Monday, December 3, 2007

Lone Wolf McQuade

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Lone Wolf McQuade is a Chuck Norris movie from the early 80’s. It’s a cop movie, with a touch of western and karate thrown in.

10 years before he was Walker, Norris was J.J. McQuade, Texas Ranger: A beer-swilling, karate-fightin’, loose cannon cop who plays by his own rules. A lone wolf, if you will. Only he pisses off his bosses in the opening of the movie and is assigned a partner. So then for the rest of the movie he’s, I guess, Accompanied Wolf McQuade.

The plot of this one is just one cliché after another. He’s a rule-breaking, human rights violating Dirty Harry type, he goes up against some drug dealers, they attack his family, he wants revenge, he pulls some shit and gets suspended but continues fighting any way, etc. He has a new partner, they don’t get along at first, but slowly McQuade warms up to him, Yadda Yadda. It’s also really corny, and I suspect took itself seriously. I kept wanting to think that the movie was being a little tongue-in-cheek about its silly plot, but afterwards I was pretty sure that wasn’t the case.

There are, however, a lot of weird, funny details that made me hope, for a while, that it was going to be one of those good corny B-movies. For instance, one of the main villains is a dwarf in a motorized wheelchair. He is a feared mob boss. Which shows you that the filmmakers were at least trying. The other main bad guy is played by David Carradine. He plays a master of karate/drug dealer, and he drives a car with a license plate that says “Carate.” Because it’s a car owned by a karate guy.

That kind of shit is, obviously, awesome. There are other moments like that lend some interest to the movie. There is also a really good action scene where Norris jumps onto the back of a moving pickup truck, and ends up doing some weird parallel bars routine on the rail to keep from falling off.

Too bad too much of the movie is just plain boring. Too many lame attempts at humor, too many obligatory cop movie scenes with no fresh twist. Then the final action scene is a big let down. It’s a large scale but generic shootout, and then Norris kills Carradine by throwing a grenade at him. Talk about a lack of drama! These guys are both karate masters, Carradine has killed Norris’ friend and girlfriend, and kidnapped his daughter. Norris should kill this guy with his hands. Face to face. Break the fucker in two. It needs to be personal, intimate. But I guess they wanted to end with a big explosion.

A few months back I saw a Norris movie called Code of Silence, and it was alright. It was kind of a generic cop movie like McQuade, but the last 30 minutes or so had a lot of good action and redeemed the rest of the movie. I think if McQuade had a better climax, I could recommend it. As it is, I advise you not to bother.



UPDATE 12/6/07

So I'm flipping around the movie channels tonight and guess what's on? 4 effin' days after I just watched it. So I could have saved a spot on my Netflix queue.

TMNT

Sunday, December 2, 2007

As I mentioned before, watching The Secret of the Ooze with Patrick over the weekend put me in the mood to watch the new Turtles film. It surpassed my expectations, although frankly my expectations weren’t very high.

This is definitely the best of the Turtles movies in an objective sense. There isn’t any sense of VHS nostalgia with this film like with Part 2, but it’s actually a reasonably entertaining movie as opposed to a so-bad-yet-so-integral-to-your-childhood-it’s-good one like the show and the older movies are. Meant more for an 11 year old than a 23 year old, but still fun.

The animation is decent, and the director uses the computer animation to create a lot of over-the-top, physically impossible shots of the action. I particularly liked the shot where one of the turtles jumps off a roof, and the camera is sort of perched on his shoulder, pointed at the building and showing the action going on inside as he plummets. Cool.

The action is good and it has a goofy sense of humor. The plot, however, is needlessly convoluted. There seem to be 3 or 4 premises fighting for control of the plot, and none of them really pay off in any satisfying way. I was particularly disappointed at how the plot introduces a bunch of evil monsters at the beginning, then basically forgets about them by the halfway point.

Still, worth it if you liked this crap when you were a kid.

Better Off Dead

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Better Off Dead is a very minor comedy classic amongst 80s teen flicks. It’s not great, but it’s really funny, and it’s the kind of movie you can watch pretty much every time it comes on. Never gets old.

What becomes clearer to me every time I see it is that it’s a very poorly made film in a lot of ways. A lot of scenes are awkwardly shot, the movie meanders and has too many scenes that aren’t connected to the rest of the movie, and there are simple failures on the basic level of telling a story. For example, the whole movie is about John Cusack’s character dealing with getting dumped by his girlfriend, yet the dumping scene happens off-screen and all we get is a voice-over of what she said. Huh? I suspect that there was a real scene shot, and that they cut it out and added the voiceover to explain what happened.

