Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) - Theatrical Review

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pulman, Liam Hemsworth, Maika Monroe, Vivica A. Fox

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 120 min

1996's Independence Day (ID4) is, in my opinion, an undeniably flawed, but hugely entertaining blockbuster. Whereas previous ground breaking blockbusters like Jaws and Star Wars offered escapist entertainment with complex characters and haute tension, ID4 simplified everything down to a point that can be described as safe escapist entertainment with oodles of comedic relief and special effects galore. Although ID4 features some fairly solid filmmaking courtesy of director Roland Emmerich, he still cannot match the likes of Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, as he seems to only use his characters as conduits for stories about worldwide destruction. Ever since Emmerich began his fetish for destruction with ID4, he has always challenged himself as to how much destruction he can depict within his films. From Godzilla, to The Day After Tomorrow, to 2012, to White House Down, Emmerich has always been obsessed with disaster epics.

But Independence Day: Resurgence (ID4:R) represents a new low for Emmerich, a filmmaker who used to be somewhat reliable as far as blockbuster devastation came. Not only is the sequel more ridiculous and absurd than the previous, but it fails to deliver the believable character relationships and affective pacing that makes the original still so affective to this day. There's no denying it, the original ID4 is an iconic film, based mainly upon its destructive imagery, but also upon its ability to make stars out of its actors. Whether you want to admit it or not, ID4 was the biggest film of 1996, and one that is still celebrated every Fourth of July. But let me tell you, no one is going to be celebrating ID4:R ever, let alone remembering it even came out by next month. ID4:R might as well be the biggest budgeted SyFy Channel television movie ever made, as it features the horrendous plotting and inept character work of their low budget turds. Coupled along with some absurd science fiction imagery and laughable green screens that will make anyone snicker in their seat, ID4:R is one of the laziest sequels ever to be produced by a major Hollywood studio.

I wish we lived in a world where we could shrug off damage like this like it's nothing.

If you've seen the posters or the trailers, I don't even need to tell you what happens next. But alas, I will. Since the previous alien invasion of 1996 (they even refer to it as the War of '96 in a desperate effort to expand the ID4 mythos), Earth has settled its differences to unify together and prepare for a possible response attack from the aliens. Twenty years later, Earth has harnessed the aliens' technology to create weapons and vehicles in preparation for their eventual return. They even created a base on the moon in order to spot them as soon as they arrive. When the aliens do arrive, which is more of an expected story beat and hardly a surprise to any one at all (it's almost as if they've read the script), they arrive in only one ship this time with a far simpler and like minded purpose, drill to the center of the Earth in order to absorb the Earth's molten energy and leave it for dead. But these aliens messed with the wrong planet! Because we've got Will Sm...Jessie Usher! And we won't go down without a fight!

Independence Day: Resurgence is this year's Terminator: Genisys, a long delayed sequel to a generation defining franchise that pales in comparison to its predecessor and proves that certain intellectual properties (IP) are no longer as "cool" as they used to be. But while the Terminator series has slowly but surely pumped out a sequel every eight or so years, thereby keeping it somewhat relevant and within the public conscious, ID4:R arrives a whopping twenty years after the original film. While there has always been talk of a sequel, the amount of time that has passed since the first film had always convinced people that a sequel would never get made and that ID4 would always be a fun one-off in which the world triumphs over generic alien invaders. But lo and behold, Hollywood's desperation for marketable brand name and recognizable IP can make anything happen. When one looks at 20th Century Fox's lack of successful franchises and Emmerich's previous flop White House Down, ID4:R sure seemed like a safe sequel to green light in order to ensure both the studio and filmmakers' liveliness. Unfortunately, Fox and Emmerich will have to learn the hard way that previously successful IP's are no longer the box office juggernauts that they used to be. Not only does an Independence Day sequel released within 2016 scream "desperate," but also "lame."

Jeff Goldblum and Baby Thor stare in awe at the aliens.

The poster's tagline, "We had twenty years to prepare. So did they," might as well state, "We had twenty years to prepare for this sequel. This is all we could come up with," because ID4:R is essentially ID4 all over again but with less imagination and humanity. It's almost shocking that the film has a whopping five (!) credited screenwriters, and that two of those screenwriters are actually characters within the film! Who the heck are these guys and why is Emmerich giving them the time of day like this? Anyways, ID4:R also shares the same flaws as this year's absymal, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, in that the film takes no time to introduce its characters or bother with exposition. It simply throws you right into the mix and expects you to accept everything as it is. While ID4 is regarded as a science fiction film, the only science fiction aspects are the invading aliens. Everything else is fairly real world and grounded in how our planet would react to such an attack. However, ID4:R's future world is quite shocking, as the entire planet is now entirely sci-fi based, thereby removing all similarities to real life or even the original film. To simply throw the viewer into such a world, barely give them an update, and hope they accept it without asking any questions, is not only world shaking, but dare I say, even comical.

After watching both ID4 and ID4:R within close proximity to each other, I realized just how well made the original ID4 is. For starters, ID4:R has a major pacing issue, as every plot point, character moment, and action beat is utterly rushed to the point where it almost feels shocking how quickly the scenes transition with one another. What's that? You were just starting to enjoy the level of destruction the alien ship was causing on Earth? Too bad, we're moving on. What's that? You want to lament the death of that character? Too bad, we're moving on. When I first saw that the sequel was only two hours long, a whopping twenty five minutes shorter than the original, I let out a sigh of relief for its somewhat brief run time. But alas, it turns out that all of that missing screen time was necessary in order to provide the film with its much needed build up. 

Speaking of build up, ID4:R has none of it. Much the same way that the film throws the viewer into its world with nary any exposition, the aliens show up and are physically presented on the screen as if it were no big deal. It's a shame, because the original film had such excellent build up and treated the aliens as if they were these awe-inspiring and menacing creatures instead of just the lifeless computer generated presence that they are in the sequel. This brings up another problem, in that the aliens are computer generated (CG) throughout the entire film. Besides one practical shot of an alien's foot (Oh Emmerich, you spoil us), the aliens are always CG and always bland. They're simply, well, there.

Another problem with the sequel is that there are simply too many characters and sub-plots to do justice within a two hour run time. ID4 already flirted with this issue, having a plethora of characters without much to do and an entire sub-plot involving Randy Quaid's character that only pays off at the film's end. However, ID4:R kicks this flaw into overdrive, with not only all of the returning cast members, but also far too many inconsequential and flat characters, especially the two who are also screenwriters. It would take a long long time for me to write about every single one of these characters, as there are a lot, but I'll single out a few who are deserved of praise. The only actors who come out of the picture unschated are Jeff Goldblum and Brent Spiner, who are both returning players. While every other actor, including the filmmakers themselves, play the film extremely straight and take the subject matter way too seriously, Goldblum and Spiner seem to understand the ridiculousness of it all and play the picture with a bubbly and joyous energy that is absent in everyone else. Star Trek: Next Generation fans will be pleased to see Spiner score more screen time here than even in the original.

Come on! How can you not laugh at this!

