead thug with “Now I have a machine gun ho ho ho” written on his shirt in blood.  (I nearly ordered a shirt that said that a while back before I thought better of it.)  And you have one of the all time great villains in Hans Gruber, who was really only great because of Alan Rickman’s awesome performance. 

 

Die Hard was just a fun movie for me for years.  Then I went to college.  I had a class called “After Vietnam” that dealt with politics and the changing culture of America from the end of the war to the late 90s.  I can’t remember exactly why, but watching Die Hard was part of an assignment.  It was something about the end of the 80s, the fear of Japan taking over, gender roles, etc.  It really opened my eyes, but sometimes I wish I could get them shut again.  I can still enjoy the film for what it is, but now when I watch it I can’t help but think about what statements the film is making or what McClane represents.  It’s nice to have an added layer to the film, though.

 

Die Hard 2

I’ll be honest; I have no distinct memory of watching Die Hard 2 for the first time.  I remember watching it later on DVD and hating it, but I don’t know what my initial response to this film was.  I guess the fact that I forgot about it says enough.  Revisiting it lately, I stand by my disdain for this film.  I have decided, however, that the latest Die Hard is much worse than this. 

 

I suppose I forgot about this one because it’s such a carbon copy of the first film.  You could just see the meeting that took place for this one:

 

“We need to make another Die Hard. Fast.  Any ideas?”

 

“How about Die Hard in an airport?”

 

“Brilliant!  Now hire some hack director.”

 

I know, I know.  The sequel is actually based on a novel and it was altered to be a Die Hard movie.  Fine, but they must have really altered that novel because this is so similar to the first movie that it’s boring.  Watching it again, I was just baffled by some of the film’s oddities.  Why is the bad guy doing naked aerobics at the beginning?  Why did McClane think he could just leave his car in front of the airport to pick up his wife?  (This isn’t Airplane!)  And why do all the Washington, D.C. police officers seem to be from New York? 

 

This film just had the same problem so many sequels have: new location, same story.  It even seemed to try to continue this “end of the 80s” theme that the first film had since a cocaine drug lord was the villain and the war on drugs was mentioned.  Honestly, the film was only interesting to me because of how different things were back then.  McClane smokes inside the airport.  There’s a shootout inside the airport and it’s pretty much just brushed aside.  McClane has a beeper.  Stuff like that. 

 

Overall, not as bad as I remember, but Die Hard 2 is still a boring sequel that attempted nothing new.

 

Die Hard: With a Vengeance

Die Hard went on hiatus for a few years and returned when I was eleven years old with Die Hard: With a Vengeance.  Actually, I’m just going to refer to it as Die Hard 3.  Let’s face it, fans and non-fans alike wish this series never went down the path of non-numbered sequels.  This film brought me back into the fold.  Watching it again recently, I still consider this the second best of the series.  This film stuck out to me back when it first came out not just because it was a funny action film, but because it dealt with social issues in an upfront way that actually made my eleven-year-old self think a bit. 

 

The film contains this subplot about racism, actually reverse racism, that I had not seen before.  That said, if I was to watch this for the first time today, I’d probably be groaning at the heavy-handedness of it all.  For example, Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Zeus, asks his nephews, “Who do we not want to help us?”  They respond in unison, “White people!”  Zeus laughs and says, “That’s right!”  I’m not saying that his character can’t think like that, it just seems like there could have been a more subtle way of conveying that character trait.  I suppose the choice to make McClane wear a sign proclaiming “I hate n*****s” in Harlem wasn’t subtle, either.

 

The film handles the racism in a realistic way.  In many ways, this was a post-racial film, even though a post-racial world is pretty far away.  Instead of McClane and company treading lightly with Zeus, they roll their eyes and dismiss most of his claims of racism.  At one point, McClane finally breaks and calls Zeus a racist.  That was certainly the first time I had seen a white man call a black man a racist, in film or in life in general.  Now, whether or not any of this is a proper way to address race relations is up for debate.  The point is that it made me think about real issues at a young age.  Can’t fault a movie for that.