Still, the material is really funny and the cast is good, so the movie works despite failing as a piece of cinema. Interesting.

Die Hard

Saturday, December 1, 2007

I’ve seen Die Hard about a bajillion times, so I don’t have much to say here. We decided to watch it because we all wanted to watch a Christmas themed movie, and Die Hard is the best.

One thing I noticed more recently that I like about DH is the class tension. I’m not sure if McTiernan was trying to make a point, or if it was just a sort of zeitgeist-y 80s thing, but it’s all over the movie. We have this working class, Irish cop McClane whose wife is a successful business woman, and it clearly a point of contention between them. He goes to her big office party, and it’s a bunch of rich folks, and McClane seems to clearly be out of place.

Then Hans Gruber, the bad guy, is sort of a classy, upper-crust guy himself, only also he’s a criminal mastermind type. The way he politely but firmly talks to Takagi before calmly blowing his head off makes him seem less like a crook and more like the world’s most ruthless business men.

It doesn’t stop there. They add another layer, where some of Hans’ team of mercenaries are more thuggish, lower-class types, and there is some tension between himself and his own men.

Look for it next time you watch Die Hard, which if you’re like me will happen once or twice a year.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze

Friday, November 30, 2007

Patrick had a copy of this on VHS, so we popped it on late Friday night/early Saturday morning. And I must have had this exact same VHS, because I even remembered the commercials before the movie. Including that one for a movie called Step Kids that ended up being released under the name Big Girls Don’t Cry, They Get Even.

I loved the fact that we watched this on VHS, because that it how it exists in my memory. To me, this movie was always full-frame and slightly washed out looking, maybe with a faint buzz in the background. I can’t imagine watching this remastered and in widescreen. It would just be wrong.

Not much to talk about, but the ninja rap scene is still amazing. The turtles get into a fight with some tall monster guys, and somehow end up in a nightclub where Vanilla Ice is playing. Ice sees what’s going on, is scared at first, but then he starts bobbing his head to the beat. And it’s like, yeah, man, he gets it. He feels these turtle dudes, he knows the score. And then he proceeds to “improvise” a song about them. I love how rad I thought this shit was when I was a kid.

I recently picked up the new computer animated TMNT movie, but haven’t had a chance to watch it yet. I should soon. Obviously Turtles 2 isn’t a very good movie, but it made me a little nostalgic for those days.

Trading Places

Friday, November 30, 2007

I watched this over the weekend while I was in Harrisonburg, and it’s probably the 6th or 7th time I’ve seen it.

It’s amazing to think that the 3 major players in this film (Director John Landis, Eddie Murphy, Dan Ackroyd) were at the top of their respective games when this came out, and some time in maybe the late 80s they all drastically stopped being funny and became terrible.

How does this happen? Landis made An American Werewolf in London and Animal House… what happened to him? The Stupids? Come on, man.

Maybe all three of them sold their souls to the devil to be awesome in the 80's, and then he came to collect in the 90s. Only it's the audience that's in hell now. So maybe that doesn't work.

Or maybe it fits into my Steve Martin Scientology theory. Martin, as we know, was great. Only when he made the great Bowfinger, he poked fun at the Scientologists in the movie. So, my theory goes that the Scientologists, who hate being made fun of, developed a Thetan-powered anti-comedy ray that is constantly pointed at Martin from space. Which is why he is no longer funny. Eddie Murphy was also in Bowfinger, so this kind of makes sense. Maybe Ackroyd and Landis also pissed them off. Chevy Chase, too.

Anyway, Trading Places. Still a great movie.

Hostel Part II

Thursday, November 29, 2007

I seem to be the only person I know that likes Hostel. It has a really bad first act or so, with a lot of lame attempts at humor, but I think it really picks up as it goes along, and that it is effectively disturbing and even gets a little exciting. But all my friends seem to think it’s trash.

So, I don’t think any of them will really give part 2 a shot, but it’s actually an improvement over the original. It has a really pointless and poorly executed opening 5 or 10 minutes, but after that it’s all uphill.

What is up with this beginning, though? Was it some sort of homage to Friday the 13th Part 2? We spend a few minutes with the survivor from the first movie, and then he is unceremoniously killed offscreen. And it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, except you do get to see his severed head nearer to the end. I think maybe Eli Roth wanted to work with Jay Hernandez again, and could not figure out a real way to work him into the story.