Many people have pointed out that without Will Smith, who is sorely missed, the sequel lacks a "cool" and relatable human character to ground and carry the adventure with. While this is entirely true, it seems that Liam Hemsworth's character is apparently Emmerich's replacement for this likable human lead. I enjoy his tie to the former President's daughter, which thereby ties him to Bill Pullman and the original picture, but Hemsworth is as flat and generic as they come. Even the President's daughter, played by Maika Monroe, who was excellent in two of contemporary indie horror's greatest films, The Guest and It Follows, comes off especially flat. Seriously, there isn't a single interesting human character in this film, let alone a likable or believable relationship to go along with said characters. It's a shame that Jeff Goldblum and Judd Hirsch's characters, who are father and son, are kept separated until the very end, because their relationship produces a few honest to goodness laughs towards the end that breathes some much needed life into an otherwise bland sequel.

By the way, character deaths are borderline comical. Two major characters, who shall remained unnamed, are killed off so quickly and suddenly, that I honestly couldn't believe how blatant their deaths were. However, Emmerich makes sure to give Spiner's lab assistant friend significant mourning time right after his death. You know, because he was such a lovable character in the first place. Overall, don't come to ID4:R expecting good character work, because it's non-existent.

The original ID4 won an Academy Award for Best Special Effects, and deservedly so. The reason ID4 won an award and is so fondly remembered is because it combined every special effects technique possible to great effect. The film's alien ships, aliens, and explosive devastation was depicted not only through CG effects, which were just taking over Hollywood in the 90s, but also animatronics, miniatures, and practical costumes. ID4 was the final dying breath of classic special effects work. Which now brings me to ID4:R, a film entirely devoid of the creativity and ingenuity found in the original. Not only are all of the aliens and ships CG, but terrible green screens permeate many shots. The digital and nonsensical destruction is so over the top and artificial, that there is no possible way that me or any viewer could possibly take the damage seriously. One shot (pictured above) in which Dubai's the Burj flies through the air and lands in London is near tear inducing. It's one of the funniest things that I have seen all year.

"Earth is not for the taking!"

Overall, there are no surprises here. Besides a second alien species that shamelessly sets up a sequel (which I somewhat want because it will be absurd) and a finale in which a giant alien queen chases Goldblum and friends around in a bus (no joke), everything is as expected. The only time the film becomes fresh and watchable is when it steers away from the boring "been there done that" territory of the original for a ridiculous finale in which a giant alien queen runs around with a laser gun. Although I tore ID4:R to shreds, it is without a doubt one of the most enjoyably schlocky blockbusters to come along in a long time. Nowadays, with how horrendous blockbusters tend to be, simply being not boring is an achievement in and of itself. But in all seriousness, this is not a good sequel, nor a good movie. I recommend getting drunk or getting a group of friends together to laugh at it, but otherwise, look elsewhere for legitimate sci-fi entertainment, because you won't find it here.

Rating: 3/10 - Although devoid of creativity, utterly rushed, and over stuffed with more characters than an ensemble romantic comedy, ID4:R is laughable science fiction schlock from beginning to end.

Franchise:
Independence Day (Roland Emmerich, 1996)
Independence Day: Resurgence (Roland Emmerich, 2016)

Speed (1994) - Review

Director: Jan de Bont

Cast: Keanu Reeves, Dennis Hopper, Sandra Bullock, Joe Morton

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 115 min

Most Die Hard rip-offs are enjoyable in how they inhabit the shell of the Die Hard plot whilst offering up new settings and interesting action sequences. Under Siege offers up Steven Seagal's Aikido styled action on a battleship, Sudden Death places Jean Claude Van Damme and his charisma into a hockey arena, Air Force One makes Harrison Ford the President of the United States while upon a plane, and Olympus Has Fallen reverses the situation by making Gerard Butler a Secret Serviceman while inside of the White House. Although all of these movies are rip-offs of one of the all time great action films, they are still fun to watch for how shallow and entertaining they are. The key differences that set apart the rip-offs from Die Hard itself is their lack of interesting characters, failure to focus on story over plot, and an all around lack of tension or suspense. You don't watch Under Siege or Sudden Death to see if Seagal or Van Damme are going to stop the terrorists, you watch them simply to see how they take out the terrorists. Therefore, both the filmmakers and the viewers engage in a guilty relationship in which both know they are neither going to recreate, duplicate, or experience the successes of John McTiernan's masterpiece.

That being said, I think that Speed might by the only Die Hard rip-off that transcends its sub-genre and influences to the point where it nearly matches Die Hard for all of its action sensibilities, high tension, engaging romance, and memorable characters. Although I would not go as far as to say that Speed is as good or better than Die Hard, as Keanu Reeve's Jack Traven is no John McClane, just about every element of Speed matches Die Hard on a pure visceral and entertainment level. Speed not only certified Keanu Reeves' place in the halls of action cinema, but it also introduced director Jan de Bont to American audiences and certified Sandra Bullock as a movie star in her own right. With over $300 million worldwide and two Academy Awards under its belt, Speed is the perfect success story in every way possible. And it's a rip-off, sort of.

Not the best way to start off a shift.

Although I am not a fan of plot, as character should always drive story, Speed has one of the all time great movie plots. Jack Traven (Keanu Reeves), an L.A.P.D. Officer, picks a bone with psychopathic ex-cop, Howard Payne (Dennis Hopper), when he stops him from blowing up an elevator full of people and prevents him from receiving his ransom money. Although Traven believes the ordeal to be over, his partner, Harry Temple (Jeff Daniels), believes that Payne will strike back again. Payne decides to engage in a game with Traven the next day when he calls him and informs him that a bus on the freeway is in danger of blowing up. The game: once the bus goes over 50 miles per hour, the bomb is armed. If the bus goes under 50 miles per hour, the bomb will blow. And if anyone tries to get off of the bus, it will blow. Once Traven makes his way onto the moving bus full of people, he and Annie Porter (Sandra Bullock), an adorable citizen turned bus driver, do their best to keep everyone calm and communicate with the police in order to keep the bus moving at all times and to get Payne his ransom money. It's non-stop action for two hours. You literally could not ask for more as an action fan.

At the time of its release, Speed heralded the arrival of the hottest new voice in action cinema. De Bont, who had been a cinematographer for decades, had strong experience in the film business before tackling Speed. He had previously photographed such action films as Die Hard, Lethal Weapon 3, Black Rain, The Hunt for Red October, and Total Recall. With such quality films like those under his belt, it only makes sense that De Bont knocked Speed out of the park with excellent direction that even the likes of his fellow compadres John McTiernan and Paul Veerhoven would tip their hats too. De Bont showcases incredible directorial abilities here, crafting both inherent tension, exciting action, and engaging romance all within the same picture. It's hard to believe that this is the same director whose career would end as soon as it began, but de Bont's direction for Speed is still exemplary and outstanding, especially for a debut filmmaker.

After the success of Speed, De Bont directed Twister, another hugely successful action/disaster film that certified his action dominance. Unfortunately, De Bont's directorial career ended just as quickly as it begun, as he immediately ruined his career with 1997's Speed 2: Cruise Control, one of the worst reviewed films in cinematic history. Failure after failure followed, as De Bont went on to direct similarly cheesy films such as The Haunting and Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. 