 

The race stuff has led some viewers to complain that Zeus is an annoying character.  I can see that, but I loved the dynamic of Willis and Zeus.  Their insults and back and forth just seemed natural.  Yeah, it’s pretty much Sam Jackson yelling for two hours, but I like it when Jackson yells at people.  And Bruce Willis as a hungover McClane reacts perfectly to it all.

 

This film works mainly because they changed the formula, which is something that has irked some fans ever since.  This is the movie that turned Die Hard from a “wrong guy in the wrong place” series to a “kill all the bad guys” series.  I agree that the first scenario is the better one, but I want to see more adventures of John McClane.  To do that, he needed to become a bit more than an unlucky guy.  To be fair, he’s still thrust into these events against his will.  It just seems like he’s a little more invincible this time around and he has begun to treat these outlandish events as just another day on the job. 

 

Die Hard 3 marked the beginning of McClane’s transformation into the kill-crazy sociopath he becomes in Die Hard 5.  Let’s look at this realistically (ha!) for a moment.  What else could this character turn into?  He either accepts that he is the unluckiest guy on the planet and sinks into a deep depression, or he embraces the hero that the world has turned him into, going so far as to actively search for bad situations he can insert himself into.  (Disclaimer: This does not mean that I am backing down from my Die Hard 5 criticism.  I still dislike that movie very much.)

 

The videogame

The completion of the trilogy was culminated with a Playstation game called, appropriately, Die Hard Trilogy.  I bring it up because it’s definitely part of my childhood and I have to comment on the videogames based on all three of these films.  It was one of those games that I remembered loving, but when I replayed this game a few years ago, I realized that it had not aged as well as the movies.  I will say that it was ridiculously difficult (or I just sucked at it), and I remember gaining most of my enjoyment by running down pedestrians in the Die Hard 3 section just so I could see the blood wiped off the windshield followed by McClane yelling, “Sorry!”  Random, I know, but it stuck with me.  Back to the films.

 

Final thoughts

The journey of John McClane throughout the Die Hard trilogy was a very important part of establishing my film knowledge.   It showed me that a great action movie has to be slightly plausible, well acted, quite violent, and fun.  It showed that a character needs to change or things can get pretty boring.  And it showed me that an action series can address actual issues. 

 

John McClane, for better or worse, is a character from my childhood.  Because of two of those first three movies, he’s a character that will never grow too old to enjoy.  The new films may never be able to create that experience I had as a child, but what childhood favorites entirely survive into adulthood?  I’ll always have Die Hard and Die Hard 3.  No matter how much I change, I know I can always go back to those films and be a kid again.  And isn’t that the feeling all action movies are trying to evoke?

Yippee Ki Y- Oh, Who Cares Anymore?

Directed by John Moore, written by Skip Woods, starring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Cole Hauser - Rated R

 

The Die Hard franchise has been ripe for parody since the first sequel.  After Bruce Willis, as Detective John McClane, wondered in Die Hard 2, “How can the same [thing] happen to the same guy twice?” it was obvious that the audience should accept the ridiculousness of the franchise and just go with it.  I’m okay with that, but I have a couple issues.  First, you shouldn’t necessarily take any advice that comes from the script of Die Hard 2.  Second, and most important, John McClane needs to continue to be that “same guy.”  Also, how unfortunate is it that the sketch from “The Ben Stiller Show” called “Die Hard 12” is starting to seem like a possibility?  (Haven’t seen that sketch?  Watch it now.)

 

Yes, Bruce Willis is still cast as John McClane in A Good Day to Die Hard (I would prefer something less stupid for a title, by the way, like Die the Most Hardest or something), but he is a mere shadow of himself.  Willis’s portrayal of McClane is what makes these films great.  His exasperated tone, his quick wit, and his laughter as he takes a beating.  That stuff sort of exists in this film, but it seems so forced that it doesn’t matter.  Not to mention McClane has changed over the years.  He went from a reluctant hero forced into a situation he wants to avoid into a kill-crazy vigilante who rushes into violent situations for little or no reason. 