Anyway, after that the movie really starts, and it’s sort of like the first movie but without all the jokey, frat-boy Eurotrip bullshit. It strikes a much more grim tone from early on, and only sprinkles in the dark humor on occasion.

The main plot is basically a rehashed version of part one, with 3 American college students going to the Hostel, getting abducted, tortured, etc, only more skillfully done. But the first great change that Roth makes is to add a subplot about the torturers.

We meet two American business men who have paid to torture and kill the main characters. And what’s kind of cool is that Roth seems to be making one of them out to be sympathetic. Making him seem human, and uncertain of his actions. And for this type of movie, I think they do a good job of fleshing these two villains out, which adds a level of psychological horror absent in the original. When we end up in the torture chambers this time, and now we know the victims and the killers; it adds a new dynamic. Especially the way some characters make some unexpected twists.

The other thing I really like about part 2 is that I think it directly addresses complaints people have about this type of film, the supposed “torture porn” genre. The idea that the filmmaker employs excessive violence that we are to enjoy.

But I think anyone who watches the movie realizes that the violence is meant to be disturbing, not fun. We sympathize with the victims, want them to escape, etc. Only this time Roth plays with expectations. I think he tries to lull these critics in. He has these two killer characters, makes one of them almost likable. Starts building up to the murders, making it feel like it’s going to be a big payoff. Almost like he’s whispering in our ears “You’re right. I am a sicko. I do mean for you to enjoy the torturing and killing. Yeah, come on. Let’s watch this blonde girl get murdered. It’ll be fun.” But then when he finally reaches what feels like the big payoff, he doesn’t show the murder happen. “Of course you’re not supposed to enjoy this, asshole! Did you really think I meant for this part of the movie to be fun?”

But he doesn’t stop there, because he knows that movie violence CAN be fun… when it happens to the bad guys. So the last chunk of the movie is filled with all sorts of graphic, over the top violence directed at the villains. And then we get to hoot and holler and laugh and enjoy the violence.

That wasn’t as coherent as I would have liked but maybe I’ll fix it later.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

Thursday, November 29, 2007

I saw there was this 70s crime picture starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, and my curiosity was piqued. I really wanted to see Matthau in another gruff, Charley Varrick-type role.

But actually, Matthau is more the typical funny Matthau in this movie. And even though Shaw is pretty badass (his final scene in the movie is a semi-classic moment in awesomeness) as the leader of a group of criminals, the movie was a lot more jokey and fun than I was expecting. Fortunately, it’s good jokes and good fun.

Not a great picture, certainly no classic of the genre, but definitely worth seeing if you like this kind of movie. It’s got your classic funky, energetic 70s score, and that shit always gets me pumped. It’s such a joy, knowing that every time I watch a 70s cop movie, or 70s Italian horror flick, that I’ll be treated to this kind of score. We need to bring these back.

One detail I really liked: one of the hostage-takers has a cold and sneezes through the whole movie. When do you ever see that? I wonder how many brilliant criminal schemes were ruined by someone getting sick? Imagine if one of Ocean’s Eleven got the flu. All that planning would have been for nothing.

Le Cercle Rouge

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

A few weeks back I saw a 60’s French crime flick by the name of Le Samourai, and it was amazing. I dug it a lot when I watched it, and it stuck with me enough that I suspect it may be a no-shit, for-real masterpiece. I decided I had to see some more by this director, a Frenchman by the name of Melville. About 2 weeks back I Netflixed an earlier film of his, Bob Le Flambeur and… well, it didn’t strike me as very good. Really talky and boring and melodramatic, compared to the lean, mean, thrilling-yet-contemplative Samourai. And then just for shits I also got Neil Jordan’s Bob le Flambeur remake The Good Thief, which was also not so hot, but maybe a little better than Bob.

Le Samourai was incredible enough that I knew I owed Melville another shot. And good thing I saw that one first and not Bob, because I might have given up on him and have never seen Samourai or Le Cercle Rouge. Rouge turns out to be a top notch crime thriller not unlike Samourai. It contains long passages of silence, most of the characters are inward and don’t talk much, the police are portrayed as somewhat fascist. Rouge even has the same star, Alain Delon, playing a not entirely dissimilar role. Although this time he has a mustache and doesn’t look nearly as sexy.