De Bont has to yet to direct another film since 2003, which might as well confirm his departure from blockbuster cinema once and for all. While it's a shame that de Bont's career ended early, I find his career very interesting. If it weren't for Speed 2, de Bont easily could have gone on to become a major A-list director. One could even compare de Bont's minor success to other Dutch filmmaker Paul Veerhoven, whose most successful films, RoboCop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers, are still considered to be some of the greatest of the action genre, while the rest of his career is lukewarm and forgettable. It's no coincidence that both of these Dutch filmmakers collaborated on Basic Instinct and Total Recall, as each had a unique vision at the time that seemed to flourish in the Hollywood of the early 1990s. And while we're on the subject of foreign filmmakers turned Hollywood directors, how can de Bont be put into director's jail after all of these years, but Finnish director Renny Harlin is still allowed to make whatever action film he wants? Have you guys seen The Covenant or The Legend of Hercules? I rest my case.

Reeves brings the chops to one of his greatest action films.

According to screenwriter Graham Yost, Speed's plot was meant to be an amalgamation of Silver Streak and Runaway Train, but with the high tension of a Die Hard picture. There's no denying it, few movie plots are as exciting and thrilling as one about a runaway vehicle that cannot be stopped, lest it explode. While Speed may be his calling card, Yost would eventually go on to write other big concept blockbusters involving terrorists, bombs, and Die Hard centric plots like John Woo's underrated Broken Arrow and the waterlogged Hard Rain. However, his Speed screenplay is made all the better because of the witty repertoire courtesy of cult favorite Joss Whedon (Firefly, The Avengers). Whedon was apparently responsible for 95% of the dialog according to Yost, as Yost felt that Whedon knew how to write dialog better than him. Therefore, Speed's excellent script can be chocked up to both Whedon, who knew how to write characters, and Yost, who knew how to place said characters into an exciting situation.

All of Whedon's witty dialog and Yost's tense situations play off of the page as well as they do because of the film's stellar cast. Reeves plays Jack Traven, a John McClane type police officer who puts his life on the line for the innocent people of Los Angeles. Although Reeves had previously shown his action chops in Kathryn Bigelow's Point Break, he shows great stride here as a far more intense and confident action hero that showcases his best acting abilities. Much like McClane, Traven takes a lot of pain and physical suffering throughout the picture, thereby making him a much more relatable and cheer worthy protagonist. It's a real treat to watch a likable hero constantly overcome hurdles, as it makes the viewing experience all the more tense and excitable. Reeves may not be one of the greatest actors on the planet, but his stalwart dedication and professionalism within his performances has proven him time and time again as one of the screen's greatest action heroes.

The other pair of lead performances from Hopper as the film's psychotic mad man and Bullock as the funny and adorable bus driver are also stellar. Hopper's Payne engages in a great revenge rivalry with Traven that makes his villain all the more fun to hate. It's easily Hopper's best villain performance this side of the 90s. Bullock gives a star making performance here, exploding off the screen with a great repertoire with Reeves. Even the smaller supporting performances shine, especially from Jeff Daniels and Joe Morton (T2, Executive Decision) as Traven's fellow officers. 

"You actually paid to see the Super Mario Bros Movie?"

And of course, who can forget all of the passengers on the buss, who become memorable players in their own right. Yost and de Bont place a great emphasis on the interactions between these smaller supporting characters and the police in order to drum up a great sense of community throughout the picture. You'll find yourself cheering along with the passengers for every small victory they achieve, whether it be in the form of them making a tight turn or jumping an impossible gap. If you ever need your faith restored in humanity through an action film, pop on Speed, as well as Die Hard With a Vengeance for good measure.

Speed has the characters, the script, and the plot to hook any cinema goer, but the whole thing comes together thanks to its exhilarating cinematic style. One of the most over used lines to describe a good action film is, "It's a non-stop thrill ride!" While that is rarely the case, as many action films take lengthy breaks in between suspenseful sequences, Speed is truly a non-stop thrill ride in every sense of the phrase. There are a whopping two scenes of breather in between each major action plot, thereby making the entire experience as action packed as they come. 

For a film with almost no shootouts, no henchmen, one villain, and a minimal body count, Speed is still more exciting and bad ass than most Die Hard rip-offs. De Bont extracts as much action and tension as possible out of the film in order to make up for the lack of superficial action entertainment that one would find in most action films. Examples include Reeves trying to get onto the bus while on a busy freeway, a criminal shooting the bus driver which causes Bullock to take over, ramming the bus into parked cars, moving everyone to a side of the bus in order to make a tight turn, and forcing the bus into a situation where it must jump a ridiculous gap that no vehicle could make. All of these tense moments are made all the greater thanks to composer Marc Mancina's excellent score, the one key ingredient that even Die Hard itself is missing. You'll have this score stuck in your head for days after watching the film, and most likely while you are driving down the road.

How about that second date?

At the beginning of this review, I stated that Speed is the best of the Die Hard rip-offs because it's only partially a rip-off. While the main bus plot may resemble Die Hard beat for beat, the initial elevator hostage situation and closing subway train face off prove that there is more than just an exploding bus plot at the center of this film. Speed has three movies worth of entertainment within it, and two of these three movie plots are merely bookends. If you take into account the romantic sub-plot as well, Speed offers up more entertainment than ten films combined, and it's merely two hours long. 

Rediscovering Speed after all of these years has been a real pleasure, as the film should be mentioned alongside the grandest of action pictures from the 90s more often. My theory for the film's minimal discussion is most likely due to its lack of old fashioned action tropes (i.e. muscled bound hero, big guns, massive body count, etc). However, Speed more than makes up for said tropes with the key elements that make up a great film nonetheless, such as an engaging plot, memorable characters, and fantastic action sequences. 

Rating: 10/10 - A stupendous summer blockbuster that proves that small scaled plots with inherent tension will always be more exciting than any grand scaled epic.

Franchise:

Speed (Jan de Bont, 1994)

Speed 2: Cruise Control (Jan de Bont, 1997)

Summer 2015 - In Review

As the summer movie season winds down, I thought that I would revisit some of its biggest action blockbusters in order to see how the summer stood up when viewed in retrospect. This will also give me a chance to talk about some action films that I did not get around to reviewing on the blog.

The Fast and Furious Avengers

While bigger films like Kingsman: The Secret Service gave audiences their summer thrills early on in the year, the summer didn't truly get off to a start until Furious 7 dropped on April 1st. It was the first real blockbuster of the season and the first of three films this summer to cross $1 billion internationally. Even though the film received solid reviews and every teenager went to see it, I personally found the film to be an enjoyable but immensely flawed blockbuster. Furious 7 features not only one of the most confounding plots in recent history, but also three of the longest action scenes I have seen in recent memory. While the film features great stunts here and there, the film as a whole is mostly forgettable. Appearances by action-gurus Jason Statham, Kurt Russell, Tony Jaa, as well as Paul Walker's touching farewell, were the highlights of the film.

Marvel Studios than struck back with their highly anticipated sequel, Avengers: Age of Ultron. The film was a huge success, but failed to out gross even Furious 7. While comic book geeks apparently enjoyed the film, I found Avengers to be this summer's worst success. The sequel was extremely uneventful and incredibly boring. Almost every actor, including Robert Downey Jr., phoned in lousy performances into a film plagued by studio interference. The over abundant characters and immensely long finale showed that Marvel can no longer make an exciting event film. The first Avengers film was a fun and charming superhero film that told a story and felt important in the Avengers saga. This entry however is a throwaway adventure that had little to no effect on the team at all, minus the introduction of The Vision. Even though Disney and Marvel have perfected the formula for instant movie success, they seem to have sacrificed artistic creativity and uniqueness in the process.

