Why I won't see "Live Free or Die Hard" in the theater.

Now for those who know me, Die Hard is one of my top action series of all time. Bruce Willis does an incredible job at playing the disgruntled, potty mouth cop that John McClane is. However, this movie without even seeing it, has several flaws from the Die Hard formula. Lets get right down to the main one.

1. It's not rated "R" = No famous line.
Wait what? The MPAA was holding out on reviewing this movie for the last possible second to get the appropriate rating. So I just described above that John McClane was a potty mouth, but in this movie, he may just have to use his famous cowboy line and directed to the "melon farmers" of America. Bruce Willis was even quoted on saying he was dissapointed that it was "R" but holds it at a standard that it is on par with the first Die Hard. And if anyone tries to say "Well Chandler, this PG-13 movie has the "F" word in it." Nope, there is a clause to this rule. Any movie that uses the word "mother" before the F-bomb gets an automatic, no questions asked "R" rating.

2. Campy sidekick

The 1st and 2nd Die Hard movies had none other than CARL WINSLOW as McClane's sidekick. The third was great with Samuel L. Jackson as McClane's sidekick. But this movie? A computer hacker. Now I love this kid in the Apple commercials, I really do. But to listen to him whine for over 90 minutes I am sure will get tedious. Not saying this is going to break the movie, but the Apple guy is no Carl Winslow or Sam Jackson.

3. Toned down violence.

Along with the PG-13 movie, comes toned down violence. Expect many cut away shots, and vehicles blowing up. Expect very little blood, and hardly any shooting. Can we say Alien vs. Predator? The whole point of making these movies is a giant violence fest. Now FOX Studios caters to little teenagers, who weren't even born when the first Die Hard movie was released. I understand it's a money thing, but to crap all over the fans that tried to get this made in the first place is very disappointing. Shame on you FOX Studios.

4. Inevitable "UNRATED" DVD release

You know this is coming. The whole push for the DVD is going to be it's unrated. I am sure the violence and famous F-bomb lines have been shot, just not included in the theatrical release. Why waste $9.75 in the theater when I can get the FULL version of the movie on DVD, sit on my couch, eat my pudding pop, and check my email while I enjoy Mr. McClane shooting some terrorists?

In short, this movie has great potential. I am extremely disappointed that this is not catering to fans the same way that RAMBO IV will. The target audience for a Die Hard movie should be 17-30, not 12-17....... Shame on you FOX, you might as well call the movie "Live Free or Die... well somewhat, (but don't expect us to show you.)" -C

Well, Chris, I gotta play Devil's Advocate as I am planning on seeing this movie in the next week. Sorry, bud. I am a fan of only the first Die Hard, not the seqels, and I am looking forward to this movie. While I will concede that the inevitable "Unrated" DVD release may be more akin to the other entries into the franchise, I will say that I still think that this one will be an enjoyable theatrical experience. Also, you are right to point out that Justin Long has NOTHING on Carl Winslow or Sam Jackson; but in his defense, I can't think of any comparable sidekick to follow those two. Anyway, here are my contentions with your other reasons.

1. Die Hard is bigger than a catchphrase.
As much as "Yippee-ki-yay Motha &%*" is an iconic quote of our generation, the DIE HARD franchise and McClane himself are bigger than a single one-liner, and the absence of this line isn't going to kill the movie for me. In fact, the line is included, only without the obscenity. Here's how, SPOILERMcClane says it, but he fires a pistol at the same time, and the "ucker" is hushed by thegunshot..As far as the "potty mouth" is concerned, I think that's a limitedassessment of McClane as well. His appeal is not his language, but his charismatic "Devil may care" attitude, which doesn't require obscenity to be portrayed. Furthermore, as an older, wiser man and father, it's not too much of a stretch to think McClane has toned down his language for his kids or just realized he didn't need it to communicate.

