'Live Free or Die Hard' review

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I often find myself asking a very important question when it comes to films in a franchise: Should each film be compared to the others in the series, or should each film be allowed to stand on its own legs? The answer is both. You must look at a film on its own merits, but a sequel or prequel is inevitably going to be compared and contrasted to its predecessors – and so it should. They have a reputation to uphold and a responsibility to its fans. ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ tries so hard to keep its fans happy and to live up to the series and I wish very much that this wasn’t a ‘Die Hard’ film, but another Bruce Willis action flick. Had it been, I would give it a stellar review urging people to go see it. Unfortunately as a film in the franchise, it may be seen as more of a hindrance than anything else. As a 'Die Hard' movie it is not the best nor the most exciting. As an action movie, it is a lot of fun.

Bruce Willis returns to the role that launched his career into superstardom. He’s back as John McClane, the rough-and-tough New York cop who continuously finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. This time, McClane has to stop an organization of terrorist hackers who intend on shutting down the country, creating total chaos. All the while he has to protect a hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long...yes the guy from the Mac ads), who is inadvertently instrumental in the terrorist’s plot. The main villain this time around is Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), an ex-government employee who feels the US government's systems are so fallible he is willing to crash them all to prove his point. Olyphant pails in comparison to the great ‘Die Hard’ villains, most notably Alan Rickman. He never feels menacing or dangerous, more disgruntled and even whiny at times.

We’re dealing with a different McClane in the fourth installment. He looks older; more grizzled and has a melancholy tone. We learn he has alienated his children along side his wife. Willis brings a very real sense that the character has aged, being 52 years old himself. It does a great job in utilizing real actors in lieu of stunt people, as well as containing some amazing action scenes that are actually done practically. While this installment contains far more computer-generated effects than any in the series, it does contain far less than average summer films. In that fact, it echoes the good old days where action movies contained real stunts performed by real people and a sense of danger is implied.

Ironically, the action brings down ‘Live Free or Die Hard’, with each sequence becoming more absurd than the last. Though McClane looks and feels older, his is stronger than ever before. Where he was once a hero for real people, he now seems indestructible. When he was hurt in the past, you felt his pain. To this day, few scenes still are as wince inducing as when he had to walk barefoot across the floor of broken glass. Along the same line, the action in ‘Die Hard’ films has never been long or drawn out. They have always been small pockets of action that start and finish relatively quickly and are necessary to what McClane needed to do. The action evolved from the plot and not the other way around. Here, there are action sequences so long and absurd, I thought Bruce Willis crash-landed into another Michael Bay movie. The first ‘Die Hard’ was an ‘average man’s action movie’. Whenever you found yourself saying, “Why doesn’t he do this?” he would do it and you believed he could do it. Here I found myself asking, "How is that possible?"

I think director Len Wiseman felt compelled to over-compensate with the action due to the fact that 20th Century Fox ordered the film to be PG-13 in order to make it available to the widest possible audience (hence the widest amount of money). The rating difference is very noticeable (the previous three films had hard R ratings). The overall tone is different. This is your little brother’s ‘Die Hard’, not your dad’s. McClane’s foul-mouthed machismo has been dialed down to the point where he cannot even deliver his trademarked catch phrase without some censoring. I was amused at how they used the ‘Jaws’ technique to cover his profanity.

There have been franchises hindered by mediocre sequels and prequels. While I would not say that ‘Die Hard’ falls under the umbrella of some (‘Star Wars’, ‘Terminator’), I have a feeling it will leave some of the die hard ‘Die Hard’ fans wanting a little more of the good ol’ days. If this were just another Bruce Willis action flick, I’d recommend it highly. All they had to do was change the name of the movie and the name of his character and I’d be recommending a solid action film. Unfortunately, 'a rose by any other name' doesn't always apply. Maybe next time they’ll take a hint and toss some broken glass McClane’s way instead of a fighter jet. Yippee-ki-yay…

The pointless political debates over '300'

