Suspect's Reviews

What I meant by different was the action. The fourth Die Hard makes the action from the past 3 absolutely, completely possible in the realm of physics. That's a total 180.

Yea, it does.

I didn't want the same exact thing. I just didn't want crap/over the top *****, either.

I found myself saying "Oh come on for Christ's sakes!" When you do that, the action has gone way TOO far. The first one blew you out of your seats. The fourth one blew ***** all over you.

Well geeh, why didn't you say that earlier? This film deserves 40 billion stars, now.

Oh man, that's easy; and it actually barely cuts your 5 year requirement.

The Bourne Identity

But I'll do you a favor, I'll name 4 more; Kill Bill Vol. 1, Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Sin City.

All those films kick the living crap out of Die Hard 4.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I think I need to see this movie, especially now, with you 2 guys on opposite sides

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

That's what made this film so good. You realize it's been 12 years since the last DIE HARD film. If it had the same old action routines no one would really care about it. It HAD to be bigger and better, guess what it was.

There's a great answer....

Honestly, only one scene really popped out in my mind as completely over the top, when he drove the car through the building. The rest while, might be deemed over the top by some, was perfect for me. I guess it depends on your taste for action. Even the fighter jet scene was great for me.

Then that is your loss, I always thought the point of a DIE HARD film was to have **** blown up all over you. It's an action film, the first set the standards, this one raised it. Something the 2nd didn't do.

Thanks, I'm glad you finally see it my way.

While you may count those as 'ACTION' films, I wouldn't. Sure those films showcase some action, but it terms of GENRE, they don't compete. Batman Begins has great action, but the fight scene were poorly editted to the point where I couldn't tell what was going on. I wouldn't deem that an action film either, Comic Book Adaptation/superhero/adventure. Same goes for V for Vendetta. As for Sin City, you want to talk about over the top??? Plus another Graphic Novel Adaptation and more of a noir film then action. Kill Bill has next to no action, in terms of action films. It has fight scenes. While those fight scenes are amazing, you're telling me they're not over the top? One woman VS 88 guys?

Having never seen The Bourne Identity I can't really comment on it, but it's more of a spy/thriller then action film.

What I ment by name a better action film is when you think of this film the first thing that comes to your mind is ACTION. When I think of Batman, Sin city, Vendetta, Identity, and Kill Bill, the first thing that comes to my mind is not action. When I think of DIE HARD, the first thing that comes to my mind is ACTION. When I think of The Rock, Con Air, Crank, Leon....I think of action.


Thrilling sequences are scattered throughout the film, which is what movie goers want out of a DIE HARD film. The one thing that may disappoint viewers is the far fetched bad guy plan and it's execution. But not the action, or the fact it doesn't feel DIE HARD.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

So an action film is something that has stuff blowing up every two seconds with very little story and taste? Yea, this film is the best action film in years.

Honestly, this film had MORE action then the last three. And that's not a good thing. It's the kind of thing that makes Michael Bay's movies suck. Honestly, if I didn't know better I would've said this was a Michael Bay film. It has all the classic crap from his movies. I stand by what I said, this is NOT a Die Hard movie. And you're going to have to come up with a better reason than "It has more action than any other 'action' film I've seen in the last three years." That's the beauty of the Die Hard series, action is not the only thing the movies have going for them.

The Bourne Identity's action amount is very close to the first Die Hard. And guess what, spy/thriller movies are considered action movies. Unless we're going by your definition, in which case let's pop in Michael Bay's The Island for good measure.

Oh BTW, action is NOT the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of Die Hard; the villain Hans Gruber does, though.

I gave you more then 'it has a lot of action in it' as a reason it's a good film. In case you missed them, here they are, and a few more for good measure.

McClane- Yes, it's been 12 years, but Willis is still the same John McClane that everyone loves. There's only two things different. No hair and he's older. Willis plays this up to the character more. He's still spiutting out one liners and smart ass remarks.

The villain- Yes, he has a one look stare the entire time, but he is still leaps and bounds over the horrible villain from DIE HARDER. I diud not get the whole parody of itself notion through the sequel, which is why maybe the film doesn't resonate well with me and it does well with you.

Justin Long - Not once did I sit there wishing it was Jackson in that role. Long brought a sense of humour that was missing from previous films to lift up the action packed sequences.

Michael Bay movies do suck, but I would never consider this to be comapred to one. Bay's films are big in the explosion department, sure, but what else. This film has so much more to it then the action sequences. Also, unlike Bay's action films where it's so-so, this action delivers on what is expected.

The editing did bug me here and there when you can clearly tell they took out some more blood and guts and the swearing for that PG-13 rating.