The true King and Queen of the Summer, Max and Furiosa.

Fortunately, the action Gods smiled upon all of us at the end of May when George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road dropped. Miller's Mad Max reboot quickly gained praise by action fans and movie critics alike as one of the greatest action films in recent years, as well as of all time. Whereas Furious 7 and Age of Ultron were plagued by heavily computer generated stunts and lousy finales, Mad Max dropped the mic with its incredible practical stunt work (as well as its minimal computer work) and thrilling action scenes. The opening set piece alone was better than the entirety of Avengers and Furious 7 put together. I already reviewed Fury Road and gave it a perfect ten. Therefore, it should come as no surprise when I declare it the best blockbuster of the summer at the end of this retrospective.

I didn't see San Andreas, the next big blockbuster of the summer, so I can't really give an opinion on that film at all. I guess the disaster genre classifies as action? The Rock's inclusion also strengthens its action pedigree. Anyways, I doubt people will be remembering the film at all come next year.

The biggest hit of the entire summer was surprisingly Universal's Jurassic World, the fourth Jurassic Park film. Jurassic World doesn't exactly classify as an action film either, as it is more of a sci-fi/adventure film. However, I think that I would be remiss to not discuss the biggest hit of the summer, and possibly of the year until Star Wars comes out. Jurassic World was a pretty fun blockbuster because it was something different apart from all of the superhero films that typically dominate the summer. Plus, it was nice to see dinosaurs rule the box office once again. Although plagued by the same problems as Furious 7 and Age of Ultron (cheap humor, forgettable characters, overlong run time), Jurassic World was still a fun and occasionally smart blockbuster that brought monster mayhem back to the big screen.

The former King of the Summer is now the Joke of the Summer.

Summer's next blockbuster was arguably one of its worst, Terminator: Genisys. This reboot-quel of the Terminator saga will most likely go down as being my least favorite film of the entire year. It's truly sad to see the Terminator saga go from being the most influential and successful action franchise since the 80s and 90s turn into a joke of a series in the 2010s. Alan Taylor and Arnold Schwarzenegger should be ashamed of themselves for churning out such an awful and overly complicated blockbuster that does nothing but piss off hardcore fans of the series. I can honestly say that the Terminator series was one of my favorite franchises of all time before Genisys's release. However, I don't know how I can continue to support Arnold and the Terminator if this is what I have to put up with. If you want to see more details as to why I disliked this film so much, check out my review. Otherwise, steer clear of this embarrassing film that gives a bad name to science fiction.

I made a bold decision not to see summer's next big blockbuster, Ant-Man. Even though the film received good reviews and made money, I was too badly burned by Age of Ultron's mediocrity to give Marvel another dollar of mine. I'm sure it's a fun film, but I simply skipped it over due to my fear of Marvel's generic pedigree. I may catch it somewhere down the line, but have no plans to rush out and catch it any time soon.

The action Gods than shined upon us one last time this summer with Christopher McQuarrie's Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation. The latest M:i adventure was not only one of its greatest, but also the most mature and complex. It was a globe trotting adventure filled with numerous scenes of suspense befitting the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and Brian De Palma. I will give the film a full and proper review once it comes out on home video, but trust me for now when I say that the sequel is quite honestly the best M:i yet and the best old fashioned action film of the summer.

Cruise and friends brought their A-game once again.

M:i:5 was honestly the summer's last big blockbuster in terms of sheer scale and entertainment value. Everything to come after it was either low profile or poorly reviewed. I have no intent on watching the latest Fantastic Four after reading its awful reviews and discovering that the film has a whopping single action scene. I also missed out on The Man From U.N.C.L.E., but plan on catching the film eventually, as Guy Ritchie knows how to put together a fun action film. And as for Hitman: Agent 47, I simply can watch a kill count video of the film once it reaches YouTube.

In all honesty, I found myself profoundly disappointed with the summer blockbuster season this year. Mad Max: Fury Road and Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation were the only memorable films of the few major blockbusters that I cared about. Furious 7 was decent, Age of Ultron was average, Jurassic World was alright, and Terminator was a piece of crap. As far as action adventure films go, this was one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons yet. 

This summer also revealed some interesting facts about today's movie going society. For starters, team centric films that travel the globe dominate blockbuster plots. Furious 7, Age of Ultron, and M:i:5 all feature teams who travel across the globe at various points throughout the film's run time. The summer season also revealed that audiences no longer care about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once the king of the summer back in the late 80s and early 90s, Arnold is now a relic of his younger self. Generic audiences turned out in droves for Vin Diesel and Dwayne The Rock Johnson, but not for ol' Arnie. 

And even though M:i:5 was successful, it wasn't a massive hit. Therefore, you could say that even Tom Cruise is no longer as popular as he used to be. Although, Cruise has stayed relevant throughout all of his career unlike Arnold. And finally, guns and stunts are no longer enough for audiences. They want superheroes and dinosaurs. Even though both Mad Max and M:i:5 featured plenty of gun play, car chases, and were the two best action films of the summer, they did not dominate the box office. Instead, mediocre to decent films like Age of Ultron and Jurassic World owned the planet.

Terminator-a-Thon, Part 2 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, Robert Patrick

Country: United States
Rating: R
Run Time: 137 minutes

Making the leap from The Terminator to Terminator 2: Judgment Day is a truly jarring one even after all of these years. Whereas The Terminator was a surprise low budget indie hit, Terminator 2 was an anticipated summer blockbuster event with a massive $100 million budget. Cameron took the same basic premise of The Terminator and amped up both the stakes and the spectacle in order to deliver one of the greatest sequels of all time. Terminator 2 is the ultimate success story. It is an action film so captivating that it became the highest grossing film of 1991, delighted critics with its complex characters and deep themes, and wowed members of the Academy, earning it a whopping four Academy Awards.

Action fans typically regard Terminator 2 as the greatest action film of all time and still do to this day. Whenever it appears on a list of the greatest action films of all time, Terminator 2 is always the film to contend against Die Hard, Hard Boiled, Raiders of the Lost Ark, RoboCop, and The Road Warrior for the top spot. If you have not seen Terminator 2 before, stop reading this review and go watch the damn thing already. Terminator 2 is the reason we keep watching action films. It IS the action genre.

"Welcome to the 90s."

Terminator 2 opens by treating the viewer to another harrowing vision of the future in which mankind battles against SkyNet and its murderous machines. Frustrated at their loss after the events of The Terminator, SkyNet sends an even more powerful Terminator, a T-1000 (Robert Patrick) to be exact, back in time to 1995 in order to kill John Connor directly. However, John Connor and the resistance counter SkyNet's attack by reprogramming a T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and sending it back in time to 1995 in order to protect John from the new and more powerful Terminator. Cameron pulls a real switcheroo on the audience by turning one of the all time great villains, the T-800, into one of the all time great heroes of bad ass cinema.

When John and the T-800 meet, they decide to free Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) from her incarceration at a mental institution. The trio than heads to CyberDyne systems, all the while combatting the unstoppable T-1000, in order to destroy the evidence of the T-800's arm and chip from The Terminator so that SkyNet can never exist. In doing so, the trio will prevent Judgment Day from ever occurring and secure humanity's safety. Talk about a blockbuster plot. Terminator 2 amps up the set pieces and builds upon the original's mythology in order to deliver a bigger sequel that movie goers expect from a second go around within the Terminator franchise.

