Yesterday at Comic-con saw the makers of SAW IV reveal a new poster for the movie. The movie is a gruesome horror flick with body parts flying about everywhere, so be warned it’s not a pretty picture. The community is all freaked out as some nut goes on a massive killing spree. Release date: 26 October 2007 (USA), Director: Darren Lynn Bousman.
Popularity: 1% [?]
After reading many a review, including Frank’s, I could only deduce that the new Die Hard sequel was more than just a pleasant surprise. The San Fran Chronicle, for example, called it “the summer’s best action blockbuster”. So, I gave in, went to see it. And I can only remark on how utterly disappointed I am, not only in the film, but in the critics who praised it.
But, let’s start off with why Die Hard 4.0 is considered good. In a way, it does set itself aside from most recent action movies. There’s certainly a wit to it, keeping in line with the John McClane character. After one particularly difficult battle, McClane calls the bad guy to postulate that he must be out of henchmen by now, and whether he should dial 1800 HENCHMEN for more. There’s plenty of banter between McClane and his new sidekick, computer nerd Matt Farrell (played by Justin Long), as McClane tries to comprehend the world of computers while trading punches with trained assassins.
And then there’s the plot. It’s nice to see an action film that does try to engage with modern times. The story involves a plot to cause complete chaos in the USA by hacking into all major national networks, whether it’s road traffic lights, gas pipes, mobile phone networks, or TV stations. Helmed by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), a group of assassins and hackers plan on using the chaos to steal the country’s wealth. It’s a nice idea, and there’s even criticism of the USA’s inability to comprehend secure networks and computer systems, as we soon discover. McClane fits into this as he picks up a hacker who is set to be assassinated for his knowledge of the hacking project, but of course old McClane puts and end to that.
But my real problem with the film is with what everyone goes to see it for, the action. Read on »
Popularity: 1% [?]
I am about as big of fan as Bill Murray as there is and I think Scarlett Johansson is a great actress who is extraordinarily hot. So what don’t I like about this movie? Its SO DAMN BORING! After seeing the movie the day it came out, I truly believed it sucked despite the critical acclaim it received (it has a 95% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes). After hearing people continue to gush about the film, I made the mistake of renting it, thinking I might have missed something. I didn’t. It was still a boring film that plodded along.
The weird thing about the movie is that I think the leads played their parts very well. Johansson and Murray both had a great chemistry between them but the plot really stunk. Winning the Oscar for ‘Best Screenplay’ still shocks me to this day. To the best of knowledge, I don’t think ‘Best Screenplay’ should be given to something that will bore you to tears.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Another new and hopefully regular Screenhead feature, Overrated? re-examines some famous films to see if they were actually any good.
Popularity: 1% [?]