 

Perhaps it’s the setting.  Moving John McClane to Russia just seems wrong.  For starters, this isn’t 1985 and McClane isn’t Rocky.  This plotline about Chernobyl and nuclear weapons would have felt lazy in the first Die Hard film, much less the fifth one.  The story felt more at home in a direct-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.  Wait…is this the plot to one of the Universal Soldier DTV sequels?  (Sadly, I’m not joking.  Check out Universal Soldier: Regeneration if you don’t believe me.) 

 

So the setting sucks.  There’s still a slightly interesting bad guy for McClane to banter with, right?  Nope.  The villain is vague to the point that I couldn’t tell which plain, middle-aged Russian man was “good” and which was “bad.”  Maybe that’s the point, but it made for a lame story.  McClane does cross paths with a dancing bad guy at one point, but their banter is more head-scratching than knee-slapping. 

 

But there must be a sidekick along for the ride, right?  Die Hard With a Vengeance set the bar high with the tumultuous team-up with Samuel L. Jackson, and Live Free or Die Hard gave us the timely and surprisingly amusing duo of Willis and Justin Long.  Good Day introduces the barely talked about son of John McClane played by Jai Courtney.  Courtney previously played a thug in Jack Reacher, and that’s pretty much all he’s good for at the moment.  There is just nothing interesting about this guy, whether that’s a character or acting fault is irrelevant.  I didn’t want to see these two teaming up for anything, especially since the new character is barely established and we’re given almost no explanation for their hatred for one another aside from the fact that it must be hard to be the kid of an action hero. 

 

The upset kid dynamic just makes no sense for a film like this.  The audience has almost no knowledge of this son character, so we’re with McClane all the way.  We’ve been through four movies with this character, so if we’re taking a side, guess which one we’re going with?  On top of that, we don’t know specifically what McClane did to upset the kid, so the son comes off as an ungrateful jerk.  Who thought it was a good idea to try to get the audience to hate the main character for being a dead beat dad?  I hope this duo isn’t the future of the franchise.  Actually, after this, I’m not sure I want a future for this franchise.

 

All of these major elements aside, this is still Die Hard, and that name has become synonymous with crazy action (whether or not that’s a good thing is beside the point now).  If the action holds up, then this film could be barely worth a watch.  The action is…crazy, sure, but it doesn’t save the film.  So much of it seemed like it was pointlessly trying to be insane.  Did you hate the sight of McClane on a fighter jet during the last film?  Then you won’t care for this one at all.  As for the style of it, I didn’t know what to think once it was over.  There were so many strange, extreme slo-mo moments.  Slow motion explosions?  How is that impressive?  And who wants to see two people falling in slow motion for what seems like five minutes?  Upon research, I found that director John Moore had also made the abysmal Max Payne, and then it all made sense. 

 

After all of this bashing, though, I can’t tell the die hard (pun totally intended) fans to skip this one.  It’s still Bruce Willis and he’s still John McClane, kind of.  Some fans are bound to like it.  I really wanted to, but I can’t ignore the utter disappoint I felt walking out of the theater.  If you’re on the fence, maybe this will help you: I am now going to re-watch Die Hard 2 because I think I might like that sequel more than this.  If you’re the same type of fan as I am, then that should tell you how much I disliked this movie.  Watch at your own risk.

"Looper"

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, and Jeff Daniels - Rated R

 

"This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg..."





Time travel movies are fascinating…and can be mind-blowing.  Wait, did I write, “mind-blowing”?  I meant irritating.  The concept can lead to fun, interesting, exciting, and gloriously complicated films, but it also makes your head hurt if you try to wrap your brain around every minute detail.  (Don’t worry.  I am not going to write a lengthy thesis about the ins and outs of time travel.  Go to the message boards if you want to read theories written by the time travel “experts” that populate IMDb.)  The films that use time travel to great success, like 12 Monkeys, The Terminator, or Back to the Future (to name a few), rarely waste much time with complicated plot points about time travel.  Those films feature a lot of explanation, 12 Monkeys being the closest film that could be complicated.  On the other end of the spectrum, you have films like Triangle, Timecrimes, and Primer.  These films, while great and thought provoking, can almost feel like homework assignments when you stop and think about them.  They become complicated because of all the alternate universes and timelines they create.  You almost need to take notes to keep track of it all.  (Sorry to the fans that find those films easy to follow.  They just feel more like work than play to me.)