The opening credits of T2 are utterly bad ass. Brad Fiedel's score, which has been amped up to a full blown orchestra now, plays over slow motion shots of a burning play ground. While these credits do the job of reintroducing the main Terminator theme and naming all of the important players behind the scenes, it also hammers homes the film's themes of lost innocence and impending nuclear doom. James Cameron is such an accomplished filmmaker that he captures the tone and emotional heft of his film within the opening credits for goodness sakes. 

Stan Winston's Terminators are a geek's dream come true.

Terminator 2 is so similar to The Terminator that one could argue that it is a loose remake a-la Evil Dead 2. It has the same basic plot, similar lines, expected story beats, and even duplicated shots. A break down of the film's plot reveals just how similar the two films are: Two men from the future are sent back in time, one to kill *insert first name here* Connor and the other to protect *insert first name here* Connor. The good guys run from said evil Terminator, eventually take on some cops in the second act, and engage in a freeway chase with the evil Terminator that culminates in a showdown at a steel factory. Even though I left out Terminator 2's details, that is the exact same plot as The Terminator. 

However, I must stress that Terminator 2 is not a lazy rehash of its predecessor (that'll be Terminator 3, thank you). Instead, the film duplicates the original's basic plot but leans more towards blockbuster action. Whereas The Terminator was horrifying, Terminator 2 is exciting and crowd pleasing. It has more special effects, more humor, and even less of a body count. It plays more towards younger audiences thanks to the absence of graphic violence and sex. However, T2 is still a bad ass film filled with bad language and occasional gory kills. After all, Terminator 2 is consistently regarded as one of the greatest action films of all time. Therefore, understand that the main reason that Terminator 2 gets away with duplicating its predecessor's plot is because its tone and budget are radically different to the point where the film feels like an entirely new experience.

Terminator 2's extreme similarity to The Terminator started a tradition within the franchise where every sequel to follow began incorporating shots from the original film and doing unique variations on its iconic dialog as well. Lines like "I'll be back" and "Come with me if you want to live" have since appeared in almost every Terminator film in one variation or another. However, Terminator 2 is the only Terminator film to introduce and contain the ultra famous "Hasta la vista, baby" line by Schwarzenegger. And for those who are curious, I think Arnie's delivery of the line, followed by the destruction of the T-1000, is the most bad ass moment in the film.

As I stated already, Terminator 2 leans more towards action than it does horror. The action scenes in Terminator 2 are absolutely bad ass and breath taking; from the canal road chase, to the escape from the mental hospital, to the break in at CyberDyne systems, to the final freeway chase and the ensuing T-800 vs. T-1000 face off. T2 is an action fan's dream come true thanks to its practical vehicle chases, bad ass gun fights, and gripping one on one face offs. Terminator 2 puts the thrill back into the 'chase movie' and cements itself as one of the most thrilling and gripping action films to date.

Poor Don Stanton. Or is it Dan Stanton?

While the special effects in The Terminator can be seen as dated and charming, the opposite is to be said about Terminator 2's special effects. Terminator 2 is a film that will stand the test of time thanks to its perfect integration of miniatures, computer generated graphics, animatronics, body doubles, and stop motion effects. It's clear that Cameron and Winston used every trick in the book when they made T2.

Whereas The Terminator was the perfect time capsule of the 80s, Terminator 2 is the perfect time capsule of the 90s. From John's Public Enemy t shirt, to his Guns N Roses record "You Could Be Mine," to Industrial Light and Magic's early CGI, to the practical stunts, to Arnold Schwarzenegger looking his best, to even the fact that it was one of the highest grossing movies of the 1990s. This. Was. The. 90s. (See how I did that and wrote that paragraph like the one in my other Terminator review? I guess I have a little James Cameron in me).

Terminator 2 is also an excellent sequel because it is a natural continuation of the themes introduced in the first film. T2 hammers home the message that there is no fate but what me make in life. This theme goes hand in hand with the film's belief that the future is not set in stone (at least until Terminator 3, hey oh). Much like The Back to the Future trilogy, Cameron's Terminator films have a positive outlook on the fate of the future even if they exist in a world where machines eventually take over.

Linda Hamilton brings the pain and the badassery to the action genre.

Terminator 2 is a slam bam action masterpiece not only because it kicks ass, but because its characters are fully developed and their arcs explicit and believable. Few Academy Award winning dramas have character arcs and performances as great as the ones found here. The quadruple lead performances by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, and Robert Patrick are about as great as they come. Each actor gives more or less the performance of their career, with Arnold giving yet another masterful performance amongst his many starring roles.

I forgot to even mention that one of Cameron's masterstrokes with Terminator 2 is that he pulled the ultimate switcheroo on audiences by turning the T-800, one of the all time greatest villains, into one of the all time greatest heroes. In the future, John Connor eventually got ahold of one of the T-800s and reprogrammed it to do his bidding. Therefore, even though the T-800 looks exactly the same as the one from The Terminator, it is a completely new character with none of the same directives as the original. After all, I don't think you could make Arnold a villain in 1991. He was at the top of his game at the time and arguably the biggest movie star in the world. Therefore, it makes sense that Cameron turned the T-800 into a hero in order to reflect Arnold's good guy persona in the public lime light and the rest of his movies.

The T-800, while still robotic and stoic in nature, is now very likable, heroic, and funny. He makes for a great father figure for John too. Cameron even gives the Terminator a character arc for goodness sakes in which he comes to learn the value of human life even though he is not a human himself. This arc alone results in one of the most powerful and sad conclusions in film history. Few films are as bad ass and emotionally powerful as T2 is. Arnold is also the king of cool in this movie thanks to his stylish hair cut, awesome leather jacket, 1887 flip action shotgun, and sick motorcycle. None of his outfit looks dated. He will forever look bad ass.

How can you not love this guy?

The other jaw dropping performance of the film is by none other than franchise veteran Linda Hamilton as the new, improved, and slightly crazier Sarah Connor. Where as Sarah's warrior ways were hinted at by the end of T1, she is in full blown bad ass mode here. Unfortunately, Sarah has been driven so insane from her knowledge of the future that she has forgotten how to have a positive outlook on life and how to love her son. Over the course of the film, Sarah learns to become the loving mother that she never got to be and move past her obsessive protector ways that distanced her from her son in the first place. John also changes from a juvenile child to a mature young man ready to take on whatever the future holds for him. Edward Furlong gives one of the great child performances as John Connor and helps give Terminator 2 much of its comedic relief and accessibility for younger audiences.

While the American Film Institute may say that Arnie's T-800 from The Terminator is one of the all time great villains, I would argue that Robert Patrick's T-1000 is equal to or even greater than Arnold's villainous turn in The Terminator. Patrick gives the role of his career as the menacing and liquid metal T-1000, an unstoppable Terminator who can transform into any solid object and shape shift into anyone it sees. The T-1000 role was a huge opportunity for Patrick who had previously been seen getting shot up by John McClane in Die Hard 2 a year earlier. No longer relegated to being a word less henchman, Patrick was now the lead villain...who also had barely any words to say but that's besides the point.

