Only an idiot would expect a fifth Die Hard movie directed by the guy who did Max Payne and Flight of the Phoenix to be any good, but it’s still impressive the degree to which it’s been able to limbo under even the lowest of low expectations. And you need only read reviews for 5 Fast 5 Furious or The Last Stand to see how willing critics are to praise a film just for fulfilling the basement-level expectations set by their own marketing. While only seven reviews are in so far (and I made Laremy a deal where I’d have to see this if he’d see Inside the Mind of Charles Swan, so look forward to that), A Good Day to Die Hard is currently pitching a perfect Bucky Larson. For the uninitiated, that’s like a knuckleball that no one can hit because it’s so sucky.

Everything that made the first “Die Hard” memorable — the nuances of character, the political subtext, the cowboy wit — has been dumbed down or scrubbed away entirely. -AO Scott, NY Times

Loud and tedious, “Die Hard” 5 is a shaky-cam/Sensurround blast of bullets and bombs, digital explosions and death defying feats of defying death. Not a decent villain or catchphrase in it  -Roger Moore, McClatchy

Hired hack John Moore taps into the McClane mythology to drain any lingering humanity from the Die Hard series. -John Semley, Slant

A complete waste of time on every level. Loud, obnoxious, boring, cartoonish, morally reprehensible, and just plain stupid. -Brian Tallerico, HollywoodChicago

An asinine, immobile feature that’s dripping with trendy cinematography and toxic banter, while a visibly bored Bruce Willis hobbles through this dud, putting in the least amount of effort possible. -Brian Orndorf, Blu-Ray.com

There’s no artistry to Moore’s work, he’s simply a factory employee who knows how to work a punch press, and his take on the world of “Die Hard” is dispiriting and borderline offensive. -Brian Orndorf, Blu-Ray.com

I can’t decide which scenario is more exciting, Die Hard maintaining its perfect zero percent rating, or reading the barely-perceptible praise from the first critics to rate it “recommended.” On another note, I’m a little sad that so far, no one’s gone with the obvious New York Post-ready headline, “Ho Ho No.”

Last Thursday, I told you about how Taylor Lautner’s new movie, Abduction, was well on its way to earning a zero percent rating on RottenTomatoes, or, as we call it, the full Bucky Larson (still 0% after 32 reviews, incidentally). But less than that 24 hours after my initial post, Abduction was already up to a robust THREE PERCENT RECOMMENDED on the strength of two positive reviews. Since we’re all about fairness and diversity of opinion here at FilmDrunk, I thought we’d examine those reviews to see what positive aspects may have been overlooked by the majority of critics, the be-ascotted asthmatic snootpocracy, if you will. (*puffs inhaler, re-fluffs ascot*)

Interestingly, the two “positive” reviews both come from the same site, an Australian publication called “Urban Cinefile.” The first positive review comes from Andrew L. Urban (oh, I get it now, “Urban” cinefile, it’s a play on words with his name. I was confused at first because I always assumed Australia had neither cities nor black people.). Funny thing is, it appears not to be  a review at all, but some kind of preview:

Review by Andrew L. Urban:
The notion of discovering a secret about yourself on the internet is a great premise on which to build a thriller, especially one whose central character is a teen. Twilight-launched Taylor Lautner gets his first genuine, gold plated leading role as Nathan, the teen who discovers that he was adopted by the people he thought were his parents.
Full review will be published on September 25

The full review still hasn’t been published, as far as I can tell, but he does seem pretty positive about the premise, which, to be fair, is no small feat, considering. Meanwhile, Urban’s partner, Louise Keller, did write a full review. Here are some quotes from that glowing recommendation.

Review by Louise Keller:
Taylor Lautner fans may not mind that his facial expressions are limited, or that the highly improbable script is peppered with inanities and corny dialogue.

“The acting was terrible and the script was idiotic, but the target audience was too stupid to notice. TWELVE STARS!”

The plot is so preposterous that the details hardly matter except to say that there are extravagant stunts, splashy action sequences and a taylor-made romance (sorry, couldn’t resist) between Lautner and Lily Collins, who is pretty as a picture.

“Look, don’t get me wrong, the script sucks. I’ll say it four times if I have to just to get my point across. It’s bad. Really, really bad. In fact, if you take one thing away from this review, let it be that the script is really, really, just atrociously f*cking bad. But I did get to make a pun using the lead’s name.”

There are tight close ups of their eyes and lips and in the train sequence, when they share their first lingering and passionate kiss, two crusty blokes with bald heads and tattoos sitting in the row in front of me roared with laughter when Lautner’s Nathan tells Collins’ Karen he’s starving.

I include the above excerpt only because I have no idea what the hell it means. They laugh because… he’s hungry? He’s kissing a girl? Anyone?

Read the rest of this entry »