 

Looper, the latest from writer/director Rian Johnson, thankfully falls in the former group.  It is an interesting, entertaining sci-fi movie that doesn’t get bogged down with the rules of time travel.  That is not to say that this is a simple film.  It is still about time travel and it still contains a paradox or two.  But if we’re willing to forgive The Terminator its paradox (sorry, I don’t buy any theories about how it is possible for John Connor to send his own father back in time to become his father) because of its awesomeness, then we should do the same for Looper. 

 

Looper is a great movie for many reasons, Rian Johnson being number one.  He has crafted such an interesting story.  In the relatively near future, time travel has yet to be invented, but it will be thirty years later.  Since it is impossible to get away with murder in the future, crime lords will use time travel to send undesirables into the past to be taken care of by hit men, or loopers.  Eventually, since time travel is so illegal in the future (and to protect the criminals’ own interests), a looper must close his own loop.  This means he must eventually kill his own older self.  All of their marks show up hooded, so a looper doesn’t know he has essentially killed himself until after the job is done. 

 

Enter Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an addict (he's addicted to some future drug taken in the form of eye drops) who quietly goes about his business in the hopes of saving up plenty and eventually having a happy retirement.  Things go awry when Joe has to close his own loop.  His older self, or Old Joe, shows up without his hood on.  Being face to face with his older self (Bruce Willis) startles Joe, giving Old Joe enough time to distract Joe and get away.  Someone from the future being loose in the past is a huge problem for the mob, so young Joe must stop Old Joe no matter what.

 

What makes the plot of Looper more interesting is that Old Joe doesn't run simply because he wants to live longer.  He's there to kill the child version of the future's evil overlord.  I think it makes the film more interesting because it takes the common time travel scenario of going back in time to kill someone like, oh, let's go with the mainstay, Hitler, but adding the problem of said Hitler-type being a child.  You start to rethink things once you see a gun pointed at a child who has done nothing wrong...yet.  The moral implications of Old Joe's plan fascinated me and Willis did a fine job of showing steely reserve as he contemplated murder. 

 

Bruce Willis is right at home in a sci-fi film (he's even done the time travel thing a time or two, as well), and his scenes with Young Joe discussing time travel are great.  At one point it's almost as if he's predicting the internet message board arguments by yelling at Joe and telling him to forget about the time travel crap.  I'm with him on that; just enjoy the show. 

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes it very easy to enjoy this film.  The first thing you notice is how different he looks in this film because they put makeup and prosthetics on his face to make look more like a young Bruce Willis.  The true joy of his performance, though, comes through his mannerisms.  His constant squint, that bark of a laugh; it's a great performance and it makes the film a lot of fun.  I only wish they shared more screen time. 

 

The rest of the cast is well-rounded.  Jeff Daniels plays a somewhat disinterested future immigrant in an interesting way.  Paul Dano is in his wheelhouse playing a nervous, stuttering looper.  Emily Blunt is does okay as a single mom on a farm.  Garrett Dillahunt has a great, tense scene.  And Pierce Gagnon is admirable if for no other reason than he is a child actor in a sci-fi film and he isn't annoying at all.  Kudos to the marketing team behind this film completely leaving the child out of the previews even though it is a vital part of the film.  I'm serious, this film probably did better because people were unaware that a child factored into the plot.

 

Speaking of marketing, this film is being touted as one of the “best action films” of the year.  But it's not really an action movie.  The few action scenes are great, though.  Willis's big action scene might go down as one of the best of his career, and that is certainly saying something.   