The special effects used to create the T-1000 were groundbreaking at the time of the film's release, as computer graphics had never been seen on a level of believability like that before. I can honestly say the effects still hold up to this day and look better than all of the effects in Terminator 3, despite Stan Winston's involvement in both films. Stan Winston and Industrial Light and Magic will forever be remembered for the T-1000's perfect and monstrous design.

Possibly my favorite shot within the film.

I am so glad to have rediscovered Terminator 2's charms. If it were not for amazing sequels like Aliens, The Road Warrior, The Godfather Part II, and Empire Strikes Back, than Terminator 2 would probably be the greatest movie sequel of all time. While James Cameron may have proven his worth to cinema with The Terminator and Aliens in the 80s, he cemented his status as a master filmmaker with Terminator 2. James Cameron can go to his grave knowing he created several of the greatest science fiction films of all time and two of the greatest sequels as well. It's possible that Cameron could roll a turkey if the eventual Avatar 2 kicks ass, but we'll wait and see what happens with that. 

As for Terminator 2 though, I highly recommend this film and consider it to be one of the 10 greatest action films of all time. T2 is where where imagination, bad ass stunt work, and special effects perfectly blended to result in a film that the entire planet embraced in 1991 and still does to this day. For all intensive purposes, the Terminator saga ends here. T1 and T2 equal a perfect duo of science fiction entertainment that should have never been followed or continued. However, fate held nothing but trouble for the Terminator franchise, and it has been nothing but the doldrums since. 

Rating: 10/10 - Cameron's sequel is an action masterpiece; a film filled to the brim with great character work, jaw dropping stunts, and an overwhelming powerful story about there being no fate but what we create.

Franchise:

The Terminator (dir. James Cameron, 1984)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (dir. James Cameron, 1991)

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (dir. Jonathan Mostow, 2003)

Terminator: Salvation (dir. McG, 2009)

Terminator: Genisys (dir. Alan Taylor, 2015)

Furious 7 (2015) - Theatrical Review

Director: James Wan

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jason Statham, Michelle Rodriguez, Dwayne Johnson, Kurt Russell

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 137 minutes

Furious 7 had more hype surrounding it than any other Fast and Furious film before it. The previous entry, Fast and Furious 6, ended on a cliffhanger that finally caught the franchise up with The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift and set up a revenge filled seventh entry. If that wasn't enough to raise one's anticipation, tragedy struck when co-star Paul Walker died in the middle of production. Fans and the studio themselves were all left wondering what would happen to Furious 7 now that Paul Walker had died. After a year long delay and numerous reshoots, Furious 7 miraculously made it to theaters completed. 

Many people are singing the praises of Furious 7 as both one of the best of the series and the ultimate love letter to Paul Walker. While I agree that the film is the perfect tribute to Walker, I disagree that the film is one of the best of the series. In fact, I would say that this is a big step down from the highs of Fast Five and Fast and Furious 6. I personally believe that many people are letting their feelings for Walker's passing cloud their opinion of the film. I don't mean to come off as insensitive, but I couldn't help but think of the infamous Game of Death debacle while watching this film. The plot presented here is one of the most confounding and nonsensical plots in the franchise's history. Whether this is due to the original screenplay or the rewrites that resulted from Walker's passing, Furious 7 is a confounding mess of a sequel that is purely an excuse for various set pieces. That being said, Furious 7 is still a fun blockbuster that delivers numerous stunt-filled set pieces and bids farewell to the beloved Paul Walker.

Walker takes one last ride with his final on screen performance.

Oh boy, the plot. Furious 7 easily could have been a simple and straightforward revenge film with souped up cars and explosions. After all, this is why I thought James Wan (director of the straightforward revenge film, Death Sentence) directed the film in the first place. Unfortunately, the plot goes haywire within the first 30 minutes and never finds its footing again.

After the death of two significant team members in Fast and Furious 6, Dominic Torretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker), and friends find themselves in the crosshairs of Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham). Shaw wants vengeance for his brother's injuries during the finale of Fast and Furious 6. Before Shaw and Dom can throw down, Frank Petty (Kurt Russell) shows up and enlists Dom to help him find the God's Eye, a form of technology that allows one to locate anyone on the planet using cell phones and cameras. If Dom can get Frank the God's Eye, than Frank can get Shaw for Dom. However, Shaw repeatedly shows up to complicate Dom's opportunity to get the God's Eye every step of the way...which he needs to find Shaw...who shows up every time Dom tries to get the God's Eye anyway. Why do we have to put up with this ridiculous God's Eye plot when Shaw shows up every step of the way anyways!? You don't need the God's Eye Dom! Shaw always finds you! Just stand still and he'll show up!

This is Furious 7's biggest downfall: it's insane plot. It literally makes no sense whatsoever and I picked up on this during my first viewing, not after a second viewing or even hearing about the issue from someone else, so this isn't a minor nit pick. The only reason that the God's Eye plot is incorporated into the film is so that there is an excuse to transport our character's around the globe for various set pieces. I don't understand how Wan and screenwriter Chris Morgan could not have whipped up a more simplistic plot when the God's Eye is literally of no use to them. If Shaw keeps showing up, than they don't need this device to locate him! What ever happened to the basic revenge plot? This is not basic or simplistic at all. It is nothing but confusing, confounding, and convoluted. 

Diesel and Statham stare one another down.

This leads into the other major fault of the film: James Wan. I am sad to say it but James Wan is completely mismatched for this franchise. Even though I was excited for Wan's leap from low budget horror to big budget blockbuster, I didn't think that Wan would fail to understand the franchise as he did. Watching Furious 7 made me realize how accomplished a filmmaker Justin Lin was and how great his Fast installments were (installments three through six to be exact). Lin understood the franchise better than anyone else and knew how to balance the ridiculous excess with grounded character emotion and compact storytelling. Wan's Fast installment is plot driven from straight to finish, offering little to no time for the characters to breathe or act themselves until it comes time to say goodbye to Paul Walker. 

And even though Wan's installment is fast, fun, and entertaining, his failure to pace his action sequences well kills the film. That's the other problem with Wan, he knows no restraint. Lin's action sequences were short, compact, and edited in between lengthy character driven moments of his films. Lin understood restraint and knew that the action sequences would be nothing without significant character moments in between them. Wan on the other hand simply goes straight for the action and barely, and I mean barely, gives his characters a chance to act human in between the set pieces even though they launch their cars in between buildings and off of mountains.

Furious 7 is essentially three insanely long action sequences that run for far too long. Not counting small bursts of violence, the three massive set pieces of the film are a car chase down a winding mountain road, a vehicular heist inside of a skyscraper, and an all out war on the streets of Los Angeles. The all out war that ends the film must run for over 15 minutes. I didn't count, but I'll be damned if that isn't one of the longest action finales in cinematic history. I'll be honest by saying that the best action set piece in the film is the mountain road chase scene heavily advertised in the film's trailer. It's jam packed with stunts and a fight scene between Walker and Thai superstar Tony Jaa (Ong Bak), making his Hollywood debut. It also opens with our characters skydiving inside of their cars on to the top of the mountain, so you have to love that. There is also an awesome stunt where a henchman's car flies through the air and impales upon a spiked tree branch. It got a definite "oh!" out of me.

The furious team wind up in Abu Dhabi.