2. The action looks fantastic
I know you haven't seen Casino Royale, but those who have can attest that PG-13 films can have breakneck, fantastic action on par with or better than most R-Rated films. In fact, I would argue that Casino Royale has some of the best action sequences I have seen in a very long time, and PG-13 just means less blood and gore--which is not necessary for an action scene to be excellent. While I know DIE HARD won't be half as good as Casino Royale, it still seems to have some promise of good fights. Between fisticuffs in an elevator shaft and a jet firing at McClane while he drives a Semi, this movie seems to understand what it is and embraces it fully. I saw a 9-minute clip, and I dug the taste I got from it.

To each his own. I will probably drop $8.50 for the flic at a matinee, and I am looking forward to it; but again, I'm no purist.

SPIDERMAN vs SHREK vs PIRATES

2007 is going to be a banner year for film. In fact, I cannot think of any other year in my lifetime with as many anticipated movies as 2007 offers, and I am ready to drop about $80 a month at the theatre from now until August. The month of May is currently lined up to be the most profit-making month for the most of all time, with three huge films going head-to-head-to-head. On May 4th, we get Spider-man 3, two weeks later (on May 18th) comes Shrek The Third, and exactly one week after the ogre, we get pirates, Pirates of the Carribean, to be exact, At World's End. Here's my question. Who's is gonna come out on top at the end of summer?

Here's my thought. I want Spider-man will be the best of the three films and deserve to come out on top, and I think it will--by a small margin. I think Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End will take second, and Shrek will probably be a close third. Why? Well, here's some history:

The last Shrek and Spider-man Movies went head-to-head in 2004, and Shrek 2 not only beat Spider-man but became the highest grossing movie of that year (coming in at 920 million, globally). Spider-man cleared 783 million on the global market, but still couldn't catch the slow green ogre--despite being a far superior film. These two films were also duking it out with Troy, The Incredibles, and Van Helsing--all of which had lackluster performances (less the Incredibles). Fast forward 2 years later to 2006, when Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest made a ridiculous 1 Billion+ dollars globally, with (weak) competition coming from Superman Returns during their respective July relases. Not alot of people liked Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest, but the movie ended in a way which really, really enticed viewers to come back for one more voyasge with characters we've all come to know. So, we have the top two grossing franchises of 2004 going up against the top grosser of 2006, and they are all going up against HUGE competition: The Rise of the Silver Surfer, Live Free or Die Hard, the Simpsons Movie, Evan Almighty, and Transformers. Now, none of these will be close to the three heavy hitters from May (maybe Transformers), but they WILL ALL take money and audience from them.

Spider-man 3 will win, I think, for five reasons. The first is that it is coming out first and has TWO FULL WEEKS to be on top before its only major competition is even released. That's a possible 200+ million before any major threat presents itself. So, it has a jump start. The Second reason is the marketing. Sony has gone bananas marketing this flic, and everyone knows it's coming. Fourth, the producers are bringing out the black Spider-man outfit and Venom, TWO VERY ICONIC pieces of comic book lore that fans have been aching for, even more than a new Super-man movie. Fifth and most importantly, The Spider-man films are always GOOD (90% for the first 93% for the second at RottenTomatoes). They are comic book movies, but they are well-made and well-received movies. And let's be honest, Pirates 2 met with very mixed reviews (54% at Rottentomatoes)and while Shrek 2 met with pretty positive reviews (88% at Rottentomatoes) but was not as beloved as its predecessor (89%). That being said, I think Spider-man will come out on top. Any thoughts?

Rambo IV aka "John Rambo"

Okay, so the movie is a go, the title changed to reflect the recent "Rocky Balboa" success, and everyone is stoked right? Right. Okay, so now that's out of the way, lets get to the plot. Rambo is quietly minding his own business when some missionaries get captured by Burmese militants. That's right. Christians. Not His friend, Not Him, Not POWs, but men and women of the Lord. Rambo gets help from 5 Soldiers of Fortune who all have varying personalities which range from viewing Rambo as a hero, to hotshot gun for hire. This will be the must see movie for 2008, along with another "IV", Indiana Jones IV, which is slated to go head-to-head with John Rambo in May of 2008. Also, Stallone has had to "bulk up" some more for this one, since Rambo is stronger than Rocky. Here are some screenshots.