The way I see it was I was expecting another mediocre film and got something more. You were expecting something more and got a lot less. The fans and critics seem to love this film 8.4 on IMDB and 76% on rottentomates. You seem to be in the minority. Again, I say because you are a big DIE HARD fan. Just my opinion.

IMDB has this film in the top 250 movies; some thing's seriously wrong with that list.

Most of those one liners were horrendous. The PG-13 severely crippled the old McClane. Instead, we got a new kiddy version. Anyone who's seen the last 3 know McClane's a potty mouth.

Justin Long wasn't as bad as I thought he'd be, but that has nothing to do with how they handled McClane and the action.

I actually thought they did a very good job with the villain in this movie (one look stare, included). But even he couldn't save this film.

I actually like the action in Bay's films more than this one. The Rock comes to mind as a hell of a lot better than Die Hard 4.

I was expecting them to stay in line with McClane's character. I was expecting them to put him in a situation where he might end up losing again. I was expecting them to do a good job. Clearly, that's asking too much (for them to just stay in toe with the original three) of the Die Hard franchise these days.

I love The Rock as well, there's something we agree on.

Haha, yea. That's the only time you hear Michael Bay and good in the same sentence from me.

Same here, but I hope that changes with Transformers.

I have a new rule, never watch anything that has the name Michael Bay near it. So I won't be seeing it.

Well, at least just try and give it a chance. Ya just might like it.

I saw it thinking i'd feel same as member McClane. I didn't. It's a post 9/11 action film, i don't think they could've made it anything like the other Die Hard films for that reason alone. Terrorism doesn't have the same meaning in films now. And what's wrong with just going to a film to be entertained, the other's didn't provide any intellectual stimulants, they were just fun so why can't this one be only on a bigger scale? I did think whole country under attack opposed to confined area would be a downfall but most the action was in confined areas, except the final chase, and even then it wasn't 'superhero' action which was another thing i thought was going to happen. The only gripe i had was Kevin Smith in an annoying intertextual nod.

__________________

Whoa.....who's the awsome guy full of crazy awsomeness who gave me positive reps on all my reviews?

Me; I'm going through the thread and marking your reviews, and naturally thought each was deserving of positive rep, as well.

I'm through about 12 pages, I think. I should be able to finish them tomorrow.

You deserve it

Marked for what?

Side Note - The reviews section is looking great, keep up the good work.

Marked for the User Reviews list; you can see the recent ones (with a link to the rest) on the right of the reviews area.

There's also a link to a list of your User Reviews in your profile. Right now it's just one long page, but I'll be paginating it before long.

The Simpsons Movie (David Silverman)





"Fresh, Ambitious & Really Funny, The Simpsons Score On The Big Screen"

Homer dumps some 'waste' into a nearby lake in Springfield, causing the EPA to take dramatic matters. The decision is made to enclose the city in a dome, thus making Homer public enemy number one.

From 180ft paintings in the grass next to sacred images, to 7/11 turning itself into Kwik-E-Marts and numerous tv spots on the fox network, it was no surprise that almost everyone on earth knew about The Simpsons Movie. The longest running show on television, 18 years later is finally hitting the big screen. To say it was hyped would be an understatement. Can a show that has been falling down the ladder in quality and viewers make the jump to the big screen? Well, with 11 writers, all from the good days of The Simpsons, it's safe to say that they hit this one out of the park.

While they tried their best to keep the plot of the film under wraps before its release, the basic plot of the film was known to be before I saw the film. It did ruin a few surprises and jokes, but not the overall experience. Like Homer says in the opening bit of the film, why pay for something when you can see it for free on the television. Well, this movie is the answer to that. It pushes the envelope further, which is a luxury the creators have in the film world that they do not have in tv land. Where shows like Family guy appeared on tv and garnered big success, it seemed The Simpsons was losing a battle it was always winning. Now after it’s big screen debut, The Simpsons, I’m hoping, is back on track to being the show it once was. What Family Guy failed to do with it’s “film”, which felt like 3 episodes edited together, The Simpsons does wonderfully.

The animation is crisp and up-to-date. Seeing this film did not make me miss the flowing hair on certain chef rats or big green ogres. While we have seen Homer in “3-D” it simply would not have worked here and I’m glad they stuck with the traditional animation.

For fans of the show, it’s always fun finding those inside jokes scattered throughout the film, such as Homer finally making the jump over the gorge, a feat he failed to do in ‘Bart The Daredevil’ and the ambulance that is still crashed at the edge of the gorge. Aside from show references, there are hundreds upon hundreds of film references, which include: Titanic, Star Wars, Spider-man, An Inconvenient Truth and many, many more.

