Skyscraper - Yeah, could have been better

I'm a big fan of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, so when I saw the trailer for 'Skyscraper' I - like sooo many others - figured they were effectively remaking 'Die Hard' for the modern age, i.e. terrorists seize control of a high rise building and only one man stands in the way of their diabolical plans.  I'm no fan of remakes, seeing they're everywhere these days, but I figured having The Rock in the 'John McClane' role would make the film at least a good, fun, popcorn type film.  Then I started reading the reviews when the film came out.

To be blunt, most critics (and even the fans) weren't that impressed, saying it was an average affair at best.  Many times a film has received mainly negative criticism I've had my expectations suitably lowered enough to find it actually wasn't as bad as I'd been led to believe and found myself having a good time watching it.  However, here the general consensus is kind of bang on the money.

Dwayne Johnson plays an FBI agent who's wounded in the line of duty and loses a leg, forcing him into the civilian life of selling high-tech security systems.  Therefore, it's quite a big gig for him when he's chosen to test the security of the world's most state of the art building in China.  However, as I've already mentioned, terrorists seize control of it, just when his family (Neve Campbell  - who it is genuinely nice to see back on the big screen again in something other than a ‘Scream’ movie! - and their two children) are visiting, forcing him to save the day.

Now, from that brief plot synopsis, you could be mistaken for thinking, 'Yup, that sounds just like 'Die Hard.' In fact, if they had simply remade 'Die Hard' with The Rock in it, it would probably have been better than what we actually got.  In 'Die Hard' John McClane was alone and constantly under threat from the terrorists infesting the building.  Here, the terrorists are only half of the problem.  It's not 'The Rock vs Baddies' - it's actually The Rock vs the building and occasionally a henchman with a gun.  Many scenes feel like you're watching a computer game where Johnson has to jump from moving platform and avoiding obstacles while swinging on ropes to avoid fires.  I know no hero ever really dies or is in any real danger until the final act (maybe), but there really isn't much in the way of feeling any real sense of danger from anything that happens.

Plus you have Johnson's family to deal with.  As I say, if it was him vs the terrorists then it might be a faster-paced affair, but the film keeps dwelling on his family, whether they're in danger inside the building, or attempting to prove his innocence from the side-lines.  The terrorists are faceless baddies at best.  There's no 'Hans Gruber' character who provides a true nemesis to our hero and you won't even remember any antagonist's name, let alone why he's doing what he is.

Overall, 'Skyscraper' tries to make too much out of a simple premise.  The reason 'Die Hard' worked so well was because it was a simple action story.  Here, you have too many plot elements all competing for screen time in a film that isn't overly-long to begin with.  I still love all Dwayne Johnson's films and will continue to watch everything he's in, however this really is a dip in the quality of his action catalogue.  Pity - could have been much better if it stuck to action through and through.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights