So: Is it or isn't it? Is Die Hard 4.0 (known as Live Free or Die Hard in the US) as good as the previous three Die Hard movies? Does it follow the tradition with being another adrenaline packed two hours filled with explosions, one liners and John McClane yelling Yippee Ki-Yay Motherf#cker? Or did the lower rating for this movie take away all the bite, rendering the old school action hero toothless and hopelessly outdated in today's movieworld? Well, honestly, what do you think? It's John McClane! And apart from him only yelling Yippee Ki-Yay M-- before being interrupted by something exploding, everything you would expect from a Die Hard movie is here. Gloriously so!
When part of your job is to review DVD's, you often get sent titles you never really asked for and will probably never write about, and which invariably end up on top of a huge pile of other DVD's that may or may never be watched. Yesterday evening was one of those evenings when I felt like attacking that pile of unfulfilled promise (well, you have to give it a name that makes it seem better than it really is), and happened upon Stormbreaker. This movie was supposed to be the big Young James Bond blockbuster last summer, but somehow this never happened. I became curious, checked the internet and found out that Stormbreaker underperformed spectacularly. While it didn't do too well in it's home country England, it did downright horribly in the rest of the world. If you have a movie with a budget of $ 40 million, and it only makes about $ 600.000 in the US, for instance, you know you didn't do too well marketing it. But is the movie really as bad as the worldwide gross ($ 22 million) tells us? Or is this a case of a movie that didn't quite get the love it deserved? Naturally, I became very intrigued, but soon found out that the pre-movie excitement wasn't justified.
I'm guessing that you have already read one or two other reviews for the third Spider-Man movie, since they are hard to miss nowadays. I'm also guessing that you got the general consensus, that Spider-Man 3 is a bit disappointing after the first two movies in this series. I would love to be the bringer of good news and tell you that all these other critics are wrong, and that Spider-Man 3 is in reality an amazing movie, where every dollar of it's reported $300 million budget shows. But sadly, I only bring more bad news. Because even though Spider-Man 3 is by no means a bad movie, it's also not as good as what we have seen before. Director Sam Raimi has tried too hard to make this third movie something extra special, but that hasn't turned out all that well, with the result that Spider-Man 3 is too long, with too many villains and too many emotional moments. Actually those emotional moments wouldn't have been that bad if they worked. But they don't.
For some time, I was really looking forward to Ghost Rider. I quite enjoyed director Mark Steven Johnson's Daredevil and hoped that he could use the experience from that movie to make this second one even better. When Nicholas Cage signed on for the lead role I got even more interested. Cage is an actor who is known for his passion for comics, besides which he has done some great stuff in movies like Face/Off and Leaving Las Vegas. But then the first images of Cage's character appeared on the net, and the first teaser trailer, and I felt my enthusiasm sink. Then the movie was released in the States and reviewers buried it beneath a mountain of criticism. While I have disagreed with general consensus among critics often in the past, everything they said sounded like it could very well be possible that this was indeed a total and utter crapfest. Then friends of mine started slagging it off, and I started considering not seeing this movie at all.
How bad is the situation with the big Hollywood movies if a movie that isn't entirely successful in it's execution can entertain me so much that I would almost consider it a masterpiece? Put Nacho Libre up against some of the legendary comedies and it probably wouldn't stand a chance. But when you put it in the ring with some of the recent successful 'comedies', Nacho Libre all of a sudden seems like the epitomy of all things funny.
Back in the days, I enjoyed most Steven Seagal movies that came out. They were fun action flicks, with plots that didn't vary too much from the other movies in the genre, but which had enough exciting action scenes and dry wit from Seagal to stand out from the pack. For some reason, Seagal has drifted into 'shitty, straight to DVD movie' territory recently, and I had not seen any of post Exit Wounds-pictures since the plots screamed "we have seen this twenty times before, but let's do it one more time anyway cause we might make some cash with it". But even though my expectations were low, I could not have expected Submerged to be this horrible.
I've always been a big fan of the Bond movies, even though in recent years I've seen the series become more and more 'by the numbers', with gadgets and set pieces that were too outrageous for their own good, bordering on parody. I enjoyed seeing Pierce Brosnan as Bond, and still think his work in Goldeneye was outstanding, but missed the grittier style that was the main attraction of the early Sean Connery pics. It only takes a few minutes of Casino Royale to realise that this harder Bond is back in full effect, and that the choice of Daniel Craig is one of the best casting decisions we have seen in years. His Bond may not be as suave and sophisticated as Brosnan's, but Craig is much more believable when it comes to being a cold, murderous bastard, who still has some emotions going on behind those icey blue eyes.
It would seem that 2006 has been a good year for animation. It looked like there was a new animated movie playing in our local cinema all the time, and many of the movies released throughout the year did great business. But when you look at the quality of the movies, 2006 has not been as stellar as some of the previous years. Pixar's movie was not as grand as expected, Disney released a very average third party movie and the other studios seemed to be stuck in 'cute animal'-territory. There was one exception however, a fun picture called Monster House, which was both a throwback to the great teen-movies of the eighties, and a model for other studios to follow.
If you would believe all the hype surrounding Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat movie, which is coming out later this week, then the movie is designed to corrupt and pervert our minds, will mean the end for the public image of Kazachstan and will drag down the standard of movie entertainment to depths never before seen. If you don't believe the hype and just watch the picture to have a good time, however, you will probably be thoroughly entertained, as long as you keep an open mind for what is happening on the screen. A very open mind!
We should all be very thankful for the fact that Johnny Depp has kids. If he was childless, he wouldn't have had the need to make a movie for them, which in turn would have meant that there be no Captain Jack Sparrow. And even though I'm sure the Pirates movies would still be fun without him, they would have missed that extra element that makes them stand out so much. For Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is without a doubt the most fun you will have in a cinema all summer. It may be a bit less epic than something like Superman Returns, but watching Jack and his friends travel all over the world, ending up in one bad situation after another, will no doubt shiver any moviefan's timbers.
1. Monsters Inc.
2. The Incredibles
3. Finding Nemo
4. Ratatouille
5. Toy Story
6. Monster House
7. Toy Story 2
8. Flushed Away
9. Over the Hedge
10. Arthur and the Minimoys/Shrek