 

But Looper is not an action movie.  It's a sci-fi/time travel movie.  There's a great future world created with very few answers to any questions that might arise (and that's the way it should be, most of the time, in sci-fi).  There is a multiple time line aspect to the film, but it is handled in a very clear and stylish way.  In fact, the film is flat out stylish and it works on nearly every level.  I was left with only one issue with Rian Johnson's great film: I wanted more.  I wanted to see more of the world, I wanted more of the future world Bruce Willis came from, I wanted more one-on-one scenes with Gordon-Levitt and Willis, etc.  If the only issue you have with a film is that you wish there was more of it, then that is a good problem to have.  Check out Looper.  It might not be one of the best “action” movies of the year, but it is one of the best movies of the year.

"The Expendables 2"

Directed by Simon West, written by Richard Wenk, Sylvester Stallone, Ken Kaufman, and David Agosto, starring Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, and Jean-Claude Van Damme - Rated R

Of course this gets a Kurgan, until they finally put the Kurgan in one of these movies, then it will get a Vader...

 

 

 

I was as pumped as everyone else when I heard about The Expendables a few years ago.  When it came out I walked away pleased, but not blown away.  As an old school action fan, just seeing the likes of Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Jason Statham, and Jet Li (among others and some newer stars) was enough to consider the film a success.  It helped that it included ridiculous action and a plot straight out of a Rambo movie.  But something was missing.  Before I continue, I must confess that I have an unnatural (and some might say “irrational”) love of Jean-Claude Van Damme films.  (Yes, “films.”  Not movies, but films.) 

 

Van Damme was not in the first Expendables, much to my chagrin.  How could such a fixture of 80s and early 90s action not make it into this cast?  I was even more upset when I heard rumors that he had been offered a part, but had turned it down, due to lack of character development.  Maybe he didn’t want to be relegated to one-note status as one of the main cast as Lundgren (the crazy one) or Randy Couture (the guy with the messed-up ears) are.  If that’s the case, then he was wise to hold out because Van Damme is the best part of The Expendables 2.  (Of course, some might claim my opinion is biased…and they’d probably be correct.)

 

The Expendables 2 sticks with what made the first film a fan favorite: multiple aging action stars cause mass destruction.  This time, though, more stars are thrown into the mix and cameos from Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are upgraded to supporting roles.  Aside from Van Damme, Scott Adkins, Liam Hemsworth, and Chuck Norris are added to the cast.  Norris is the biggest, and cheesiest, addition, as his appearance is so tongue in cheek it’s almost not enjoyable…almost.  

 

Believe it or not, there is a plot to this film and it’s 80s-tastic.  Van Damme plays Vilain (yes, his name is one letter away from literally being “villain”), a cult leader who wants to sell mass amounts of plutonium to the highest bidder.  At one point, Vilain ponders how “interesting” it is that plutonium can change the world, but later he simply proclaims that he wants a lot of money.  It’s simple, it’s right out of the Cold War, and it’s great. 

 

Of course Stallone and his group of mercenaries are out to stop Vilain, especially after he kills one of their own (I won’t spoil who that is).  This leads to some truly great moments as Van Damme revels in his villainous role, toying with Stallone every chance he gets.  It’s a slightly strange performance, but it is by far the most interesting aspect of the film.  Van Damme has always been best when he gets to play nefarious roles (a serial killer in Replicant and a law breaking criminal in Double Impact), but this time he doesn’t also portray a goodie-two-shoes duplicate to even it out.  Here’s hoping that Van Damme latches onto this performance and gets more big screen work, because I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing his new movies pop up on Wal-Mart shelves at discount prices.  I’ll take what I can get, however.  And even though Van Damme’s scenes are few, they stick out as the film’s best moments.  I don’t want to spoil anything, but a kick from Van Damme has never been used in such a brutal, awesome way.  I just wish the filmmakers had made him a more prominent villain (or should I say, “Vilain”?).    