Critics and pundits need to stop theorizing, debating and making excuses for the 'political ideologies' or 'historical inaccuracies' in Zack Snyder's '300', because, simply put, there are none. People seem to be forgetting that above all the movie is based on a COMIC BOOK (I'm not trying to start a debate over whether there's a difference between graphic novels and comic books, I'm just simplifying for argument's sake). Sure, it may be based on an historical event, but great liberties were taken with that event when Frank Miller wrote the comic book/graphic novel for '300'. Even more liberties were taken when Zack Snyder adapted it to the movie. So to sit and argue over the historical inaccuracies, or political messages within the film is a moot point. Personally, I loved the movie, but this film is far too over-the-top, out of this world, and just plain silly for any educated mind to sit and seriously theorize or debate over it's political allegories - especially comparisons to the Iraq war. In this day, if a war movie is made about any war from any point in time, there will be folks who can't wait to tear it apart with comparisons and metaphors to the Iraq war. People just need to stop reading so much into it and accept it for what it is, a well made piece of ENTERTAINMENT made out of a very well made and entertaining COMIC BOOK. So if you're looking for political allegory, look somewhere else.

GENE SEYMOUR of Newsday got it right when he wrote this in his review for the film:

"One hears of allegedly serious minds grappling over what the "politics" of "300" are. Bloggers, pundits and others with too much time on their hands have spent the weeks leading to the opening of this revved-up and outlandish retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae arguing over which present-day parallel best fits the ancient combatants.

For the moment, we'll bite: Are the 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), correlatives for freedom-loving Americans holding the line against Middle East terror as personified here by the massive Persian army? Or are the nation-gobbling Persians, led by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), analogous to what some believe to be imperialistic Americans?

If "300" carried any intellectual heft (if, in other words, it was scrupulous with historic details), one could see the point of thrashing these provocative notions to their metaphoric nubs. But this movie in no way pretends to be a replication of historical events. It is, instead, a willed hallucination of ancient history goosed with mutant warriors, rhinos outfitted like Sherman tanks and a King Xerxes who's dolled up with enough glittering threads and glossy makeup to make every David Bowie wanna-be from the mid-1970s chew his knuckles in fuming envy.

Put bluntly, the movie's just too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing. And "silly" is invoked here, more or less, with affection."

You can read the entire article here: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede5121896mar09,0,2850452.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines

I'll stop ranting now. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I highly suggest you do. It is very entertaining.

'Spiderman 3' review

Rating: * out of ****

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

'Spider-Man 3' really should have been the second film in the series for two reasons. Number one: it is the darkest of the three and has many of the signs of a dark second chapter (characters killed, relationships/reputations damaged, secrets revealed). It was very reminiscent of 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Batman Returns' in that way. Number two: it would have made 'Spider-Man 2' (already in the top 3 comic book movies of all time in my opinion) even better when it over-shadowed this chapter. It is so unfortunate that it is this movie that signs off such an epic franchise as the 'Spider-Man' series. Almost in the way that 'X3' was a let-down for that franchise.

A quick synopsis as provided by iMDB: "Peter Parker has finally managed to piece together the once-broken parts of his life, maintaining a balance between his relationship with Mary-Jane and his responsibility as Spider-Man. But more challenges arise for our young hero. Peter's old friend Harry Obsourne has set out for revenge against Peter; taking up the mantle of his late father's persona as The New Goblin, and Peter must also capture Uncle Ben's real killer, Flint Marko, who has been transformed into his toughest foe yet, the Sandman. All hope seems lost when suddenly Peter's suit turns jet-black and greatly amplifies his powers. But it also begins to greatly amplify the much darker qualities of Peter's personality that he begins to lose himself to. Peter has to reach deep inside himself to free the compassionate hero he used to be if he is to ever conquer the darkness within and face not only his greatest enemies, but also...himself."

From the beginning of the series, director Sam Raimi has always prided himself on being a lover of the comic, a fan of the material and it's universe. You'd never guess by looking at 'Spider-Man 3'. So much has been changed, altered, or added for eye candy reasons alone that it all ends up feeling like a muddled mess.

