Brandon Peters retrospective review: Die Hard 4 (2007)

It's time for another comprehensive franchise discussion from Brandon Peters, this time centering around the February 14th release of A Good Day to Die Hard. As such, the fourth film on the list is obviously Live Free or Die Hard. The film has a rocky history and a rocky reputation, but I agree with most of Brandon's points below (my original review from 2007).  About that jet scene?  Here's a tip: Just skip it.  Hit the DVD skip button once and the film still flows 100% and works a good 10% better overall.  I'll leave the floor to Brandon once again...

Live Free Or Die Hard

2007

Director: Len Wiseman

Starring: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olymphant(astic), Maggie Q, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kevin Smith, Cliff Curtis

Rated PG-13 (more appropriately R-13)

What, like you a big fan of the Fett?

No, I was always more a Star Wars guy.

                        ~WAR10CK to McClane

It took twelve years for John McClane to return to the theaters around the world.  The franchise seemed a tad like it was complete.  No, With A Vengeance didn't spell out an end, but it just felt satisfactory and I think everyone kind of assumed it was the last hurrah.  Now, that didn't stop murmurs of a Die Hard 4 from popping up every so often.  Following the opening of Armageddon in 1998 came the first wind.  Willis and Armageddon co-star Ben Affleck were going to team up for it.  Affleck would play McClane’s son Jack and the film would take a minimalist “no weapons” approach taking place in the jungle. This never panned out.  Throughout the years the rumors would be there and most of them somehow including a Lucy McClane rescue.  Maybe inspired by Stallone’s revisiting of Rocky Balboa, Fox and Willis were motivated to finally get this off the ground.

John Gosling previews the week's new releases (08/03/12).

Staring this week, Mendelson's Memos is proud and pleased to be presenting weekly new release previews from John Gosling.  Mr. Gosling is a fellow box office nerd who does a fine weekly write-up from www.boxofficevoodoo.com. He has generously agreed to give this site his obscenely detailed previews of each of the week's major new releases. The essay below will be less about box office and more about historical context for the films being released. Each weekly piece will hopefully go up sometime between Wednesday night and Thursday night, depending on our respective schedules.  Feel free to chime in below and if you feel like offering your box office predictions, this would be the place to do it.  Gosling's contact information will be at the bottom of this piece.  Enjoy...

Total Recall trailer reminds you that you already saw this damn movie 22 years ago, and it was just fine, thank you!

Yes this trailer looks every bit as bland and generic as the teaser from early April.  And yes the lack of creative imagination that would cause Sony to spend $200 million on a painfully similar remake of a 1990 sci-fi thriller is disturbing and perhaps a sign of the end times.  But I'm not going to whine.  First of all, I damn-well have the choice to not see this thing when it drops on August 3rd.  Second of all, and I'll be getting into this tomorrow if time allows, but we're slowly entering an era where studios seem to be remembering that not every film in the tent can or should be a tent-pole.  So for now, feast your eyes on the raging mediocrity that is the trailer for Total Recall.  Is there really any one who is honestly excited for this?

Scott Mendelson  

Total Recall remake gets a trailer not worth remembering, wholesale or otherwise.

I've seen this movie.  Several times in fact, and it has aged surprisingly well considering the reliance on 22-year old special effects and a lead performance from an action star not known for his thespian skills.  So while Len Wiseman and company may have claimed that they were merely re-adapting the original Philip K Dick short story (titled "We Can Remember It For Your Wholesale"), this trailer reveals the fraud of that argument.  This is a bloated, ugly, and seemingly weightless remake of the original Paul Verhoeven film, plain and simple.  There is quite simply no reason to remake this particular film because it has barely aged a day.  If I want to watch Total Recall, I'll damn-well watch the 1990 version in all of its head-spinning and gore-filled R-rated glory (has there ever been a more grotesquely violent R-rated film outside of Verhoeven's own Starship Troopers released by a major studio?).  The story beats in this remake seem identical, the characters seem pretty similar (except a love-interest character who was once played by a racial minority is now lily-white), and the $200 million (!!!) future world seems like a mash-up of Minority Report and The Fifth Element.  Even the big 'single-take' shooting sequence looks *exactly* like a moment from the Dead to Rights video game series.  Why bother even spending such an obscene amount of money if you're not going to actually try to create anything new or unique?  You want to play around with the story?  Great!  You want to create an original future world using state-of-the-art special effects? Fine!  But Sony and the filmmakers seem to have merely decided to remake a popular and continuously-relevant genre film purely because of its built-in brand awareness and then spent $200 million merely ripping off the future worlds from other original pictures.  This one drops August 3rd, ironically against The Bourne Redundancy.  Maybe I'll take my daughter to Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days instead (or perhaps just read a book).  Your turn, folks.  Am I being too hard on this one, or is the lack of imagination depressing to you as well?

Scott Mendelson          

Underworld: Awakening gets a trailer. Won't be seeing this one either...

After a detour into 'new director' and 'new star' prequel land, it appears that the Underworld series is returning to its.. uh... roots?  Anyway, Kate Beckensale and director Len Wiseman are back, for those of you who care about such things.  I will say that I saw this trailer before Fright Night and the 3D work was pretty solid, and the images were suitably brightened up so you could actually see what was going on (unlike Fright Night, which was like watching a VHS copy-of-a-copy taped off of an antenna-feed UHF airing).  The film also looks like it has been shot with the brightest blue filter ever created for cinema.  I had not seen any of the Underworld films until just a couple months ago.  How bad is the first Underworld?  Well, not only is it an insanely long 134 minutes, it was so dull and uninspired that I have thus far resisted my OCD-completest urge to rent the rest of the franchise.  It's hard, strolling through Blockbuster with my mail-order DVD/Blu Ray rental... with the other two films in the franchise just sitting there on the shelf.  I have thus far resisted, and hopefully I can stay strong.  If you've seen any of the sequels, are they worse than the original?  Anyway, this one comes out January 20th, 2012.  As always, we'll see.  Well, you're see.  I certainly will not see.

Scott Mendelson