 

Most people aren’t watching this film just for Jean-Claude Van Damme, though.  This is a movie for action junkies.  Everyone should walk away pleased with this film.  It doesn’t hold up to the truly great action films of its stars’ past (it’s hard to top films like Predator, Die Hard, and Cobra, though), but it’s certainly awesome to see some action that doesn’t involve comic book superheroes for a change.  There’s plenty of gunfire and explosions and random bad guys getting blown to pieces to keep everyone happy.  And most of the comedic action beats work.  The CG blood was a bit disappointing at times, though, and too often the action consisted of shots of the good guys firing en masse followed by shots of bad guys getting riddled with bullets.  Director Simon West (Con Air) handles most of the film well, but he is not the most adept action director.  The Expendables 2 is still one of the most satisfying action movies in years, however.

 

This is a film after my own heart and I absolutely embraced it.  If you just need an action fix, you’ll probably like it.  If you’re a fan of the stars, you’ll dig all the cheesy in-jokes.  If you’re a Van Damme fan like me, you’ll love it, but you will leave the theater saying, “Man, I wish Van Damme would have been in it more.”  I’ll take what I can get, though.

Random Throughts (SPOILERS)

Seriously, Van Damme was great, but my God, what an underdeveloped villain.  If it was a no-name actor, it would be completely forgettable.  Van Damme breathed so much life into the role, taunting Stallone every chance he got and doing some amusing physical acting.  I wanted at least ten more behind the scenes villain stuff.  Maybe explain the cult stuff a bit more.  Seriously, all we get is that they are a cult known as the "pet of Satan"?  How do you not expand on that?!  But at least there were some round house kicks and how awesome was that knife-kick scene? 

What I really hoped to see was a Van Damme/Jet Li showdown (due to a long running feud between myself and a Li-loving buddy of mine).  But Li literally jumps out of the movie fifteen minutes in, just after a pretty damn awesome sequence involving pots and pans.  I'm assuming it had something to do with scheduling.  If Li wanted out, though, they could have had him get killed by Van Damme, though.  That would have given me the edge in my feud for life. 

Aside from all the Van Damme stuff, my favorite moment of the film had to be when there was one dude left in the village and Stallone yelled, "One more!" and everybody unloaded on him.  The "Rest in pieces" line was cheesy, but the scene itself was hilarious.  It was like the scene from Predator, except they actually hit something this time.  Oh, and they fired for five seconds instead of fifteen minutes. 

Schwarzenegger ripping the door off of that smart car (or whatever that thing was) cracked me up.  And it was just great to see him shooting a machine gun again. 

"Moonrise Kingdom"

Directed by Wes Anderson, written by Anderson and Roman Coppola, starring Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman - Rated PG-13



"I love you, but you have no idea what you are talking about."

This review might be pointless.  I’m not doubting my critical skills (I’ll leave that to you, the reader), but reviewing Wes Anderson films in the traditional sense just doesn’t make much…well, sense.  Here’s the thing: If you like Anderson’s previous work then you should at the very least watch Moonrise Kingdom; if you hate his movies, then definitely skip it.  He has certainly not changed his style.  So this review is pointless if you don’t like his films.  If you are like me and you very much enjoy the majority of his work, then keep reading; I might have some thoughts that interest or anger you.

I am not the biggest Wes Anderson fan out there, but the films of his that I do enjoy, I enjoy immensely.  My favorite films, in no particular order, are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.  That list alone might get an argument started with cinephiles because of a title or two that’s included and one or two that is left off.  The important thing is that I am a fan of Anderson’s style, both the visuals and the dialogue.  It’s just sometimes the story doesn’t work for me or it seems a bit pointless.  The point of all this is that I am happy to say that Moonrise Kingdom can be added to my favorites list. 

Moonrise Kingdom has the style you’ve come to expect from Anderson in that it is set in 1965 (nearly all of his films look like they are set in the 60s, but this one actually is).  The production design and soundtrack are great as usual, so no need to delve into details, other than to point out that it is funny to see a few of the actors dressed as boy scouts.  It’s all very quirky and amusing, and I am being sincere.  I’m usually one to say that the aesthetics of Anderson’s work are just there for the sake of quirk, but in this case it is more about homage.  Apparently this film is influenced by the Jean-Luc Godard film Pierrot le Fou.  I must admit ignorance when it comes to Godard’s films, but I am definitely going to check out a few now, if only so that I can appreciate this film a bit more.  It’s obviously not required viewing, though, since I enjoyed it very much and I didn’t know about the influence until after I had seen Moonrise Kingdom. 