For starters, did anyone notice how pointless the ENTIRE Sandman plot-line was? You could have literally cut him out of the movie completely and not lost a single step of the way. He really served no purpose to the story except to provide more special effects moments, a poor attempt at a redemption story (which failed due to the minimalist back-story provided for his character), and a laughable moment that I half-expected to pop up in a new Godzilla movie. One word kept coming to mind every time Sandman was on screen: 'Perfunctory'.

Moving on to the Venom story. First off, they completely changed the origin story of Venom. In the story, John Jameson (J. Jonah Jameson's son) comes back from space and has the 'Venom-goo' attached to his ship. Am I the only one who assumed that that was why they bothered introducing the John Jameson character in the second movie?? But no, there is no reference of him in the third chapter, and they use a convenient and cliched 'it crashed to earth in a meteor' story to explain where it came from. I could forgive that injustice as long as Venom himself lived up. But alas, no great use was made of him either. How could they have such an epic villain as Venom at their disposal and use him for so little. Venom is one of the darkest, meanest and coolest villains, perhaps in the history of comic books. But here, they use him for so little and what he does do just comes off as corny and flat, considering the character. He is only used to set up a large ending sequence (which I will speak more about in a bit), which didn't really succeed in the thrills it was clearly aiming for. Furthermore, his alter-ego (Eddie Brock) was so one-dimensional that I couldn't believe the filmmakers expected us to feel for his plight and sympathize. I honestly felt nothing for him, which in turn made Venom less interesting. You must like the secret-identity in some way in order to like the alter-ego. The reason Spider-Man is such a good character is because he's human and contains human characteristics that average people can relate to and empathize with. I can't be expected to like, or fear, a villain who comes from such a shallow, one-dimensional character in the first place.

A few elements felt very 'thrown-in' as well. The Gwen Stacey character was relatively useless and they completely changed her character from the story. Originally, Gwen was the first true love of Peter Parker and the Green Goblin murdered her. This has always been a pivotal point in Spider-Man’s history. To this day there are still large debates over who is Spider-Man's 'one true love', Gwen or Mary Jane Watson. That would have made for an interesting subplot - introduce her as Peter's first love, then have the Goblin kill her and have Peter mourn her and be torn over who he really loved more. But no, they make her 'some girl' who shows up to make Mary-Jane jealous and to try and fuel the 'Eddie Brock anger' plot-line, but falls flat in doing so. Perhaps had the character been Felicia instead of Gwen it would have worked better.

Another 'tossed in' element is Harry's butler, Bernard, who shows up last minute with some interesting news. I will not divulge this news, suffice it to say it would have been helpful had he told Harry this news maybe 2 YEARS AGO!!

Now back to that aforementioned ending sequence. The best way I can describe it is to say that it felt like something out of one of the bad 'Batman' movies. I'm talking Schumacher's 'Batman' ('Batman Forever' & 'Batman + Robin'). It was so contrived and over-the-top that I found myself laughing out-loud at many moments. It was just one large excuse to showcase special effects, have the villains team up (for some reason?), and to force the obligatory "i forgive you, now lets team up for the greater good" plot.

I am a huge fan of Sam Raimi and will continue to be. However, I have a strong feeling that the reason behind the lackluster 'Spider-Man 3' is the introduction of Sam and his brother Ivan as screenwriters in this chapter. Sam Raimi's writing style is a unique and creative one, but I don't feel his style lends itself to the Spider-Man series. 'Spider-Man' walks a very fine line between being fun *wink-wink* kind of cheesy and full out cheesy. Sam Raimi's material doesn't always walk that line very well and often falls flat out into full cheesy territory.

The movie does have it's up-points. It has some amazing action sequences (such as an out of control crane against a skyscraper) and the special effects are top notch (even though I found they took a step down from the second film to the third). The acting is on par with what you've come to expect from the first two films. It is an entertaining summer action movie that many audiences, especially children, will surely enjoy. Many comic book fans on the other hand...

I wouldn't recommend 'Spider-Man 3' to any fan of the books or the animated series. I would recommend it to people who just want a summer action flick with cool effects. Had they seen either of the first two films, I would give them a stern warning before they entered the theater.