One of my favorite aspects of this one, as it was with Samourai, is that you sort of have to figure out the story as it moves along. The characters all know what they are up to, so they don’t ever stop to explain the plot. And since the criminals tend to keep conversation to a minimum, we just get to sit back and observe them put their plans in action.

The highlight of the movie is a long, mostly silent and entirely dialogue –free diamond heist sequence. Alain and his partners act out a very awesome, very complicated plan. But they are professionals, they are skilled, and they don’t trade one-liners like Ocean’s Eleven. The movie is worth watching for this sequence alone, but the rest of it is pretty good too.

I didn’t love it quite like Le Samourai, I don’t think it had the same impact or insight, but Le Cercle Rouge was still awesome, and I am definitely checking out more Melville.

As a side note, I really hate it when foreign films are released over here and they don’t just translate the title into English. Especially when the titles are this simple. Le Rouge Cercle means the Red Circle. Why can’t we just call it that? Le Samourai, let’s see, that means… oh yeah, The Samurai. The fucking Samurai. You can’t even translate “Le”? Does changing the “Le” really ruin it’s meaning? And shit, guys, I’m pretty sure Samourai isn’t a French word. So it’s not like the title is some meaningful French word that loses it’s poetry and connotations in English.

I think it’s some pretentious bullshit. As if keeping the title in it’s original language makes the movie better. It’s just like people using the phrase mise en scene. Fuckers.

Here’s a promise: if I ever go abroad and I see a DVD called La Noche de los Mortes Vivando, I promise not to get mad. So don’t anybody get mad when I just start calling foreign films by their English translation, regardless whether they were released that way over here.

On a positive note, the next Melville film I plan to check out is called Army of Shadows. Yeah, that's right, the title is in English. So things are looking up.

Fido

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Fido is a sort of a boy-and-his-loyal-dog type of movie, intentionally corny and set in a deliberately over-exaggerated version of the 1950s. Only the twist is that Fido isn’t a dog, he’s a zombie. Seems that mankind has survived a zombie outbreak a la Night of the Living Dead, and now they’ve sort of domesticated the undead and made them household servants. So it’s like Lassie meets Land of the Dead.

This is an amusing concept. And the movie has a lot going for it, especially a game cast (the kid who plays little Timmy is perfect as a gee-shucks sweet ‘lil guy). Still, this is basically a one-joke premise, and they can’t sustain 90 minutes with it. There are a lot of smiles, but not enough laughs. Probably a great idea for a comedy sketch, not so hot at feature length.

Novel, amusing, but not really worth your time.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

This is one I’ve been meaning to see for a long time. As a fan of horror films, I had always been intrigued by the reputation that Henry was a particularly disturbing yet undeniably well-made film. Turns out that’s a fairly accurate description, but I still found the film a little lacking.

The best thing about the movie is Michael Rooker’s performance as Henry, and he does a notably good job of making his character seem real, which adds legitimacy to the whole film. And I really like the way they don’t make him some unkillable force-of-nature Jason Vorhees type, or some sort of larger than life Buffalo Bill-esque weirdo. He’s just some dude who likes to kill, but can pass for relatively normal in social situations. I don’t think it’s a psychologically accurate depiction of this type of person, but it’s still convincing for what it is. Tom Towles, as Henry’s partner in crime, also deserves some props for his acting.

There are also some effective sequences, like when Henry and his buddy watch a video of themselvesbreaking into a house and murdering the family inside. The tape itself is harsh enough and feels very real, and then the whole scene gets an extra layer of psychological creepiness by the way they enjoy watching the tape, then rewind it to watch it in slow motion. Ick.

Oh, and it has a pitch-perfect, cynical ending that I think shows the filmmakers were treating the material seriously. And it leaves you feeling kinda depressed, which is my buddy Patrick’s litmus test for a good horror movie.

So what didn’t I like about it? I think a lot of it stems form the obvious low budget. I can forgive this to a degree, but it does dull the film’s impact. Besides the two leads, the rest of the acting isn’t very good, and a lot of the characters have to spit out bad dialogue or engage in not very convincing behavior. I think the director got his brother or somebody to do the score, and it tries so hard to be dark and disturbing that it comes off a cheesy.