Having an influence isn’t what made the style completely worth it for me, though.  The story and the characters are touching and humorous, and that is what makes some of Anderson’s films great.  (I need to clarify that this film was co-written by Roman Coppola, so Anderson didn’t do all of this on his own.)  Moonrise Kingdom is essentially a love story about two young people who don’t fit in.  Sam (Jared Gilman) is an orphan with “emotional” problems who wants to escape from his khaki scout troop and run away with Suzy (Kara Hayward), a “troubled” girl who wants to escape from her family.  They travel all over a New England island, engaging in amusing conversation and awkward first love.  It’s all very sincere and you really want things to work out for them.

Nearly everyone else in the film tries to keep the two apart.  This group consists of the heavy hitters of the cast like Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, and Edward Norton.  These actors, along with Jason Schwartzman, are the faces you’ll see in all of the promotional material for the film, but they are supporting players.  They all do a fine job and it’s really just about personal preference when it comes to picking favorites.  Simply the idea of Bruce Willis appearing in a Wes Anderson film is funny to me, so he was definitely my favorite, especially since he gives a heartfelt performance that we haven’t seen in a long time. Norton and Schwartzman were a close second and third because of their sincerity.  Norton is channeling his gee-whiz performance from the under-seen Death to Smoochy to great effect and Schwartzman seems to be picking up right where Rushmore left off with equal success. 

The whole khaki scout aspect of the movie was great.  I thought it was funny how the scouts were basically run like a military organization.  An impressive tracking shot revealing the workings of the camp near the beginning of the film fits in perfectly within the Anderson canon.  The scout stuff also lends to plenty of interesting visuals (my personal favorite was the tree house that was far too high). 

Visually speaking, this is one of Anderson’s most beautiful films.  All of the outdoors scenes allowed him to try something new as far as setting is concerned and he shot in some great locations.  On top of that, a storm near the end of the film (this isn’t a spoiler since the narrator lets the audience know about right from the start) created some great moments as well.

Moonrise Kingdom isn’t anything new for Anderson, but that isn’t such a bad thing.  What’s wrong with a guy knowing what his style is and sticking with it?  If you don’t like his style, don’t watch his films.  Simple as that.  If you are a fan of it, then definitely check this one out.  You might not count it among your favorites but it is very unlikely that you’ll be disappointed by the film because it is about as Wes Anderson as Wes Anderson can get.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Since he wasn't in any previews or in the opening credits, I'm guessing Harvey Keitel's appearance is meant to be a surprise.  I just wanted to point out how funny it was to see him pop up in this film, only to promptly blown up.

I really like the title of the film and thought it fit in perfectly with the tone of the film.  The actual Moonrise Kingdom was a very beautiful spot in the film as well, and there's something to be said about the fact that it has disappeared after the storm. 

Another very Anderson aspect to the film: The kids seem to know exactly what they want, while the adults are the truly lost characters who need to change and grow by the end of the film. 

"RED"

RED - Directed by Robert Schwentke, written by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber, starring Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, and Karl Urban - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan is cool with the elderly kicking some ass, hell, he's hundreds of years old himself.

I read the graphic novel of RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous) as soon as I heard that it was to become a movie starring Bruce Willis. Willis seemed perfect for the grim story of Frank (Paul in the comic) Moses, a tough retired CIA operative forced back into action. I was excited because the graphic novel is filled with brutal action peppered with references to CIA black ops. Well, the film RED is a bit different, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing…well, I guess it is if you’re married to the source material (which I wasn’t).

This film is not grim and the violence is PG-13. Sometimes the censoring of an action film to get the teens in bothers me, but RED is fun enough that I forgive it. Instead of the dark solo mission of the comic, RED is more of an elderly operative reunion movie, and I mean that in the best possible way.

