Before Die Hard (1988) actions movies weren’t as brimming with non-stop action, especially American-made action movies. John Woo was already making similar films in Hong Kong, but his seminal action films, The Killer and Hard Boiled, didn’t come out until 1989 and 1992 respectively. Woo’s style didn’t make a large scale impact on Hollywood until they imported him, his flying doves, and golden guns in 1993. Action movies prior to Die Hard would usually feature a couple of big shoot-em up sequences, but would take long respites in-between those. Die Hard, after a few minutes of set-up, steps on the gas and almost doesn’t let up until the finish. It didn’t just open the door for all-out action movies, it kicked the door off it’s hinges, carried the door into the driveway, poured lighter fluid on it, then lit it on fire.

It’s not just the full throttle action that makes it work. (And yes, I am aware of the fact Charlie’s Angels 2 used ‘full throttle’ in the title to describe their “action” movie, but they were using it as a double entendre. They could have just called it Charlie’s Angels 2: Fully Erect. I am using it in a pacing sense.) Die Hard was one of the few action films that was willing to show a completely vulnerable protagonist. John McClane does win the fist fights and shoot outs, but he takes tons of damage along the way. That damage stays with him the entire time and doesn’t magically disappear. He walks across broken glass, then walks gingerly on those feet the rest of the way.

The Christmas setting adds another level. It allows for the unique for an action movie soundtrack (Christmas in Hollis, Ode to Joy, Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!) Not to mention, brilliantly keeps the entire rest of the building unoccupied. Plus, gives me a perfect another reason to watch it 10-20 times each December.

I type all this up as rumors are circulating about a Die Hard 5, tentatively titled A Good Day to Die Hard. Pondering how grand Die Hard was and continues to be while comparing how mediocre in every way Die Hard 4: Die Most Hardest was can make one’s brainspace ache. If we learned anything from the neutered Live Free or Die Hard, it should be that the next one must be done rated R, and I am talking a hard R with nudity, brutal violence, yippe ki yay mother fuckers, and no Justin Long. Also, John McClane MUST be vulnerable (meaning no more surfing on the wings of a jet plane). Additionally, the villain needs a foreign accent. Throwing John McTiernan’s direction back into the mix couldn’t hurt either. And they should get Bonnie Bedelia’s perm back in there (not sure if they killed off Holly Genero-McClane in the 4th one but that can be undone with her death having been faked and she was had been abducted by Hans Gruber’s illegitimate, and rightfully angry son)

Exhibit A

The defendant is alleged to have committed the following acts against Marvin Merchants, also known as Marv:

-Three bricks dropped from an estimated height of 30 feet on his cranium.

-Construction grade staples shot into nose, buttocks, and genitals.

-Poured a shelf full of paint on to him.

-Caused a fall of two stories onto concrete causing victim to land on his arms

-Electrocuted.

-Bag of concrete dropped on top of skull.

-Hit in face with metal bar, twice.

-Smushed by tool chest.

-Burned by kerosine soaked rope and fell 3 stoies onto concrete, then more paint dropped on him. All while trying to escape the attacks.

-Attacked by pigeons.

The defendant is alleged to have committed the following acts against Harry Lyme:

-Caused him to fall on concrete from a height of 20 feet against making a fire escape ladder unsafe for public use.

-Numerous wrenches dropped on his skull.

-Head set on fire.

-Explosion due to toilet filled with kerosine.

-Fall from ladder that was unsafe due to the defendant weakening it with a saw.

-Hit in the face with a metal bar, twice.

-Burned by kerosine soaked rope and fell 3 stoies onto concrete, then more paint dropped on him. All while trying to escape the attacks.

-Attacked by pigeons.

