For Valentine’s Day Weekend 2013: Witches, Zombies, Nicholas Sparks, and “Die Hard”

Love Free or Die Hard.Warner Bros. ; Relativity Media ; 20th Century Fox

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s Valentine’s/Presidents Day Weekend 2013, and your lover or spouse wants you to spend money on a night on the town. For some, that might involve a couple of hours together in a crowded air-conditioned chain movie theater, gorging yourself on pails of butter-slathered junk food.

If that’s your reality, here are the options, three of which were released on Valentine’s Day.

The first is Beautiful Creatures (Warner Brothers, 124 min.), a new romantic fantasy about a young human boy falling head over heels for a young female witch in rural South Carolina. (In the Beautiful Creatures universe, good witches prefer the more politically correct term “caster.”) The film is a irreverent and genuinely interesting entry into the ever-bloated “Teen-Human-Falls-In-Forbidden-Love-With-Teen-Supernatural-Being” subgenre, so comparisons to the über-profitable Twilight franchise are inevitable, and the studio’s ad campaign predictably tries to make Beautiful Creatures look like as much like Twilight as possible.

Such comparisons are bunk. Unlike any of the five movies in the Twilight saga, Beautiful Creatures is funny, sexy, and not a heaving pile of savage unbearability. And unlike any of the various Twilights, the cast here is uniformly excellent (Viola Davis, Emmy Rossum, Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons, Zoey Deutch, and the two romantic leads Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert).

It’s more fitting to compare Beautiful Creatures to two other films also now in theaters. The newly released (and quite lovely) Warm Bodies—a romantic zombie comedy that includes the best use of Bruce Springsteen music in recent cinema—is essentially the same movie as Beautiful Creatures, if you swap the latter’s witches for zombies. Both films are human/non-human teen romances, are based on a novel, are helmed by a talented writer/director, have an Australian actress in the lead female role, and were released within a few weeks of each other. You could also appropriately compare Beautiful Creatures to the new 3D action flick Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, seeing as how both films prominently feature a Bloodlusting Witch Hitler -type character (Emma Thompson plays the genocidal witch character in the former, Famke Janssen in the latter).

After Beautiful Creatures, your next option is the Valentine’s-timed Safe Haven (Relativity Media, 115 min.), a joyless romantic melodrama starring Julianne Hough and Josh Duhamel as the dour couple. Safe Haven is the latest film adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks book; the Nicholas Sparks Film Adaptation is a commodity that Hollywood apparently pumps out on a monthly basis. A review of a Nicholas Sparks movie is sufficient in length and content if you simply inform the reader that the movie is a Nicholas Sparks movie. Sparks, (not to be confused with the nineteenth century Ottawan timber magnate of the same name) is a robust, one-man puppy mill of bankable romance novels—bestsellers that get turned into movies with big budgets and top-billed actors. His novels and the resulting motion pictures are a full-tilt boogie of dime-store emotional manipulation.

Ditto Safe Haven.

To make things more disastrous, the plot twist toward the end of the film is—to put it mildly—infuriating. It’s as if M. Night Shyamalan briefly inhabited the body of Nicholas Sparks and decided to insult everyone’s intelligence. All this would be significantly less upsetting if Safe Haven weren’t the second Nicholas Sparks adaptation directed by Lasse Hallström, the Oscar-nominated Swedish filmmaker behind What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Hoax, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, and The Cider House Rules.

So this would qualify as a step down for him:

Then there’s the new Die Hard:

While the original Die Hard from 1988 is hands down the best Christmas movie ever made, A Good Day to Die Hard (20th Century Fox, 97 min.) is hardly the best Valentine’s Day movie ever made. This fifth installment in the Die Hard franchise does, however, have the honor of being the first Die Hard movie that was actually meant to be a Die Hard movie.

A Good Day to Die Hard was preceded by 2007’s over-the-top, enjoyable Live Free or Die Hard, and will most likely be followed by sequels Die Hard Die Furious, Die, The Beloved Country, and Die Hard: All or Nothing. But this outing with John McClane—an adventure that explodes half of Moscow—isn’t that much fun. The vulgar wit and memorable set pieces present in past entries seem all but sapped dry. The film is partially redeemed by the quality of its inspired poster, which plays off of a classic Bruce Willis catchphrase:

A Good Day to Die Hard poster yippee ki-yay mother russia

If the crap movie never existed, this beauty would’ve never seen the light of day. Via EW.com

Verdict: If you’re going for a romantic night out at the multiplex this weekend, skip Die Hard and stick with the zombies and the “casters.”

Click here for more movie and TV coverage from Mother Jones.

To read more of Asawin’s reviews, click here.

To listen to the weekly movie and pop-culture podcast that Asawin co-hosts with ThinkProgress critic Alyssa Rosenberg, click here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate