Skyscraper

The following is a review of Skyscraper. I'd come up with a more imaginative introduction than that, but the film couldn't be bothered, so why should I?

The Partially Educated Review

Turns out it is possible for a film to be generic in an aggressive kind of way; as if to leave you affronted by it's very averageness. I left a recent of Skyscraper feeling as though I'd been beaten about the head with a baseball bat made entirely of mediocrity. Honestly, I may have spent the rest of the day in complete despondency had it not been for the excitement of the Chinese that followed it.

Skyscraper is never a bad film. It's just one that's quite clearly designed to pull punters in for yet more of Dwayne Johnson's action frolics. That in itself would be fine if it weren't for the fact that we're dealing with serious Dwayne; the one that bored us through the likes of Faster and Snitch. Johnson isn't meant to be serious and films always die when he's in that mode. At least with the aforementioned two, the subject matter dictated it. Here though, there really isn't any excuse for the barren wasteland of humour we're presented with when the concept would call for one-liners galore.

The plot is rudimentary. Johnson plays Will Sawyer; a security advisor on the largest skyscraper in existence. When terrorists take over it and set fire to the bajillionth floor, not only is he framed for this, but must also find a way to save his family in the penthouse suite.

Within the first 5 minutes, Johnson survives an explosion of such close proximity that it should by rights have made the walls into a Jackson Pollock made entirely of his innards, but instead he just loses a leg. Honestly, they could have called the character Manfred Manimal McMannfromuncle and they'd have still been underplaying the manliness.

Perhaps that would have yielded some interest to the film; an obvious vulnerability would be something that I can't recall Johnson playing before. Instead, it becomes a source for set-pieces or one of the film's annoyingly few jokes. Outside of that, he's still just The Rock.

Surely it's not just Dwayne though. There must be other things to discuss, but there really isn't. The villains are all generic terrorist types of varying European descent. The cops on the outside all display the sort of investigative intuition that you'd expect from a hedgehog taking an up close peek at a nearby motorway. His family are presented as a nice family that you definitely want to see survive and boast our only other recognisable presence in Neve Campbell (though some would potentially recognise Noah Taylor as well if it weren't for the fact that he doesn't stop gurning).

It's not that Skyscraper is an entirely negative film. Some well-shot sequences may genuinely put the shivers into vertigo sufferers. While I'm not one of those, I do have a slightly weird affliction where I get pins and needles in my left foot when I see someone come perilously close to dropping from a great height. It's safe to say that same foot hurt a little after this film. You don't create that without some competence, but director Rawson Marshall Thurber demonstrates little ability for creating any sort of action surprises. I'd say he should stick to comedy, but honestly, the guy's been coasting off the fact he made Dodgeball for far too long now. Still though, worth a reminder...

In the end, Skyscraper feels like the sort of film that would be created for the textbook How To Write An Action Film. If they came up with something great, they wouldn't use it for the textbook. So why did they commit the entirely ordinary idea to film?

FOUR out of 10

Guiltless Pleasures: Baywatch

Sometimes you just want to be entertained. You don't want Al Gore making you feel like shit for that time you threw an empty bottle of Fanta in with the normal rubbish (though I do feel guilty Al, I'm really, really sorry). Jean-Luc Godard? Terrence Malick? Well, they can f**k right off too.

At times though, that mentality can find you liking films you probably shouldn't. As far as I'm concerned though, guilt can go hang.

The Partially Educated Review

There was a time when adaptations of cheesy TV series were pretty much destined to be rubbish. Charlie's Angels and The Dukes Of Hazzard both yielded films which were less fun than a trip to a festival Portaloo and, while there have been exceptions, the over-arching problem of what worked then not working now was apparently lost on Hollywood. A surprising prospect, I know. Then, this happened...

...and the rulebook was rewritten somewhat. Then ignored. Yes, the Jump Street films were a lot of fun (and arguably Starsky And Hutch got there first), but since then we've had Chips, which was packed the exact same amount of laughs as you would get from inhaling armpit odour. The chances of something like Baywatch being any good are still slim. Guess what?

Is lukewarm too kind to describe the reaction to it? Possibly. Couple that with the fact that my mate who likes crap films likes it (he knows who he is) and things weren't boding well for my opinion of this. Yet there I sat, laughing consistently. Perhaps low expectations helped me with that, thought I. So I watched it again a couple of months later... and laughed even more. Honestly, I couldn't help it. I'm still slightly worried about it.

We're in juvenile territory with the humour here. Case in point: “There's your cot. Don't jack off on my sheets.” And no, that's not one of the lines I laughed at. It knows it's childish though and it isn't pretending to be anything else. This film just wants you to have a good time with it. If you're expecting more than that... I mean, really? It's based on a series that involves this guy.

Whilst we're on that subject, it is the only film where my rule of deducting one point for a Hasselhoff appearance doesn't apply. It's not like they had a choice.

Going into details about Baywatch involves spoiling the jokes which would be rather pointless. It probably goes without saying that a lot of people won't like it half as much as me, so for the sake of balanced criticism, I will say that Zac Efron is bloody awful in it. The guy is meant to be charming, not an arrogant airhead. He only just got away with it in Bad Neighbours. Let's move on from this phase of his career. 

Also, the action is fairly rudimentary with some of the dodgiest looking fire effects this side of the 50s. The film is flat out stolen by Dwayne Johnson though who oozes self-effacing charisma. Who'd have thought that 15 years later The Scorpion King would become one of Hollywood's most viable box office draws?

Oh my God! Vince McMahon was right about something!

SEVEN out of 10