Ironically, Venom is part of the poison that brings down 'Spider-Man 3'.

'Hostel: Part II' review

Rating: *** out of ****

I've learned that often times a person is either a horror fan, or not. If people don't care much for horror movies, there's little that can be done (or should be done) to try to convince them otherwise. It also goes for the fans of the genre - they love them in spite of many factors (flaws, violence, etc.) and there's little that can be done (or should be done) to convince them otherwise. I like horror movies. To me, horror movies are one of the purest forms of escapism. Often times they're a chance to see things that you would never get to see (or should ever see) in any civilized society. The 'Hostel' flicks have this in spades. Now, if you were not a fan of 'Hostel', you will probably not like the second and I expect you may not even read this review. I know many horror fans who liked the first film and so I hope this review is helpful.

Although I enjoyed Eli Roth's 'Hostel', I found its major weakness was a somewhat one-dimensional story: American guys go to Eastern Europe, go to hostel, are abducted, are killed, one guy escapes, the end. It felt as if Writer/Director Eli Roth was just going through the motions - A leads to B leads to C, etc. This weakness is corrected in part II. The story follows three simultaneous plots, interweaving between them as we go. The first of the three is the same story as the first 'Hostel', substituting the guys for gals, though adding quite the twist at the end. I'm sure there will be some major debates as to whether or not 'Hostel: Part II' is seen as misogynistic or empowering to females. The second story follows two American men who are paying customers of the death business - shelling out thousands of dollars to live out their sickest fantasies. The third story follows the business itself. We get to see how the business works, how victims are selected, how they're paid for, the eBay-like bidding war that ensues for certain victims, etc. This was by far the most interesting sub-plot of the film. There is also a brief fourth story (more of an intro really) where we find out what Paxton (the lone survivor of the first film) has been up to since his Eastern European getaway. Roth is able to juggle these stories without ever letting the film feel convoluted (unlike two other recent summer films that will go unnamed).

Writer/Director Eli Roth ups the anti yet again with 'Hostel: Part II', outdoing himself in the shock, thrills and gore departments. Roth is quickly climbing his way up the Hollywood ladder (his 'Thanksgiving' trailer in 'Grindhouse' was one of the most talked-about parts of the film) and he is becoming a force to be reckoned with - it doesn't hurt that Quentin Tarantino cuts the cheques for his movies either. According to Boxofficemojo.com, Roth is considered one of the most profitable directors working in film today. Both of his first films, 'Cabin Fever' and 'Hostel' earned over five times their production cost at the box office in their opening weekends. Neither film boasted major stars, proving that Roth's name guarantees a built in audience. I have little doubt that 'Hostel: Part II' will follow in this tradition.

While 'Hostel: Part II' is not as riveting, clever or well crafted as some other recent horror films ('The Descent', 'Severance') it is better than the first and is sure not to disappoint many of the fans of the genre who will go see it for what it is: a sick, twisted, demented splatter-fest. However, unlike with other genre films, these are all GOOD qualities that the fans crave!

(Note: 'Hostel' received **1/2 out of **** from Jeff)

'Vacancy' review

Rating: *** out of ****

Nimród Antal's 'Vacancy' is a minimalist thriller in the tradition of Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', with a few dashes of 'Psycho' thrown in. I want to stop right here and adamantly illustrate that I am NOT saying this film is within the same level of quality as those masterpieces - far from it. However, some elements of the story and the ways in which the directors utilize their small, claustrophobic sets are somewhat similar. Moving on.

'Vacancy' stars A-listers Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale as Amy and David Fox, a couple on the verge of a divorce who are traveling home on their way from Amy's parents' anniversary party. Along the way, we get glimpses of back-story including how they had a son together who died in a tragic accident and that Amy blames herself. David, however, accepts that it was an accident and deals with the pain. While driving, their car breaks down on a dark deserted road (a cliché I am willing to overlook) and they end up crashing overnight at the Pinewood Motel. The motel is inhabited by an overly friendly mechanic and a manager with a slight attitude. It is in the motel that things go terribly awry. David and Amy soon discover that they are about to become the victims in a snuff film, and a game of cat and mouse ensues in which they must escape the motel. This proves more difficult than expected, as the captors control every aspect of the motel and have enough hidden cameras to see their every move.