And while the Abu Dhabi heist in which Dom launches a car in between two buildings is pretty cool, the finale in which Dom and friends wage war against Shaw and generic bad guy Mose (Djimon Hounsou) is exhausting to watch. The sequence is filled with individual fights, shootouts, and chases that range from boring to exciting. There is simply too much going on in this finale to make sense of. Even the long awaited fight between Diesel and Statham, arguably two of contemporary action cinema's biggest icons, pales in comparison to everything else. I forgot to mention that there is a great fist fight between Statham and Dwayne Johnson at the beginning of the film as well. It completely slipped my mind. 

Still, there is some great visual eye candy in this finale, once again in the form of a fist fight between Walker and Jaa. This finale contains my personal favorite stunt of the film in which Jaa knees Walker into a door which they proceed to slide down a staircase on top of. It's absolutely awesome. Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) also shows up in the finale and steals the film from everyone else with some of the most hilarious and self aware dialog from the series yet. You'll be laughing along with Johnson once you see him snap his cast off like it's nothing. 

As far as the cast goes, all of the regulars do as fine a job as ever. Walker is unfortunately sidelined in favor of Dom's revenge plot against Shaw. I should probably mention that the digital effects and body doubles used for Paul Walker's incomplete scenes are pretty convincing. At least James Wan didn't resort to cardboard cut outs a-la Game of Death. Newcomer Jason Statham is great as the villain and adds a whole layer of epic bravado to the mix. Unfortunately, many of the supporting newcomers are completely devoid of character and barely even given names. Mosse is a generic villain, plain and simple, even though he is played by the great Hounsou. Jaa, an international action star in his own right, isn't even given a name or visual introduction. He simply appears on screen during the mountain chase. Rhonda Rousey also appears as a nameless bodyguard during the Abu Dhabi heist who has no purpose but to fight Michelle Rodriguez, a.k.a. one of the worst actors ever. Overall, I think the cast is very hit or miss despite their impressive international pedigree. Nobody tops The Rock though. He owns this movie for all of his limited screen time.

Nobody beats the Rock. I love this guy with all of my heart.

Despite all of Furious 7's pros and cons, the last ten minutes are the best farewell that anyone could have put together to honor Paul Walker's place in the franchise. It's rare, even unheard of, for a franchise featuring the same characters to last so long and to have one of their own die in real life. Therefore, Furious 7's farewell to Walker is one of the most meta farewells in cinematic history. Wiz Khalifa's "See You Again" is a beautiful farewell song for Walker that perfectly underscores the final scene in which Brian and Dom drive their separate ways. It's a fantastic visual to end on and arguably the best piece of filmmaking within the film.

I'm sad to say it, but Furious 7 is a mixed bag. Convoluted plotting, over long action sequences, and excessive computer graphics hamper the film from being as tight and grounded as the previous entries. However, few franchises do "fun" as well as Fast and Furious does. Therefore, you still get some blockbuster bang for your buck despite the film's flaws. Plus, Paul Walker's farewell tribute is a must see for fans of the series. A definite recommendation for fans of the series but a hesitant recommendation for the non-Fast fans. Even though I had major problems with the film, I could see it showing up as an honorable mention for the best action films of 2015 at the end of the year.

Rating: 6/10 - Furious 7 is a flawed sequel that properly pays tribute to Paul Walker.

Franchise:
The Fast and the Furious (dir. Rob Cohen, 2001)
2 Fast 2 Furious (dir. John Singleton, 2003)
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (dir. Justin Lin, 2006)
Fast and Furious (dir. Justin Lin, 2009)
Fast Five (dir. Justin Lin, 2011)
Fast and Furious 6 (dir. Justin Lin, 2013)
Furious 7 (dir. James Wan, 2015)

Die-Hard-a-Thon, Part 4 - Live Free or Die Hard: Unrated (2007)

Director: Len Wiseman

Cast: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Kevin Smith, Maggie Q, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Country: United States

Rating: Unrated (originally PG-13)

Run Time: 129 minutes

Live Free or Die Hard came a whopping 12 years after Die Hard With a Vengeance. In the last decade, it seems to have become a new filmmaking trend to revive classic franchises for a new contemporary audience. Star Wars, Rambo, and even Tron all came back after 20 plus year breaks. And while it's obvious that these revivals are done purely to make more money off of the franchise name, there is always an opportunity to craft some good art and entertainment too.

Unfortunately, Live Free or Die Hard is a perfect example of solely cashing in on the franchise name. Not only does the film barely resemble a Die Hard film, but everything else is completely geared towards the contemporary audience of 2007. Gone is the bloody violence, gone is the foul language, gone is the memorable villains, gone is the hilarious Bruce Willis, and gone is the gritty fight sequences. Make way for a high tech plot, lots of CGI, and PG-13 violence. Don't get me wrong, Live Free or Die Hard is fun and generic blockbuster entertainment. It's just that this is not a TRUE Die Hard film. What could have been a memorable and exciting revival of the action franchise that has come to define action movies turned out to be no more than an average action film that had the word "Die Hard" slapped on to it.

12 years later means no more hair and no more talent.

Summer of 2007 was a time that I remember quite well. I was in high school and I was just starting to go see movies with my friends more often and not as much with my dad or grandpa. However, I did see Live Free or Die Hard in the theater with my dad and I remember thinking that it was pretty awesome. This was all before I had even seen Die Hard 1, cared about the difference between PG-13 and R, and thought movies like Disturbia and Transformers were the best movies of the year. I remember watching the theatrical cut on DVD at a friend's house a few months later and having a lot of fun revisiting it. This film really does play perfectly to the mindset of a young high schooler. You think the action scenes are all awesome, the jokes are hilarious, and that the image of a car flying into a helicopter is the coolest thing ever.

But than you grow up, graduate from high school, watch a thousand more action movies, and realize that Live Free or Die Hard is just an average piece of studio blockbuster filmmaking. There was a lot of hype for this movie. Much like the original Stars Wars films, the original three Die Hard films held a special place in action fans' hearts. But than much like the Star Wars prequels, Live Free or Die Hard came out and disappointed a lot of the Die Hard fans. Where's the blood? Where's the cursing? Where's the John McClane I know and love? It turns out that this was around the time when the PG-13 rating was coming in to assert its dominance over the box office and take its place atop the money making throne. Sure, studios could make an R rated action film and make money. But the studios could also make a PG-13 action film and make even more money!

For my viewing of the film, I chose to watch the Unrated cut that many people have recommended. The Unrated cut of the film digitally restores all blood and adds all of the cursing back in as well. It's clear that Len Wiseman shot the film with both ratings in mind. So we can at least thank Len for that. And while I think that the added blood and language helps boost the film from a 5/10 to a 6/10, it can't make up for the other flaws of this film. The film still feels like a generic studio blockbuster even with the R rating. I don't want to write an entire article on just the rating of the film so we have to move on at some point. For those who want to hear more about the PG-13 rating, check out Vern's discussion of Live Free or Die Hard on his site. He goes ballistic!

This image is the reason Len Wiseman made Die Hard 4.

Live Free or Die Hard finds John McClane once again in the wrong place at the wrong time (one of the only elements of the film that really makes it a Die Hard film). A group of cyber terrorists enlist hackers to create a software for them to take over all of the electronic communications on the East Coast. In order to eliminate loose ends, the terrorists send explosive viruses to the hackers' computers and kill all of them but one. That one, Matthew Farrell (Justin Long), is about to delete the virus thereby activating the explosive. However, Farrell is interrupted when John McClane shows up at his door. McClane's commanding officer ordered him to check on Farrell because he may be a suspect in the recent hacking of the FBI.