Additionally, the defendant appeared to show no remorse in his actions. He appeared celebratory and at one point is alleged to have taunted the victims saying, “nice night for a neck injury.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Let’s just run through a quick pros and cons on it:

First, the pros – Corddry is actually somewhat funny in his curmudgeony role. Craig Robinson is excellent as always.  The small parts for Chevy Chase (really making that comeback work nicely since stepping into the brilliance that is Community) and Lizzy Caplan (I am biased, I enjoy all her work) added nicely to the movie. There is one actually funny running joke that I really dug. Having the time machine take them back to an 80′s setting worked for some enjoyable set decoration and costumes. I enjoyed Crispin Glover’s return from the grave. The end credit sequence is amazing.

Next, the Cons – the plot really meanders from time to time. Cusack just doesn’t do anything for me as I don’t find him charming or funny. I am also not a fan of the actor who played Jacob. The gross out humor within the first two minutes was really pointless. I wasn’t a huge fan of the telegraphed ending. It is only 100 minutes, but it felt waayyy longer (never a good sign). There just weren’t that many big laughs in it.

The positives are just barely able to overcome the negatives, which makes it a passable comedy but nothing special. It’s certainly worth a look, maybe not at theatre prices, but worth a rental.

This is a brilliantly crafted thriller. My former concerns about the trailer were completely wrong. It doesn’t really reveal anything important. I somewhat saw the amazing twist in the plot around the halfway point, but had no idea how well layered it was and didn’t fully grasp how great of a twist it was. As a former huge M Night Shyamalan mark, I want to go on record as saying this twist is better and more well executed than the twist in The Sixth Sense. It’s just far more logical, and set-up in a far better fashion. This is a film that will certainly garner a second (and third, and fourth, and fifth…) viewing from me.

Per usual, Leo’s performance shines, as does that of Ben Kingsley and the highly under-rated Mark Ruffalo. However, the truly amazing performance here is Scorsese’s direction. From the jolting rule breaking cuts to the beautiful dream sequences to the abrupt changes in color temperature, we get to see a ton of tricks Scorsese has up his sleeve that he isn’t usually able to use in his more straight-forward gangster flicks.

I give this movie my highest recommendation. It’s the best film of 2010 I have seen so far. It’s a near-lock for my top films of the year list. We need more films like this. If you haven’t seen, rush out to the theatres and see it immediately. Serial. Stop reading and go see it right now.

Let’s start with Antichrist by acclaimed Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier:

This is the first film by Von Trier I have seen, and am only vaguely familiar with the Dogme movement he was a part of. This film is not a part of  that as far as I know and could tell.

My initial thoughts were that it was remarkably beautiful and brutal. However, I don’t think I fully understood the symbolism in it, or the point of it. At the beginning I was convinced Charlette Gainsbourg’s character was the protagonist and Willem Dafoe was the antagonist. However, that seemed to get flipped around at a certain point. So, I am not really sure who the audience was suppose to respond to, unless the answer is neither character and maybe that was the whole point.

A film that is this brutal, and trust me there a moments with shocking on screen acts that would make even the most desensitized movie-goer cringe (I am pretty sure one scene has mentally scarred me for life), and at time vague make it difficult to grasp everything that is going on. Multiple viewings would likely clear some of that up. Thus, the problem is how to convince oneself to view such grotesque acts, especially when you know they are coming, for a second or third time.

Overall, it is definitely worth a look for Willem Dafoe’s strong performance, the stunningly beautiful slow motions scenes, and the novelty factor of seeing something almost guaranteed to be unlike anything else you have ever viewed. For those without a strong stomach, or who would be wary of seeing full penetration on screen, it might be best to avoid this.

For films buffs, I say rent it. For people excited about Clash of the Titans in 3D!!!, I say avoid it.

And here is some John Sterling (radio voice of the Yankees) being really idiotic:

I had heard that this was very cartoony, video game-esque, absurd, and not your typical big budget action movie. It lived up to that hype and more. I knew going in it was shot entirely on handheld pro-sumer digital video cameras. I dug the look and frantic style of the film.