What helps 'Vacancy' work is how tight the film is. It clocks in at a mere 1 hour and 25 minutes, and while this could prove lacking in some films, the brief run-time is exactly what it needs and uses it well. The movie builds a momentum and keeps it, hardly letting up. Another plus is how violence was not used as a crutch. Often times, filmmakers fall back on violence, substituting it for story or real suspense. Antal could have easily copped-out and fallen back on gore as a crutch but relied on actual thrills, not just a splatter show. It was also good to see villains that were not super-villains. I see so many movies where the killers are 'real' people and yet they continuously get back up, survive and keep going - even after getting shot, stabbed, etc. I liked how the killers were real people and were not invincible. When these people get hurt, they stay down - and with that, Antal was able to sidestep clichés like the 'killer gets back up for one last scare', which he did not do (though he had many an opportunity).

'Vacancy' had its down notes though. The attempt at back-story was weak and Kate Beckinsale seemed useless next to Luke Wilson who pulls off panic quite believably. All Beckinsale seemed to do was cry, scream and whimper. You can really tell that she was hired on for her star power and to attract an audience. Clearly, the film did not need a high paying lead actress like her in the role - kind of a waste of money. If they were going to shell out for an A-lister, they should have written a better character that deserves one.

Still, 'Vacancy' offers some decent thrills and good performances while using very little resources when compared to many of the new, big-budget horror thrillers. I have seen this little movie described as 'Psycho meets Saw'. Sounds about right.

'SiCKO' review

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy."
- Bruce Wayne/Batman

I am sure it seems unusual to open a review for a hard-hitting documentary with a quote from Batman, but it is actually quite fitting. It seems that Batman and Michael Moore have two things in common: they are both looked upon by many as exaggerations or caricatures, and they both have a flair for using dramatics and theatricality to make a point.

'SiCKO', the new documentary by Moore, examines the U.S. Health Care System - as well as those from several other countries - and begs the question, "Why has America not adopted a universal health care system if so many other countries have proven that it can work?" The quick answer is because the American Health Care system is a business like any other, and their #1 priority is to make money, and shelling it out to heal people is not considered cost-effective. To build this argument, Moore takes us from the U.S. to Canada, France and even Cuba, comparing medical systems along the way, trying to find out exactly why the U.S. is ranked #37 in the world in terms of health care...just above Slovenia. The most dramatic example is when he takes a boat-load of 9/11 rescue workers - who now suffer the physical and psychological repercussions of their actions - to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba so that they may receive the same universal health care that the U.S. government gives Al-Qaeda terrorists. I will not divulge all information, but I will say it is shocking to see the differences between the health care system of the world’s richest nation and that of a supposed third world nation.

'SiCKO' may not have the wit and spark of 'Bowling For Columbine', which can make it feel a bit lagging at times, but thankfully it also doesn't contain the partisan rhetoric of 'Fahrenheit 9/11', which may make it Moore's most effective documentary to date. He seems to have stepped down off his soapbox a bit, if not entirely. There is a sense of a subdued arrogance here, which is a sign of a maturing filmmaker. What makes the film work so well is that he is not asking people to pick a side, but consider an issue and really examine what it is that’s going on. It is not about Democratic or Republican, but right or wrong. Its down side is that he does not, for one minute, allow an opening for a rebuttal or opposing argument. That may be a moot point, as by now we should all know what to expect from a Moore documentary - it is his film, his opinion and his argument he wants us to consider, not theirs. If you want their side of the story, go watch their movie. He is biased as hell, but he does not try to hide that fact.

Michael Moore has been called everything from a genius to anti-American, pundit to extremist. I will admit that I am not always a fan of his over-the-top, often-questionable methods, but both his topics and methods spark debates and I cannot ever see that being a bad thing. As long as people are talking about these issues rather than not, than I say by any means necessary. If people need dramatic example, than Moore sure brings it.