All 6 stills can be found here. I kinda want to go watch the first 3 now. Who's with me?

-Chris-

Anything with Sam elliot in it has got to be good, well except maybe Ghost Rider... and Hulk. I'm wondering if Stalone is going to go for a nostalgic 80's action flic or for an updated look A la Live Free Die Hard. I think a Rambo Marathon sounds good.


RAMBO Resuces MISSIONARIES!!!! Ha ha ha ha!!! That might be the most insane ploy by Hollywood to get Christians in the theater. They just got me! I am really hoping that the missionaries have tons of one-liners like:

1) Missionary has gun to Terrorist's head.
Terrorist: "What about mercy?"
Missionary: "God might show you mercy" SHOOTS TERRORIST IN THE HEAD "I'm just sending you to meet him."

2) Missionary dunking a guy and drowing a guy saying, "I now baptize you in the name of death!"

3) Missionary and a terrorist hanging from a ledge, and the missionary kicks the terrorist saying, "When you get to hell--" knocks terrorist off "Tell Satan I sent you."

This could be the most ridiculous movie ever.

The Condemned

In response to CJ's post of upcoming films, here is something I'm looking forawd to, but might just be wishful thinking.

The Condemned

Starring: Vinnie Jones, Steve Austin, Nathan Jones.

Plot Summary: An adrenalin-charged action thriller, "The Condemned" tells the story of Jack Conrad (Stone Cold Steve Austin), who is awaiting the death penalty in a corrupt Central American prison. He is "purchased" by a wealthy television producer and taken to a desolate island where he must fight to the death against nine other condemned killers from all corners of the world, with freedom going to the sole survivor.

Comments on the Cast:
Vinnie Jones: has been in quite a few movies since Guy Ritchie discovered him in 1998, some great (Snatch), some not so great (EuroTrip). I have liked Vinnie’s intimidatingly confident tough guy act since I first saw him in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and later in Snatch, which I think is his best performance yet. He has played many secondary roles but can bring a hard edge to a movie and can also bring a laugh. I enjoyed his cameo in Extras and I’m excited to see him in the upcoming Rush Hour 3 and The Condemned.
Steve Austin: Stone Cold Steve Austin. Yes THAT Steve Austin. I watched Pro wrestling in the late 90’s, when WCW’s popularity was waning and before WWF became WWE. Steve Austin was the baddest dude on the circuit. He didn’t take any crap and he was a role model for Mulleted, beer drinking, blue-collar hillbillies for generations to come. We’ll see how he fares in a major movie.
Nathan Jones: An imposing figure that has played small roles in some high profile Martial Arts films with Jet Li, Tony Jaa and Jacky Chan.

I can’t wait to see the match-up between Vinnie Jones and Steve Austin, hopefully they share words first because a verbal battle between the two bad talkers could be better than any fist fight. The premise just sounds like an excuse for a bunch of people duke it out in an exotic location, which is fine with me. Unfortunately, this movie will probably not live up to its potential and only be a bad rip off of Running Man and Battle Royale. It’s the type of movie I get excited about but end up being saddly disappointed.

I actually have a very similar outlook on this flic. I really, really want to see it, and I really, really want it to live up to its potential as a great action spectacle. The premise is tried-and-true--it's essentially a Roman gladiator movie updated to modern times--and ripe for great one-liners and action sequences. As much as I didn't like the Steve Austin "Stone Cold" persona, I find the man Steven Austin to be incredibly charismatic (as clearly visible from his ECW days); and Vinnie Jones is gold every time I see him, even in aforementioned sucks like Eurotrip. Frankly, I trust WWE pictures. I loved Walking Tall, and I see The Condemned having just as much potential.

Any man who does This <--- in real life is awesome.