Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews24
CharlesVonFunhammer's rating
This is not a good movie. I liked the previous die hard movies, 1 and 3. The second one, well, Bruce is right when he says it suffers from lack of claustrophobia - but then again so do 3 and 4. The trailer looked bad, I said no to it, then it got good reviews and I was persuaded to go to a midnight showing for fun. I was looking for some good action.
Like Die Hard 3, this movie is a sprawling action adventure movie spread out over many cities. Unlike the third movie, this takes place over two days. Like the third movie, this is a buddy cop movie, where the villain is a super-genius white dude with an exotic assassin woman as his lover/bodyguard. She of course gets killed brutally, and we the audience of men, cheer when a woman gets killed because, let's be honest, we're living out our male fantasies. We can't hit women anymore, not like the good old days, so we give them a kung fu kick or a sickle and that makes them enemy combatants, so it makes them fair game.
The third movie works better because it wasn't an accident that it was John Mcclane. Therefore, we have a reason for the movie, for him being in it. This movie could have easily been an action movie where the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Bruce Willis himself even said that were other scripts that could have been Die Hard movies that were made into other movies.
The third movie involves the audiences through it's riddles, silly, but be honest, you were trying to figure it out. Also, stealing money still made sense at that point. The third movie features bad guys that mis-direct the government in order to steal money - guess what happens here? What Americans are really afraid of, now, isn't terrorists stealing money. It's terrorists killing without demands. Killing just to kill. The movie has action, but no violence. No blood, not enough cursing. We never feel emotionally involved. We never feel scared. No good guys die, the stakes are never really raised. We've seen this movie before and before it was bloodier, and harder-core. This movie was made by geeks, not by cowboys.
The technology in the movie is too sleek, too futuristic, too unreal. There's an french assassin who has superhero abilities on par with the guy from the opening of casino royale (which ruins that sequence).
The film's dialectic is between the real and unreal - the digital and the analog. A fair point - a film that boasts no CGI (or minimal) is therefore about itself. Die Hard 4 is about why Die Hard 4 is awesome. Digital movies are bad, live-action movies are awesome. Die hard is a live-action movie. Therefore, Die hard is awesome.
There are some good set pieces here, and some cheesy speeches about what being a hero is all about. There are some good moments, action without violence, by which i mean blood. Justin Long is fine, Willis is beautiful as always. There's no plot, but I know you don't care about that. But seriously, the plot doesn't make sense, okay, okay, shut up, watch the movie, enjoy it, don't think about it. Right? Cheers
Like Die Hard 3, this movie is a sprawling action adventure movie spread out over many cities. Unlike the third movie, this takes place over two days. Like the third movie, this is a buddy cop movie, where the villain is a super-genius white dude with an exotic assassin woman as his lover/bodyguard. She of course gets killed brutally, and we the audience of men, cheer when a woman gets killed because, let's be honest, we're living out our male fantasies. We can't hit women anymore, not like the good old days, so we give them a kung fu kick or a sickle and that makes them enemy combatants, so it makes them fair game.
The third movie works better because it wasn't an accident that it was John Mcclane. Therefore, we have a reason for the movie, for him being in it. This movie could have easily been an action movie where the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Bruce Willis himself even said that were other scripts that could have been Die Hard movies that were made into other movies.
The third movie involves the audiences through it's riddles, silly, but be honest, you were trying to figure it out. Also, stealing money still made sense at that point. The third movie features bad guys that mis-direct the government in order to steal money - guess what happens here? What Americans are really afraid of, now, isn't terrorists stealing money. It's terrorists killing without demands. Killing just to kill. The movie has action, but no violence. No blood, not enough cursing. We never feel emotionally involved. We never feel scared. No good guys die, the stakes are never really raised. We've seen this movie before and before it was bloodier, and harder-core. This movie was made by geeks, not by cowboys.
The technology in the movie is too sleek, too futuristic, too unreal. There's an french assassin who has superhero abilities on par with the guy from the opening of casino royale (which ruins that sequence).
The film's dialectic is between the real and unreal - the digital and the analog. A fair point - a film that boasts no CGI (or minimal) is therefore about itself. Die Hard 4 is about why Die Hard 4 is awesome. Digital movies are bad, live-action movies are awesome. Die hard is a live-action movie. Therefore, Die hard is awesome.
There are some good set pieces here, and some cheesy speeches about what being a hero is all about. There are some good moments, action without violence, by which i mean blood. Justin Long is fine, Willis is beautiful as always. There's no plot, but I know you don't care about that. But seriously, the plot doesn't make sense, okay, okay, shut up, watch the movie, enjoy it, don't think about it. Right? Cheers
This show only seems intense. In fact, the show, with commercial breaks is only about 40 minutes long (give or take). That means, that Jack Bauer gets gets 20 minutes of sleep per episode. Over the course of 24 episodes, he gets 8 hours of sleep. Why he's so frantic is beyond me. (No I don't actually believe the character is getting 8 hours of sleep. But you know someone's gonna go, "that's stupid").
Anyway. I know all y'all love the show, and that's great. I just have to disagree with most of you. I don't think this show is interesting, well written, or well acted. Every line is a cliché and every actor is acting so hard all the time. It's the most "acted" show I've ever seen, and not in a good way. It's not that these folks are bad actors, it's that they're acting in a format that requires them to be charactures and archetypes rather than people. Ultimately it's a show built on a novelty, and it's presented in a way that would any kid with ADD say "too much!" I need to go watch Tony Scott's Domino to calm down.
Peace
Anyway. I know all y'all love the show, and that's great. I just have to disagree with most of you. I don't think this show is interesting, well written, or well acted. Every line is a cliché and every actor is acting so hard all the time. It's the most "acted" show I've ever seen, and not in a good way. It's not that these folks are bad actors, it's that they're acting in a format that requires them to be charactures and archetypes rather than people. Ultimately it's a show built on a novelty, and it's presented in a way that would any kid with ADD say "too much!" I need to go watch Tony Scott's Domino to calm down.
Peace