The story goes like this: Frank Moses is attempting to live a quiet, retired life. But he’s bored. His only enjoyment comes from talking to the customer service lady (Mary-Louise Parker) who deals with his pension checks (Frank keeps ripping them up so he has a valid excuse to call). Suddenly a death squad is sent after him in suburbia, so he kidnaps the customer service lady/love interest and heads off to find out why someone tried to kill him.

Willis is joined by former friends and foes such as Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, Helen Mirren, and John Malkovich. Richard Dreyfuss and Karl Urban are also tossed in for good measure. Needless to say, the cast is quite impressive. I could write a few paragraphs talking about all of their moments, but I’ll just stick with my favorites. Malkovich was my favorite part of the movie, period. Some of his wacky dialogue was a bit over the top, sure, but the crazed faces he makes throughout had me laughing consistently. Cox was fun as well as a former Russian agent. I also enjoyed Freeman’s appearance in the film, but he doesn’t factor into the movie nearly as much as the previews and the poster might lead you to believe. In fact, Cox (who I didn’t even know was in this until he showed up) has a larger role than Freeman.

The previews do deliver on one thing, though: ridiculous action. Don’t take that the wrong way; I was completely okay with the crazy action scenes in this movie: literally shooting a house to pieces, sniper-worthy precision with a grenade launcher, a hand gun versus an RPG, etc. I dug all of that wackiness. I was okay with it all because the tone of the film allowed it. This is not meant to be some realistic, gritty action movie. It’s meant to be fun, and it is.

RED isn’t a complete blast, though. It does suffer from an overlong running time, or at least long for this type of film. It’s cheesy at times, mainly during scenes involving Mary-Louise Parker. Nothing against Parker’s performance; it’s really just a character thing. I was hoping for more CIA humor as well. There are plenty of casual comments about killing people, but I wanted references to actual (or at least rumored) covert CIA operations. In other words, I was hoping for a slightly smarter film. And the score was kind of annoying at times. In a movie like this the score is something that should not be noticed, but multiple times this stupid happy-go-lucky music would be playing during an already goofy scene. It was just overkill.

There is another factor that works for this movie, though: Bruce Willis. I’ve barely mentioned the star of the entire film. He isn’t breaking any new ground in this film, sure, but the guy is a star for a reason. I’m always up for seeing Willis kill roomfuls of random enemies; he’s just fun to watch. Sure, it would’ve been great to see him face off with a specific villain (the “bad guy” role is vague at best in this film), but Willis does have a few excellent moments opposite Karl Urban. Their office fight was great and that scene in which he steps out of a spinning car, while completely stupid and disrespectful to the laws of physics, was still pretty awesome.

RED might not be the dark, brutal action movie some people were hoping for; in fact, I can imagine some people absolutely hating it. If you’re expecting a faithful adaptation, you’ll most likely despise it. (Just check out the film’s message board on IMDb.com for evidence.) If you’re expecting realism, you might even walk out. But RED is just good old-fashioned (emphasis on “old”) fun. It’s crazy, ridiculous, and funny. Lighten up and I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So, kind of a bummer that Morgan Freeman gets killed off, twice. It was just kind of strange since they were all so happy and goofy at the end. I had to laugh when Parker says something along the lines of, "It all worked out." Yeah, except for Morgan Freeman, you heartless slag!

Seriously, you can't just step out of a spinning car like that.

Julian McMahon is not old enough to play a character that was a lieutenant in the Army back in 1981. Assuming he was 20 (and I'm not sure if that's a possible age to reach that rank), that would make him 49. McMahon himself is only 42 and they didn't age him for this movie. It was just kind of weird.

Cool to see Ernest Borgnine still rocking on the big screen.

It seems way too easy to break into the super secret records room in Langley. Just kick in the drywall right next to the door and there you have it. Yeah, I know, definitely not the dumbest part of this movie, but still.

And finally, this weird coincidence: Brian Cox starred in a movie called Red with Tom Sizemore in 2008.