The directing itself is a mixed bag. John McNaughton does some things effectively as director, like the above mentioned videotape scenes. But I really don’t like the way he keeps showing the aftermath of the murders, with the camera slowly spinning around the victims while you hear their screams faintly on the soundtrack. And, again due to the budget, the movie just looks bad. I don’t know if they shot on tape or what, but it looks like a very bland TV movie. A little more grit could have gone a long way.

I’m glad I saw it, and even have a certain admiration for how seriously it treats the material. But it just wasn’t effective enough. Films like, say, Wolf Creek or the remake of The Hills Have Eyes may not have the ambition or conviction that Henry has, but they are a lot more effective at getting under your skin. I guess that makes Henry better art, but it is still a less successful movie.

To Have and Have Not

Monday, November 26 2007

This here is a 1944 Humphrey Bogart film directed by Howard Hawks, with a few superficial similarities to Casablanca. I dig Bogart a lot, with The Maltese Falcon being a particular favorite of mine.

But I’ll be honest, outside of some pretty good dialogue here and there, I wasn’t too keen on this one. The story is kind of slow, and for what seems to be an intrigue-filled thriller, it meanders a lot and is even boring at times. Even when the more exciting stuff is happening, like when Bogart has to perform impromptu surgery on a gunshot victim, it’s a little too low key and doesn’t generate any excitement.

I did like Bogart’s drunken sidekick. And Lauren Bacall is pretty good and obviously she and Bogart have great chemistry. But the romance seems really like a subplot or an afterthought, and you just don’t get caught up in everything like you do with Casablanca. And Bacall may be a looker, but she’s no Ingrid Bergman.

Of course, Casablanca is one of the great crowd-pleasers, and it’s not really fair to compare this film to it, even if it does seem like it’s trying to copy the formula a little. But taken on it’s own terms, it just isn’t very interesting. If you want a good Bogart/Bacall/Hawks team-up, I say stick with The Big Sleep.

So I’m still slowly working on seeing more Howard Hawks films, but this was one of my least favorites. I liked it more than His Girl Friday or (if you can count it) The Thing From Another World, but not as much as Bringing Up Baby, The Big Sleep, Rio Bravo or El Dorado. Not a bad movie, just not good enough to recommend.

Live Free or Die Hard – Motherfucker Edition

Monday, November 26, 2007

I wasn’t even 4 when Die Hard came out, and I must have been about 7 when I first saw it. John McClane is up there with Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Marty McFly, Doc Brown, and Indiana Jones as an important, iconic movie character of my childhood. Die Hard is an all-time great action movie, and the series stayed pretty strong through two sequels; neither was as classic as the original, but both are top notch action movies that I can watch again and again.

So I wasn’t too thrilled when I heard that Len Wiseman was hired to direct Live Free or Die Hard. Wiseman is the director responsible for Underworld, a movie that I was about to say I hated, but that's not quite right. I don’t have any real feelings towards it, because it’s one of the most empty film going experiences of my entire life. Every idea, every moment, every image was recycled from a million other films, with no sense of fun, or energy, or vision. It was for me kinda like staring at a blank screen for two hours. There’s the movie on the screen, and here’s me sitting in the theater, and I might as well have been in the parking lot for as much as we connected.

Then it turns out they decided to release the movie, the first Die Hard film in over a decade, as PG-13. If it was any other franchise, I may not have bothered to go see it. But see it I did.

I was pretty surprised to find that I liked the movie quite a bit. It was a respectable sequel, it got the attitude correct, and it followed the series tradition of being more over top than the previous films. It took the Die Hard with a Vengeance approach of combining parts’ 1 and 2’s desire to be genuinely thrilling with a hearty dose of sublime absurdness to it.

I knew I didn’t like it as much as parts 1 and 3, and I suspected I didn’t like it as much as part 2, but I was unsure. There was one major, glaring flaw that was making it difficult to rank it against the others: the PG-13 rating.

Because you just can’t have a Die Hard movie with out blood and fucks. I mean, for shit’s sake, McClane couldn’t even say his signature line. They muffle the money-syllable with a gunshot. This kinda shit had me all bugaboo.

Suffice it to say, I had been looking forward to the unrated DVD for a long time, and finally popped in my copy tonight. Did the re-instated blood and fucks push this past part 2? My verdict?