It wasn’t just that they tried some innovative things and broke rules, it was that they went as far over the top as possible. Everything was designed to be innovative, every rule was broken, and the absurdity was turned up to eleven. If you are going to go in, be prepared to go all-in, and they absolutely did. Instead of the standard action movies of recent years which try and fail to be innovative by using stuff like bullet-time and super slo-mo of people flying through glass while still having an overly serious, melodramatic narrative, Crank 2 doesn’t take itself serious for one second or even one frame. They realize an action movie can be a fun romp, and this absolutely was as much.

Normally I would describe the plot, but it really would be pointless as the plot doesn’t matter at all. This is essentially just a video game, and not one of the newer console video games with complex storylines and cut scenes. This is an old-school video game where you randomly move from different looking level to different looking level, and the music is similar yet strikingly different on each level and as long as you keep getting power-ups you won’t die.

This is rated R, and would best be described as a “very very hard R”. It’s chock full of violence, nudity, sex, more violence, and electricity. Oh, and fun, it’s was just plain fun.

Highly recommended viewing for anyone who likes “B” movies (it’s essentially a $20M “B” movie with mainstream stars) and/or anyone who doesn’t need their action movies to be deadly serious in tone.

Anyone else who has seen this, I would be very interested in your thoughts?

So, here is my list as I constructed 5 years ago. I believe I had this one finished sometime before the Oscars.

15. 40 Year Old Virgin
14. Domino
13. V for Vendetta
12. Sin City
11. Brokeback Mountain
10. Syriana
9. History of Violence
8. Constant Gardner
7. Cinderella Man
6. Murderball
5. Hustle and Flow
4. Match Point
3. Capote
2. Goodnight and Goodluck
1. Crash

Some thoughts – There were a few I that didn’t make the cut that were certainly worthy of mention: Batman Begins, Munich, The Ballad of Jack and Rose, Oldboy (which is credited as a 2003 film on imdb but didn’t see theatrical release in the U.S. until 2005), Grizzly Man, and Devil’s Rejects. Of those, Oldboy, Grizzly Man, and Munich definitely hold-up well enough to deserve a spot on the list. Batman Begins is a tremendous origin story, but the last act falls apart for me. Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing, per usual, in The Ballad of Jack and Rose, but the story just wasn’t intriguing enough for follow-up viewings. Devil’s Rejects is brutally raw, in a good way, but Rob Zombie is a bit self-indulgent, per usual, and some of the shock value wears of after the first viewing.

Of those that made the list, Crash isn’t aging all that well, possibly because of the influx of “everything is connected” films since that point. It’s still excellent, but I wouldn’t keep it atop the list. In fact, I would move Goodnight and Goodluck to the top spot. It’s getting better with every viewing, and the whole smoke filled rooms in black and white gives it such a timeless feel.

To make room for the three films to be added on, three have to go. 40 Year Old Virgin goes because it’s not the most re-watchable of the Apatow movies. Constant Gardner goes because of its complete lack of replay value. Cinderella Man goes because Renee Zellwegger removes any possibility I might view it again.

If I remade the list today, here is how it would look:

15. Domino

14. Sin City

13. V for Vendetta

12. Syriana

11. History of Violence

10. Grizzly Man

9. Brokeback Mountain

8. Murderball

7. Crash

6. Munich

5. Capote

4. Hustle and Flow

3. Match Point

2. Oldboy

1. Goodnight and Goodluck

Let me know what I forgot (besides Lord of War, The Weatherman, Squid and the Whale, and The Matador, which all get honorable mention right here. Or why I am under-rating Brokeback, or why I am over-rating Oldboy, or why Domino is too much style and not enough substance.

Sidenote – two, yes two!, films for Mickey Rourke in the top 15 of 2005. Not to mention, before that he was in two decent movies Man on Fire (in 2004) and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (in 2003). So, maybe in regards to The Wrestler, we “don’t call it a comeback”.