Due to this delay, the cyber terrorists send in their gunmen and immediately attack John and Matthew. John is immediately wrapped up into the thick of things as he has to defend Matthew and stop the cyber terrorists from shutting down all of the electronics across the East Coast.

One of my biggest issues with this film is that John McClane is completely in service of the villain's plot. Almost every scene in the film relates to the villain's plot in one way or another. In the first three Die Hard films, we really get to know John McClane and get a lot of scenes that allow us to check up on John's life. This film has only one of those scenes (John beats up his daughter's boyfriend at the beginning of the film). And after that it's straight to the plot. What I mean is that we get no time to get reacquainted with "John the human". All we get is "John the unstoppable action hero". This film is all about the cyber terrorists and their evil plot and hardly about John having to deal with yet another bad day in his life.

Timothy Olyphant is no Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber.

John McClane simply doesn't feel human any more in this film. McClane went the way of Paul Kersey from the Death Wish films. He started off as a vulnerable and relatable action hero who somehow became an unstoppable action hero. McClane has come a long way from killing his first terrorist in Die Hard to literally taking on a jet with a semi-truck in Live Free or Die Hard. McClane is also pretty humorless. None of his attempts at humor felt natural at all. It's a shame that McClane's trademark humor is so absent in this film because it makes his character less special from other unique action heroes.

Another one of my issues with this film is that I am not a fan of any of these new characters. John feels like an alien to me, I've already covered that. So how about his sidekick? Well, the filmmakers must have never seen a Die Hard film because John hardly ever makes an attempt at being funny. All of the comedic relief has been given to his sidekick, Justin Long. He plays his awkward self and stammers and acts nerdy. But that is just about where all of the comedy comes from. Remember how awesome Sergeant Al Powell was in Die Hard and how memorable Zeus was in Die Hard With a Vengeance? Farrell is like a fart in the wind compared to those guys. I think Long was put into the film because he was all the rage in the mid 2000s with his Mac commercials and the comedies Accepted and Waiting.

I did enjoy Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane though, John's daughter. Her presence helped build the mythology of the series just a tiny bit. It was also nice to see one of John's family members in peril again (only in the final 30 minutes though). The first two films were all about family peril so at least Len Wiseman remembered that aspect of the Die Hard series. I still would have liked some clarity as to what tore John and his wife apart in between Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard With a Vengeance, but I shouldn't hope for that in this Die Hard.

"Okay, I'll say it! I'm a mac!"

The villains in this film are pretty forgetful. Timothy Olyphant is the lead villain and his right hand woman is played by Maggie Q. I won't bother to give you their character names because if I can't remember them after watching the film than their names aren't worth mentioning. Hans Gruber and Simon Gruber? Villain names I'll remember forever. These? Psh, who cares? Kevin Smith also pops up as himself and adds nothing to the movie. I'm moving on to something else because I'm becoming exhausted talking about the characters in this movie.

It's now time to talk about the creme de la creme of this blog. The machismo, the explosions, the shootouts, the fist fights...the action.

Live Free or Die Hard relies too much on creating visually interesting set pieces instead of truly tense and exciting action scenes. For example, Die Hard With a Vengeance builds up a lot of suspense when John has to deactivate a bomb while on a subway train. If his friend Zeus doesn't pick up a telephone too, the main villain will blow up the train. However, a cop has his gun aimed at Zeus and is preventing him from picking up the phone. Even though we know an action packed explosion of some sort is coming, the wait up to it is unbearable.

Live Free or Die Hard just doesn't know how to create scenes like that. All it knows how to do is create action scenes that look impressive but fail to engage the audience the way that the previous Die Hard films did. I want to remind the reader that I normally wouldn't attack any action scene in any movie like this. However, the Die Hard series is an excellent example of exciting action films with suspenseful scenes that even Alfred Hitchcock would be proud of. They aren't just trying to entertain the action crowd. They want to be a great action packed experience that you will never forget. To see this once great series turn into generic mindless blockbuster fare is just sad and disappointing.

You thought this was a video game screenshot? No, it's Die Hard 4.

I have to say, there are some truly terrible CGI scenes in this film. The CG on the collapsing freeway at the end of the film is laughably bad. The film also fails to capture true to life physics when it comes to its CG effects. During the lights out in the tunnel sequence, John and Matt run towards a pillar. As they leap behind it, a CG truck slides towards them and nails the pillar in the most awkward and unrealistic way possible. It's hard to describe this but check it out for yourself.

I did like some of the action in this film though. Thanks to the improvements with the unrated cut, all of the blood has been reinserted. I loved the first action scene in Matt Farrell's apartment. It's an old fashioned shoot 'em up bolstered by good sound design and lots of apartment destruction. I also enjoyed the parkour presence of Cyril Raffaelli (District B13, The Transporter, Brotherhood of the Wolf, Kiss of the Dragon) as one of Timothy Olyphant's main henchmen. He performs a lot of impressive stunts by jumping and sliding over fences and air ducts. Parkour was all the rage at the time (also seen in 2006's Casino Royale opening action scene).

My favorite action scene in the whole movie is the most basic and simple of them all. John and Matt are walking up a staircase in a large building and are trying to avoid various henchmen. When John turns around to talk to Matt, a henchman comes through the door in front of them. John and the henchman raise their handguns and cross their arms firing past one another's heads. They continue to duke it out until John gets the upper hand, blasts the man's foot, and than riddles his chest with bullets. It's the most old fashioned action scene of the film and it didn't require any CG at all. It just goes to show that sometimes a simple fist fight is more thrilling than a CG harriet jet firing at a CG truck as CG concrete falls all over the place.

Len Wiseman just doesn't know how to craft a good gritty action film. He is mostly known for directing Kate Beckinsale, being married to Kate Beckinsale, and making effects-heavy PG-13 actioners like Underworld, Underworld: Evolution, and Total Recall. He's the last person I want handling the gritty Die Hard franchise because he's more about plot and special effects than characters and suspense.

For those who were curious, this is that scene. Best shot in the film.

Live Free or Die Hard is one hell of a weak follow up to Die Hard With a Vengeance (one of the best action films I have ever seen). McClane doesn't feel the same, the villains are blander than ever, the humor is serviceable at best, and the action lacks the original's kick. To summarize my opinion in short: Die Hard 4 works as a fun blockbuster but not as a Die Hard film. You may think I hate this film because I spent about 90% of the review complaining about it. But alas, you don't know bad until you have seen the fifth film in the series...A Good Day to Die Hard In Russia With No Discernable Plot or Effort!

Rating: 6/10 - I am going to recommend the unrated cut of this film only to die hard action fans. I normally would give a film like this a 4 or a 5. However, the unrated cut helps salvage some of the damage. People who crave action scenes will get a kick out of some of things in this film. Unlike the first three films, non-actions won't find much to like here.

Franchise: Die Hard 

Die Hard (dir. John McTiernan, 1988)

Die Hard 2: Die Harder (dir. Renny Harlin, 1990)

Die Hard With a Vengeance (dir. John McTiernan, 1995)

Live Free or Die Hard (dir. Len Wiseman, 2007)

A Good Day to Die Hard (dir. John Moore, 2013)