It’s a strong action movie, but still maybe my least favorite of the series. It might tie with part 2, but I’d have to watch that one sometime soon to make a firm decision. The changes to this unrated version are a mixed bag. Let’s discuss:

First, the blood. I had originally assumed that the violence in the PG-13 movie had been toned down in post production. I thought they CG’ed out all the blood, or perhaps shot alternate takes. The point was, in my mind LFoDH Motherfucker Edition would be chock-a-block with squib hits. No such luck. In fact, it’s almost like the opposite of that. There’s a considerable amount of extra blood in this version, but it looks like it’s been CG’ed into the PG-13 bloodless scenes.

Yeah, fuck that. CG blood? It almost never looks good. It is to be used sparingly or not at all, ok Hollywood Unrated DVD maker-guys? Pretend there’s a health chart for movie violence, ok? Top-notch make-up Tom Savini-type shit is at the big part at the bottom, like grains. And CG gunshots are the point at the top, like sweets. I would rather there be no blood than this much computer-blood.

Okay, the added violence gets a thumbs down. Now, however, we come to the fucks. And here our unrated DVD does not disappoint. This movie needed its fucks, and finally it has them. Some of my favorites were “shut the fuck up” and “fuck you, bitch” and of course “Yippie ki-yay MOTHERFUCKER.” No gunshot muffling McClane’s signature line, which on a side note is the best use of the line since the original. Instead of arbitrarily blurting it out like in parts 2 and 3, it actually feels motivated by his character, as he psyches himself up to do something incredibly badass.

So all the “Fuck”ing really does add some balls back into this flick. Enough that you should watch this cut and not the theatrical one.

I guess I should expound a little bit on the movie itself. The main reason I think it ranks below the other 3 is the plot, which isn’t very interesting. The bad guys are computer hackers, and they can magically hack into anything they want at a moments notice including street lights and police radios and about a billion other things. There are countless scenes of the bad guys being all “we have to hack into the mainframe and blah blah blah” followed by scenes of the FBI being all “they’ve hacked into our mainframe and blah blah blah” and who gives a fuck, seriously? This shit is like 10 years too old to make for an interesting plot. The screenwriters do a good job of using the hacking stuff to set up some cool action scenes, like when they use traffic signs to reroute a bunch of cars into a head-on collision with McClane in the middle. But there’s so much banal exposition about the plot when we could be watching McClane kick more ass.

And the other problem is the villain, played by Timothy Olyphant. He has some pretty kick-ass henchmen, including some French acrobat motherfucker and an asian karate-lady, but it’s like the screenwriters forgot to give him anything to do. Olyphant has the right presence to make a menacing villain, and he gets a few good lines, but he is left hanging.

The other DH flicks made a point of establishing that their villains were formidable foes. Not here. Remember Hans Gruber being all businessman-like, then calmly shooting Takagi in the head when he won’t give him the info he wants? Or the guy in the second movie doing naked karate in his hotel room, and then later threatening death to his own man for messing up? Or Simon saying all those riddles then blowing shit up? Those guys all had personalities, and they were all menacing in their own way. Well, Olyphant sits at a computer for a while. Later, he gets mad and pushes his laptop off the desk. When he gets really pissed, he makes sarcastic comments to his own men. So at his worst, he’s kind of like when your dad is in a really bad mood.

But those are not really big issues in the long run. The movie is funny and energetic and even builds some genuine excitement at times. Bruce Willis has some good chemistry with his sidekick Matt, played by Justin Long, and it’s fun to watch them bicker. It’s not as good as Sam Jackson in part 3, but it gets the job done. McClane is getting older this time, so they make him a kind of mentor figure, and I think it works. McClane is also a full blown American icon, so he and Matt have a few conversations about the nature of heroism. It’s a little corny but I like it.

I have to give Wiseman credit, he makes the movie look good and move fast. His style is more energetic and less elegant than John McTiernan’s style on the first film, but I think that fits the broader canvas. He bounces the camera around a little more, and gets a lot flashier with the special effects. Unlike some directors, he uses CG to good effect, knowing that it works best when you’re trying to make a ridiculous action scene as opposed to an exciting one. And he throws in some honest to goodness, no-shit, for real stunt work into the mix that provides the real thrills.

And the movie gets the McClane mythos. I was worried, what with the PG-13ing, that they had made some dumbass, watered down McClane for general consumption. But he’s the same old prickly bastard he ever was; short-tempered, violent, sarcastic and prone to making a bad situation worse. When he drives an SUV through a building just to hit one terrorist, then accidentally crashes it into an elevator shaft and has to fight the terrorist while hanging on for dear life, you know he’s the real deal.