The film is definitely for all ages, both adults and kids, who are fans of the show, will find this film entertaining. While in the theatre the laughter was unison with young and old. The good thing is, you don’t really have to be a fan of the show to get the jokes. There is enough comedy in this film for both parties. It does help if you know the history of some of the characters, such as Millhouse’s lust for Lisa, and the cold heart of Mr. Burns. There are also some new characters introduced, whether or not we see them recurring in the show is another story.

The voice acting is on the spot here, which is what would be expected from the people who’ve been these characters for almost two decades. As with many episodes, there are celebrity guest voices, but I can’t really say who lends their voice without giving away the joke/surprise that it’s meant to be.

Yes, this does feel like a Simpsons episode stretch to 90 minutes, but that is a good thing. Crafting a film from a series that has been on the air for nearly two decades is a risky thing, but they pulled it off. The film is oozing of the first few seasons of the show, which are the best, but it’s also fresh and ambitious. Those 11 writers for the show, show us that they care about these characters and prove to us that they are still in good hands. Will the success of the film, spread back to the show? I hope so. And to answer Homer’s question. Why pay for something when you can get it for free on tv. Well, because it’s funny, that’s why.

Thanks for the review I am going to see this one

Hostel (Eli Roth)




"Not The Shocking Horror We Wanted...Or Needed"

3 friends backpacking through Europe look for sex and booze. They hear about some kind of Hostel that offers beautiful naked women and no attachments. They go off in search for this place, but instead find a torture house. Soon they are finding themselves in a heap of trouble.

Eli Roth is being hailed as the new face of horror. As of right now, with the current features under his belt; I must ask myself, why does this guy have this title? Granted I liked Cabin Fever, with it's homages left right and centre to the genre, but was it good enough to have its director considered 'Horror Master'? After watching Hostel, I still sit here dumbfounded.

Upon this films release (and after it as well) the only thing I kept hearing was how sick and twisted it was. How there was no real story and that a film like this should not be in print. Being the horror fanatic that I am, I was hoping to see something that I, and the fans of the genre, can enjoy while everyone else trashed it. Now after seeing Hostel, I sit here on the fence as to whether or not I liked it. It's not the vile, porn-torture, disgust of a film that I thought it was, but it wasn't a horrible piece of trash either.

Roth knows the genre well, which is evident in how he presents the film and the style throughout. This is it's high and low points. The film looks beautiful in the second half, but Roth overexposes the viewer to what makes horror movies horror movies. For example, an action film usually has gun fire and car chases; horror films usually have blood, sex and violence. In Hostel, we get overexposed with an obscene amount of nudity, then the second half is an obscene amount of sadistic violence. The film plays like two different movies. The first half is soft core porn and is shot like a teen slasher film, while the second is 'considered' a snuff film, shot with a grittier look.

My problems with the film are scattered throughout it's running time. For everything good in the film, there is something bad. Horror films are suppose to make you feel a certain number of things. One is to be scared, yet this film is not scary. Instead Roth relies on graphic violence to scare his audience. People claim that the film is a gory trip through hell and back. Did I miss the train? Hostel, to sum up in one sentence: Does Not Live Up To The Hype. I don't know if it's the sick films I've seen prior (Cannibal Holocaust, Dead-Alive, Evil Dead), but Hostel is not what it seems. The film tries to go for shock, but fails to deliver any in its poor attempt.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of other horror films Roth shows us. Any horror fan can point out certain places and things Roth homages. One that I liked was seeing Takishi Miike walk out of the warehouse. Here is a person Roth admires greatly and by the time you're reading this has probably already directed 3 more films. While I am not a total fan of Takishi yet, I can respect his films. You can see a touch of his style here. Nobody should be fooled by the title Tarantino Presents. Other then promoting a friends film, he has no touch here. It's a shame, cause this film could have used a touch up.

It is suspenseful in some scenes, but the way Roth constructs them is horrible. We are suppose to believe that the main character will go back to save a life, simply because of one line of dialogue earlier? To explain, our so called hero says that he once saw someone die and he could have done something to save her. Later on in the film he hears the screaming of a woman and goes to try and save her. Despite this never happening in real life(unless the person is someone you know/love) the fact that the only suspense in the film comes from this poor explanation, it taints the rest of the film.

So in the end, I can't recommend this to any real horror fan, or even people looking for a good film. Instead watch it if you're a fan of the stuff. If your favourite movies include Saw Wolf Creek, then Hostel may be the film for you. I found myself wanting to enjoy it, but simply couldn't. I'll have to wait and see what Roth can deliver to us later, then maybe he can earn his horror title.